This is a modern-English version of Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission According to Holy; Scriptures Both Ancient and Modern, originally written by Talmage, James E. (James Edward).
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
JESUS THE CHRIST
A Study of the Messiah and His Mission according to Holy Scriptures both Ancient and Modern
By
JAMES E. TALMAGE
One of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
PUBLISHED BY THE CHURCH
PUBLISHED BY THE CHURCH
SIXTH EDITION
6th Edition
TWENTY-EIGHTH TO THIRTIETH THOUSAND INCLUSIVE
28th to 30th thousand inclusive
Salt Lake City, Utah
Salt Lake City, UT
Deseret Book Company
Deseret Book
1922
1922
Copyright
Copyright
September 1915, December 1915, April 1916, and November 1916
September 1915, December 1915, April 1916, and November 1916
By
By
JOSEPH F. SMITH
JOSEPH F. SMITH
Trustee-in-Trust for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Trustee-in-Trust for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Copyright, October, 1922
Copyright, October 1922
By
By
HEBER J. GRANT
HEBER J. GRANT
Trustee-in-Trust for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Trustee-in-Trust for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
PREFACE.
The scope of the subject presented in this work is expressed on the title page. It will be readily seen that the author has departed from the course usually followed by writers on the Life of Jesus Christ, which course, as a rule, begins with the birth of Mary's Babe and ends with the ascension of the slain and risen Lord from Olivet. The treatment embodied in these pages, in addition to the narrative of the Lord's life in the flesh comprizes the antemortal existence and activities of the world's Redeemer, the revelations and personal manifestations of the glorified and exalted Son of God during the apostolic period of old and in modern times, the assured nearness of the Lord's second advent, and predicted events beyond—all so far as the Holy Scriptures make plain.
The scope of the topic covered in this work is outlined on the title page. It's clear that the author has taken a different approach from the typical path followed by writers about the Life of Jesus Christ, which usually starts with the birth of Mary's Son and concludes with the ascension of the crucified and resurrected Lord from the Mount of Olives. The discussion in these pages, in addition to the story of the Lord's life in the flesh, includes His pre-mortal existence and activities as the world's Savior, the revelations and personal appearances of the glorified and elevated Son of God during the apostolic times and in modern days, the certain closeness of the Lord's second coming, and foretold events to come—all as clearly indicated by the Holy Scriptures.
It is particularly congruous and appropriate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the only Church that affirms authority based on specific revelation and commission to use the Lord's Holy Name as a distinctive designation—should set forth her doctrines concerning the Messiah and His mission.
It is especially fitting and appropriate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the only church that claims authority based on specific revelation and a commission to use the Lord's Holy Name as a unique identifier—should present its teachings about the Messiah and His mission.
The author of this volume entered upon his welcome service under request and appointment from the presiding authorities of the Church; and the completed work has been read to and is approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. It presents, however, the writer's personal belief and profoundest conviction as to the truth of[Pg iv] what he has written. The book is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The author of this book began his much-appreciated work at the request and appointment of the Church's leadership; and the finished work has been reviewed and approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. It reflects the author's personal beliefs and strong convictions about the truth of[Pg iv] what he has written. The book is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
A characteristic feature of the work is the guidance afforded by modern scriptures and the explication of the Holy Writ of olden times in the light of present day revelation, which, as a powerful and well directed beam, illumines many dark passages of ancient construction.
A key aspect of this work is the guidance provided by modern scriptures and the explanation of ancient texts in light of contemporary revelations, which, like a strong and focused light, clarifies many obscure parts of old writings.
The spirit of the sacredness inherent in the subject has been a constant companion of the writer throughout his pleasing labor, and he reverently invokes the same as a minister to the readers of the volume.
The essence of the sacredness present in the topic has been a steadfast companion for the writer during his enjoyable work, and he respectfully calls upon it as a guide for the readers of this book.
JAMES E. TALMAGE.
James E. Talmage.
Salt Lake City, Utah,
September, 1915.
Salt Lake City, UT,
September 1915.
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.
The second edition of this work appeared in December, 1915, and the third in March, 1916. The third edition presented several minor alterations in wording and contained additional notes and references. Succeeding issues, including the fifth which was printed on India paper, and the present edition are practically uniform with the third.
The second edition of this work came out in December 1915, and the third in March 1916. The third edition included a few minor wording changes and added notes and references. Later editions, including the fifth, which was printed on India paper, and the current edition are almost the same as the third.
JAMES E. TALMAGE.
James E. Talmage.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
INTRO.
Historicity of Jesus the Christ.—Scope and purpose of the present treatise
Historicity of Jesus Christ—Scope and purpose of this study
PREEXISTENCE AND FOREORDINATION OF THE CHRIST.
PREEXISTENCE AND FOREORDINATION OF THE CHRIST.
Antemortal existence of spirits.—Primeval council in heaven.—Rebellion of Lucifer.—His defeat and expulsion.—Free agency of man insured.—The Beloved Son chosen to be the Savior and Redeemer of mankind
Antemortal existence of spirits.—Original council in heaven.—Lucifer's rebellion.—His defeat and banishment.—The assurance of human free agency.—The Beloved Son chosen to be the Savior and Redeemer of humanity.
THE NEED OF A REDEEMER.
THE NEED FOR A SAVIOR.
Spirits of diverse capacities.—Entrance of sin into the world foreseen.—God's foreknowledge not a determining cause.—Creation of man in the flesh.—Fall of man.—Atonement necessary.—Jesus Christ the only Being eligible as Redeemer and Savior.—Universal resurrection provided
Spirits of various capacities.—The entrance of sin into the world was anticipated.—God's foreknowledge is not a determining cause.—The creation of man in the flesh.—The fall of man.—Atonement is necessary.—Jesus Christ is the only Being qualified as Redeemer and Savior.—Universal resurrection is ensured.
THE ANTEMORTAL GODSHIP OF CHRIST.
The Pre-Mortal Divinity of Christ.
The Godhead.—Jesus Christ the Word of power.—Jesus Christ the Creator.—Jehovah.—The Eternal I AM.—Proclamations of Jesus Christ by the Father
The Godhead.—Jesus Christ, the Word of power.—Jesus Christ, the Creator.—Jehovah.—The Eternal I AM.—Proclamations of Jesus Christ by the Father
EARTHLY ADVENT OF THE CHRIST PREDICTED.
EARTHLY ADVENT OF THE CHRIST PREDICTED.
Biblical prophecies.—Revelation to Enoch.—The Prophet predicted by Moses.—Sacrifices as prototypes.—Book of Mormon predictions
Biblical prophecies.—Revelation to Enoch.—The Prophet foretold by Moses.—Sacrifices as examples.—Book of Mormon predictions
THE MERIDIAN OF TIME.
THE TIMELINE.
Significance of the designation.—Epitome of Israel's history.—Jews in vassalage to Rome.—Scribes and rabbis.—Pharisees and Sadducees.—Other sects and parties
Significance of the designation.—Summary of Israel's history.—Jews under Roman rule.—Scribes and rabbis.—Pharisees and Sadducees.—Other groups and factions.
GABRIEL'S ANNUNCIATION OF JOHN AND OF JESUS.
GABRIEL'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF JOHN AND OF JESUS.
Angelic visitation to Zacharias.—Birth of John the forerunner.—Annunciation to Mary the Virgin.—Mary and Joseph.—Their genealogies.—Jesus Christ heir to the throne of David[Pg vi]
Angelic visit to Zacharias.—Birth of John the Baptist.—Announcement to Mary the Virgin.—Mary and Joseph.—Their family trees.—Jesus Christ, heir to the throne of David[Pg vi]
THE BABE OF BETHLEHEM.
THE BABE FROM BETHLEHEM.
Birth of Jesus Christ.—His presentation in the temple.—Visit of the magi.—Herod's evil designs.—The Child taken into Egypt.—Birth of Christ made known to Nephites.—Time of the birth
Birth of Jesus Christ.—His presentation in the temple.—Visit of the wise men.—Herod's wicked plans.—The Child taken to Egypt.—Birth of Christ announced to the Nephites.—Time of the birth
THE BOY OF NAZARETH.
THE BOY FROM NAZARETH.
Jesus to be called a Nazarene.—At the temple when twelve years of age.—Jesus and the doctors of the law.—Jesus of Nazareth
Jesus to be called a Nazarene.—At the temple when he was twelve years old.—Jesus and the teachers of the law.—Jesus from Nazareth
IN THE WILDERNESS OF JUDEA.
In the wilderness of Judea.
John the Baptist.—The voice in the wilderness.—Baptism of Jesus.—The Father's proclamation.—Descent of the Holy Ghost.—Sign of the dove.—Temptations of Christ
John the Baptist.—The voice in the wild.—Baptism of Jesus.—The Father’s announcement.—Descent of the Holy Spirit.—Sign of the dove.—Temptations of Christ.
FROM JUDEA TO GALILEE.
From Judea to Galilee.
John Baptist's testimony of Christ.—First disciples.—The Son of Man, significance of title.—Miracle of transmuting water into wine.—Miracles in general
John the Baptist's testimony about Christ.—First disciples.—The meaning of the title Son of Man.—The miracle of turning water into wine.—Miracles in general.
EARLY INCIDENTS IN OUR LORD'S PUBLIC MINISTRY.
EARLY INCIDENTS IN OUR LORD'S PUBLIC MINISTRY.
First clearing of the temple.—Jesus and Nicodemus.—John Baptist's disciples in disputation.—John's tribute to and repeated testimony of the Christ
First clearing of the temple.—Jesus and Nicodemus.—John the Baptist's disciples in debate.—John's praise and repeated testimony about the Christ.
HONORED BY STRANGERS, REJECTED BY HIS OWN.
HONORED BY STRANGERS, REJECTED BY HIS OWN.
Jesus and the Samaritan woman.—Among the Samaritans.—While at Cana Christ heals a nobleman's son in Capernaum.—At Nazareth Christ preaches in synagog.—Nazarenes attempt to kill him.—Demons subdued in Capernaum.—Demoniacal possession
Jesus and the Samaritan woman.—Among the Samaritans.—While in Cana, Christ heals a nobleman's son in Capernaum.—At Nazareth, Christ preaches in the synagogue.—The people of Nazareth try to kill him.—Demons are cast out in Capernaum.—Demonic possession.
CONTINUATION OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY IN GALILEE.
CONTINUATION OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY IN GALILEE.
A leper healed.—Leprosy.—Palsied man healed and forgiven.—Imputation of blasphemy.—Publicans and sinners.—Old cloth, old bottles, and the new.—Preliminary call of disciples.—Fishers of men
A leper was healed.—Leprosy.—A paralyzed man was healed and forgiven.—Accusations of blasphemy.—Tax collectors and sinners.—Old cloth, old wineskins, and the new.—Initial call of the disciples.—Fishers of men
LORD OF THE SABBATH.
LORD OF THE WEEKEND.
Sabbath distinctively sacred to Israel.—Cripple healed on Sabbath day.—Accusations by the Jews and the Lord's reply thereto.—Disciples charged with Sabbath-breaking.—Man with a withered hand healed on Sabbath day[Pg vii]
Sabbath uniquely sacred to Israel.—Cripple healed on the Sabbath.—Accusations by the Jews and the Lord's response.—Disciples accused of breaking the Sabbath.—Man with a withered hand healed on the Sabbath[Pg vii]
THE CHOSEN TWELVE.
THE SELECTED TWELVE.
Their call and ordination.—The Twelve considered individually.—Their characteristics in general.—Disciples and apostles
Their calling and ordination.—The Twelve were considered individually.—Their general characteristics.—Disciples and apostles
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
The Sermon on the Mount.
The Beatitudes.—Dignity and responsibility in the ministry.—The Mosaic law superseded by the gospel of Christ.—Sincerity of purpose. The Lord's Prayer.—True wealth.—Promise and re-assurance.—Hearing and doing
The Beatitudes.—Dignity and responsibility in ministry.—The Mosaic law replaced by the gospel of Christ.—Sincerity of intention. The Lord's Prayer.—Genuine wealth.—Hope and reassurance.—Listening and acting.
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY.
AS ONE WITH AUTHORITY.
Healing of centurion's servant.—Young man of Nain raised from the dead.—John Baptist's message to Jesus.—The Lord's commentary thereon.—Death of John Baptist.—Jesus in house of Simon the Pharisee.—Penitent woman forgiven.—Christ's authority ascribed to Beelzebub.—The sin against the Holy Ghost.—Sign-seekers
Healing of a centurion's servant.—A young man from Nain raised from the dead.—John the Baptist's message to Jesus.—The Lord's response to it.—The death of John the Baptist.—Jesus at the house of Simon the Pharisee.—A penitent woman is forgiven.—Christ's authority attributed to Beelzebub.—The sin against the Holy Spirit.—People seeking signs.
"HE SPAKE MANY THINGS UNTO THEM IN PARABLES."
"HE SAID MANY THINGS TO THEM IN PARABLES."
The Sower.—Wheat and Tares.—Seed growing secretly.—Mustard Seed.—Leaven.—Hidden Treasure.—Pearl of Great Price.—Gospel Net.—The Lord's purpose in parabolic teaching.—Parables in general
The Sower.—Wheat and Tares.—Seed growing secretly.—Mustard Seed.—Leaven.—Hidden Treasure.—Pearl of Great Price.—Gospel Net.—The Lord's purpose in teaching through parables.—Parables in general
"PEACE, BE STILL."
"Peace, calm down."
Candidates for discipleship.—Stilling the storm.—Quieting the demons in region of Gadara.—Raising of daughter of Jairus.—Restoration to life and resurrection.—A woman healed amidst the throng.—Blind see and dumb speak
Candidates for discipleship.—Calming the storm.—Casting out demons in the region of Gadara.—Bringing Jairus's daughter back to life.—Restoration to life and resurrection.—A woman healed in the crowd.—The blind regain their sight and the mute speak.
THE APOSTOLIC MISSION, AND EVENTS RELATED THERETO.
THE APOSTOLIC MISSION AND RELATED EVENTS.
Jesus again in Nazareth.—The Twelve charged and sent out.—Their return.—Five thousand people miraculously fed.—Miracle of walking upon the water.—People seek Christ for more loaves and fishes.—Christ the bread of life.—Many disciples turn away
Jesus returns to Nazareth.—The Twelve are instructed and sent out.—Their return.—Five thousand people miraculously fed.—The miracle of walking on water.—People look for Christ for more loaves and fish.—Christ, the bread of life.—Many disciples turn away.
A PERIOD OF DARKENING OPPOSITION.
A time of growing opposition.
Ceremonial washings.—Pharisees rebuked.—Jesus in borders of Tyre and Sidon.—Daughter of Syro-Phoenician woman healed.—Miracles wrought in coasts of Decapolis.—Four thousand people miraculously fed.—More seekers after signs.—Leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians.—Peter's great confession, "Thou art the Christ"[Pg viii]
Ceremonial washings. — Pharisees criticized. — Jesus in the borders of Tyre and Sidon. — Daughter of a Syro-Phoenician woman healed. — Miracles performed in the region of Decapolis. — Four thousand people fed miraculously. — More people looking for signs. — Influence of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians. — Peter's great confession, "You are the Christ"[Pg viii]
THE TRANSFIGURATION.
THE TRANSFORMATION.
Visitation of Moses and Elijah.—The Father again proclaims the Son.—The apostles temporarily restrained from testifying concerning the transfiguration.—Elias and Elijah.—The Lesser and the Higher Priesthood
Visitation of Moses and Elijah.—The Father again proclaims the Son.—The apostles are temporarily prevented from speaking about the transfiguration.—Elias and Elijah.—The Lesser and the Higher Priesthood
FROM SUNSHINE TO SHADOW.
From Sunshine to Shadow.
Youthful demoniac healed.—Further prediction of Christ's death and resurrection.—The tribute money; supplied by a miracle.—Humility illustrated by a little child.—Parable of the Lost Sheep.—In Christ's name.—My brother and I.—Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
Youthful demon-possessed person healed.—Further prediction of Christ's death and resurrection.—The tribute money; provided by a miracle.—Humility demonstrated by a little child.—Parable of the Lost Sheep.—In Christ's name.—My brother and I.—Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
JESUS AGAIN IN JERUSALEM.
JESUS BACK IN JERUSALEM.
Departure from Galilee.—At the Feast of Tabernacles.—Another charge of Sabbath desecration.—Living water for the spiritually thirsty.—Plans to arrest Jesus.—Nicodemus protests.—Woman taken in adultery.—Christ the light of the world.—The truth shall make men free.—Christ's seniority over Abraham.—Sight restored on Sabbath day.—Physical and spiritual blindness.—Shepherd and sheep-herder.—Christ the Good Shepherd.—His inherent power over life and death.—Sheep of another fold
Departure from Galilee.—At the Feast of Tabernacles.—Another accusation of breaking the Sabbath.—Living water for those spiritually thirsty.—Plans to arrest Jesus.—Nicodemus speaks up.—Woman caught in adultery.—Christ the light of the world.—The truth will set people free.—Christ's precedence over Abraham.—Sight restored on the Sabbath.—Physical and spiritual blindness.—Shepherd and sheep.—Christ the Good Shepherd.—His innate power over life and death.—Sheep from another flock.
OUR LORD'S MINISTRY IN PEREA AND JUDEA.
OUR LORD'S MINISTRY IN PEREA AND JUDEA.
Jesus rejected in Samaria.—James and John reproved for revengeful desire.—The Seventy charged and sent.—Their return.—A lawyer's question.—Parable of Good Samaritan.—Martha and Mary.—Ask and receive.—Parable of Friend at Midnight.—Criticism on Pharisees and lawyers.—Parable of Foolish Rich Man.—The unrepentant to perish.—Parable of Barren Fig Tree.—A woman healed on the Sabbath.—Many or few to be saved?—Jesus warned of Herod's design
Jesus rejected in Samaria.—James and John rebuked for their vengeful desire.—The Seventy were given instructions and sent out.—Their return.—A lawyer's question.—Parable of the Good Samaritan.—Martha and Mary.—Ask and you shall receive.—Parable of the Friend at Midnight.—Critique of Pharisees and lawyers.—Parable of the Foolish Rich Man.—The unrepentant will perish.—Parable of the Barren Fig Tree.—A woman healed on the Sabbath.—Will many or few be saved?—Jesus warned about Herod's plan.
CONTINUATION OF THE PEREAN AND JUDEAN MINISTRY.
CONTINUATION OF THE PEREAN AND JUDEAN MINISTRY.
In the house of one of the chief Pharisees.—Parable of the Great Supper.—Counting the cost.—Salvation even for publicans and sinners.—Parable of the Lost Sheep repeated.—Of the Lost Coin.—Of the Prodigal Son.—Of the Unrighteous Steward.—Of the Rich Man and Lazarus.—Of the Unprofitable Servants.—Ten lepers healed.—Parable of the Pharisee and Publican.—On marriage and divorce.—Jesus and the little ones.—The rich young ruler.—First may be last and last first.—Parable of the Laborers
In the house of one of the main Pharisees.—Story of the Great Feast.—Calculating the cost.—Salvation even for tax collectors and sinners.—Story of the Lost Sheep repeated.—Of the Lost Coin.—Of the Prodigal Son.—Of the Dishonest Manager.—Of the Rich Man and Lazarus.—Of the Unproductive Servants.—Ten lepers cured.—Story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.—On marriage and divorce.—Jesus and the little children.—The rich young ruler.—The first may be last and the last first.—Story of the Workers.
THE LAST WINTER.
THE FINAL WINTER.
At the Feast of Dedication.—Sheep know the Shepherd's Voice.—The Lord's retirement in Perea.—Lazarus raised from the dead.—Jewish hierarchy agitated over the miracle.—Prophecy by Caiaphas, the high priest.—Jesus in retirement at Ephraim[Pg ix]
At the Feast of Dedication.—Sheep recognize the Shepherd's Voice.—The Lord's time away in Perea.—Lazarus brought back to life.—Jewish leaders disturbed by the miracle.—Prophecy from Caiaphas, the high priest.—Jesus in seclusion at Ephraim[Pg ix]
ON TO JERUSALEM.
Heading to Jerusalem.
Jesus again foretells His death and resurrection.—Aspiring request of James and John.—Sight restored near Jericho.—Zaccheus the chief publican.—Parable of the Pounds.—The supper in the house of Simon the leper.—Mary's tribute in anointing Jesus.—Iscariot's protest.—Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem.—Certain Greeks seek interview with Jesus.—The Voice from heaven
Jesus once more predicts His death and resurrection.—The ambitious request from James and John.—Sight returned near Jericho.—Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector.—The Parable of the Pounds.—The dinner at Simon the leper's house.—Mary's act of anointing Jesus.—Iscariot's objection.—Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem.—Some Greeks want to meet with Jesus.—The voice from heaven.
JESUS RETURNS TO THE TEMPLE DAILY.
JESUS GOES BACK TO THE TEMPLE EVERY DAY.
A leafy but fruitless fig tree cursed.—Second clearing of the temple.—Children shout Hosanna.—Christ's authority challenged by the rulers.—Parable of the two sons. Of the Wicked Husbandmen.—The rejected Stone to be head of the corner.—Parable of the Royal Marriage Feast.—The wedding garment lacking
A leafy but fruitless fig tree is cursed.—Second cleansing of the temple.—Children shout Hosanna.—Christ's authority is challenged by the rulers.—Parable of the two sons. Of the Wicked Tenants.—The rejected Stone will be the cornerstone.—Parable of the Royal Wedding Feast.—The lacking wedding garment.
THE CLOSE OF OUR LORD'S PUBLIC MINISTRY.
THE END OF OUR LORD'S PUBLIC MINISTRY.
Pharisees and Herodians in conspiracy.—Cæsar to have his due.—The image on the coin.—Sadducees and the resurrection.—Levirate marriages.—The great commandment.—Jesus turns questioner.—Scathing denunciation of scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!—Lamentation over Jerusalem.—The widow's mites.—Christ's final withdrawal from temple.—Destruction of temple predicted
Pharisees and Herodians in conspiracy. — Caesar to get what he deserves. — The image on the coin. — Sadducees and the resurrection. — Levirate marriages. — The greatest commandment. — Jesus becomes the questioner. — Harsh criticism of scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! — Mourning over Jerusalem. — The widow's contributions. — Christ's final departure from the temple. — Prediction of the temple's destruction.
FURTHER INSTRUCTION TO THE APOSTLES.
Additional Instructions for the Apostles.
Prophecies relating to destruction of Jerusalem and the Lord's future advent.—Watch!—Parable of Ten Virgins.—Of the Entrusted Talents.—The inevitable judgment.—Another and specific prediction of the Lord's impending death
Prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Lord's future arrival.—Watch!—Parable of the Ten Virgins.—Of the Entrusted Talents.—The unavoidable judgment.—Another specific prediction of the Lord's upcoming death
THE LAST SUPPER AND THE BETRAYAL.
THE LAST SUPPER AND THE BETRAYAL.
Judas Iscariot in conspiracy with the Jews.—Preparations for the Lord's last Passover.—The last supper of Jesus with the Twelve.—The traitor designated.—Ordinance of washing of feet.—Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.—The betrayer goes out into the night.—Discourse following the supper.—The High-Priestly Prayer.—The Lord's agony in Gethsemane.—The betrayal and the arrest
Judas Iscariot conspires with the Jews.—Preparations for the Lord's final Passover.—The last supper of Jesus with the Twelve.—The traitor is identified.—The practice of washing feet.—The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.—The betrayer leaves into the night.—Discussion after the supper.—The High-Priestly Prayer.—The Lord's anguish in Gethsemane.—The betrayal and the arrest.
THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION.
THE TRIAL AND SENTENCING.
The Jewish trial.—Christ before Annas and Caiaphas.—The illegal night court.—The morning session.—False witnesses and unrighteous conviction.—Peter's denial of his Lord.—Christ's first arraignment before Pilate.—Before Herod.—Second appearance before Pilate.—Pilate's surrender to Jewish clamor.—The sentence of crucifixion.—Suicide of Judas Iscariot[Pg x]
The Jewish trial.—Jesus before Annas and Caiaphas.—The unlawful night court.—The morning session.—False witnesses and unjust conviction.—Peter's denial of his Lord.—Jesus' first arraignment before Pilate.—Before Herod.—Second appearance before Pilate.—Pilate's surrender to the Jewish crowd.—The sentence of crucifixion.—Judas Iscariot's suicide[Pg x]
DEATH AND BURIAL.
Death and Burial.
On the way to Calvary.—The Lord's address to the daughters of Jerusalem.—The crucifixion.—Occurrences between the Lord's death and burial.—The burial.—The sepulchre guarded
On the way to Calvary.—The Lord's message to the women of Jerusalem.—The crucifixion.—Events between the Lord's death and burial.—The burial.—The tomb guarded.
IN THE REALM OF DISEMBODIED SPIRITS.
IN THE REALM OF DISCONNECTED SPIRITS.
Actuality of the Lord's death.—Condition of spirits between death and resurrection.—The Savior among the dead.—The gospel preached to the spirits in prison
Actuality of the Lord's death.—Condition of spirits between death and resurrection.—The Savior among the dead.—The gospel preached to the spirits in prison
THE RESURRECTION AND THE ASCENSION.
The Resurrection and the Ascension.
Christ is risen.—The women at the sepulchre.—Angelic communications.—The risen Lord seen by Mary Magdalene.—And by other women.—A priestly conspiracy of falsehood.—The Lord and two disciples on the Emmaus road.—He appears to disciples in Jerusalem and eats in their presence.—Doubting Thomas.—The Lord appears to the apostles at the sea of Tiberias.—Other manifestations in Galilee.—Final commission to the apostles.—The ascension
Christ has risen.—The women at the tomb.—Messages from angels.—The risen Lord seen by Mary Magdalene.—And by other women.—A priestly conspiracy of deception.—The Lord and two disciples on the road to Emmaus.—He appears to the disciples in Jerusalem and eats with them.—Doubting Thomas.—The Lord appears to the apostles at the Sea of Tiberias.—Other appearances in Galilee.—Final commission to the apostles.—The ascension
THE APOSTOLIC MINISTRY.
The Apostolic Ministry.
Matthias ordained to the apostleship.—Bestowal of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.—The apostles' preaching.—Imprisoned and delivered.—Gamaliel's advice to the council.—Stephen the martyr.—Saul of Tarsus, his conversion.—Becomes Paul the apostle.—The record by John the Revelator.—Close of the apostolic ministry
Matthias was chosen as an apostle.—The giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.—The apostles' preaching.—They were imprisoned and then released.—Gamaliel's counsel to the council.—Stephen the martyr.—Saul of Tarsus and his conversion.—He becomes Paul the apostle.—The account by John the Revelator.—The end of the apostolic ministry.
MINISTRY OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.
MINISTRY OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.
The Lord's death signalized by great calamities on western continent.—The Voice of the Lord Jesus Christ heard.—His visitations to the Nephites.—The Nephite Twelve.—Baptism among Nephites.—The Mosaic law fulfilled.—Address to Nephites compared with Sermon on the Mount.—Sacrament of bread and wine instituted among Nephites.—Name of Christ's Church.—The Three Nephites.—Growth of the Church.—Final apostasy of Nephite nation
The Lord's death marked by significant disasters on the western continent. — The voice of the Lord Jesus Christ is heard. — His visitations to the Nephites. — The Nephite Twelve. — Baptism among the Nephites. — The Mosaic law fulfilled. — Address to the Nephites compared with the Sermon on the Mount. — Sacrament of bread and wine established among the Nephites. — Name of Christ's Church. — The Three Nephites. — Growth of the Church. — Final apostasy of the Nephite nation.
THE LONG NIGHT OF APOSTASY.
THE EXTENDED NIGHT OF APOSTASY.
The great falling away as predicted.—Individual apostasy from the Church.—Apostasy of the Church.—Constantine makes Christianity the religion of state.—Papal claims to secular authority.—Churchly tyranny.—The Dark Ages.—The inevitable revolt.—The Reformation.—Rise of Church of England.—Catholicism and Protestantism.—The apostasy affirmed.—Mission of Columbus and the Pilgrim Fathers predicted in ancient scripture.—Fulfilment of the prophecies.—Establishment of American nation provided for[Pg xi]
The great falling away as predicted.—Individual abandonment of the Church.—The Church’s falling away.—Constantine makes Christianity the state religion.—Papal claims to political power.—Church tyranny.—The Dark Ages.—The inevitable revolt.—The Reformation.—Rise of the Church of England.—Catholicism and Protestantism.—The falling away acknowledged.—The missions of Columbus and the Pilgrim Fathers predicted in ancient scripture.—Fulfillment of the prophecies.—The establishment of the American nation was provided for[Pg xi]
PERSONAL MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD THE ETERNAL FATHER AND OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST IN MODERN TIMES.
PERSONAL MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD THE ETERNAL FATHER AND OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST IN MODERN TIMES.
A new dispensation.—Joseph Smith's perplexity over sectarian strife.—The Eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ appear to and personally instruct Joseph Smith.—Visitation of Moroni.—The Book of Mormon.—Aaronic Priesthood restored by John the Baptist.—Melchizedek Priesthood restored by Peter, James, and John.—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.—Divine manifestations in Kirtland Temple.—The Lord Jesus Christ appears.—Specific authority of olden dispensations conferred by Moses, Elias, and Elijah.—The Holy Priesthood now operative on earth
A new era has begun. Joseph Smith's confusion over religious conflicts. The Eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ come to Joseph Smith and personally teach him. Moroni's visit. The Book of Mormon. John the Baptist restores the Aaronic Priesthood. Peter, James, and John restore the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Divine revelations in the Kirtland Temple. The Lord Jesus Christ appears. Specific authority from ancient dispensations given by Moses, Elias, and Elijah. The Holy Priesthood is now active on Earth.
JESUS THE CHRIST TO RETURN.
JESUS THE CHRIST WILL RETURN.
Ancient predictions of the Lord's second advent.—Modern revelation affirms the same.—Today and tomorrow.—The great and dreadful day near at hand.—Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven.—The Millennium.—The celestial consummation
Ancient predictions of the Lord's return.—Modern revelation confirms the same.—Today and tomorrow.—The great and terrible day is approaching.—Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven.—The Millennium.—The heavenly culmination
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION.
It is a matter of history that, at or near the beginning of what has since come to be known as the Christian era, the Man Jesus, surnamed the Christ, was born in Bethlehem of Judea.[1] The principal data as to His birth, life, and death are so well attested as to be reasonably indisputable; they are facts of record, and are accepted as essentially authentic by the civilized world at large. True, there are diversities of deduction based on alleged discrepancies in the records of the past as to circumstantial details; but such differences are of strictly minor importance, for none of them nor all taken together cast a shadow of rational doubt upon the historicity of the earthly existence of the Man known in literature as Jesus of Nazareth.
It is a historical fact that, around the beginning of what is now referred to as the Christian era, a man named Jesus, also known as the Christ, was born in Bethlehem, Judea.[1] The main details about His birth, life, and death are so well documented that they are essentially undisputed; they are recorded events, and the civilized world generally accepts them as authentic. While there are various interpretations based on supposed discrepancies in the historical records regarding certain details, these differences are minor, and none of them, either individually or collectively, cast any reasonable doubt on the existence of the man known in literature as Jesus of Nazareth.
As to who and what He was there are dissensions of grave moment dividing the opinions of men; and this divergence of conception and belief is most pronounced upon those matters to which the greatest importance attaches. The solemn testimonies of millions dead and of millions living unite in proclaiming Him as divine, the Son of the Living God, the Redeemer and Savior of the human race, the Eternal Judge of the souls of men, the Chosen and Anointed[Pg 2] of the Father—in short, the Christ. Others there are who deny His Godhood while extolling the transcendent qualities of His unparalleled and unapproachable Manhood.
As for who and what He was, there's a lot of serious disagreement among people. This difference in beliefs is especially clear about the most important issues. The powerful testimonies of millions who have died and millions who are alive come together to declare Him as divine, the Son of the Living God, the Redeemer and Savior of humanity, the Eternal Judge of souls, the Chosen and Anointed[Pg 2] of the Father—in other words, the Christ. On the other hand, there are those who deny His divinity while praising the extraordinary qualities of His unmatched humanity.
To the student of history this Man among men stands first, foremost, and alone, as a directing personality in the world's progression. Mankind has never produced a leader to rank with Him. Regarded solely as a historic personage He is unique. Judged by the standard of human estimation, Jesus of Nazareth is supreme among men by reason of the excellence of His personal character, the simplicity, beauty, and genuine worth of His precepts, and the influence of His example and doctrines in the advancement of the race. To these distinguishing characteristics of surpassing greatness the devout Christian soul adds an attribute that far exceeds the sum of all the others—the divinity of Christ's origin and the eternal reality of His status as Lord and God.
To anyone studying history, this extraordinary figure stands out as the leading force in the world's development. Humanity has never seen a leader of his caliber. Viewed purely as a historical figure, he is one of a kind. By any human standard, Jesus of Nazareth stands out among men due to the greatness of his character, the simplicity, beauty, and true value of his teachings, and the impact of his example and beliefs on the progress of humanity. To these remarkable traits, the devoted Christian adds something that surpasses them all—the divine nature of Christ's origin and the timeless truth of his identity as Lord and God.
Christian and unbeliever alike acknowledge His supremacy as a Man, and respect the epoch-making significance of His birth. Christ was born in the meridian of time;[2] and His life on earth marked at once the culmination of the past and the inauguration of an era distinctive in human hope, endeavor, and achievement. His advent determined a new order in the reckoning of the years; and by common consent the centuries antedating His birth have been counted backward from the pivotal event and are designated accordingly. The rise and fall of dynasties, the birth and dissolution of nations, all the cycles of history as to war and peace, as to prosperity and adversity, as to health and pestilence, seasons of plenty and of famine, the awful happenings of earthquake and storm, the triumphs of invention and discovery, the epochs of man's development in godliness and the long periods of his dwindling in unbelief—all the occurrences that make history—are chronicled throughout Christendom by reference to the year before or after the birth of Jesus Christ.
Both Christians and non-believers recognize His greatness as a person and acknowledge the groundbreaking importance of His birth. Christ was born at a pivotal time; His life on Earth represented the peak of the past and the beginning of a new era filled with human hope, effort, and accomplishments. His coming established a new way to count the years, and by general agreement, the centuries before His birth are counted backward from this key moment and labeled as such. The rise and fall of empires, the creation and collapse of nations, all cycles of history related to war and peace, prosperity and hardship, health and disease, times of abundance and famine, the devastating events of earthquakes and storms, the successes of innovation and discovery, the periods of human growth in faith, and the long stretches of decline in disbelief—all the events that shape history—are recorded throughout Christendom with reference to the year before or after the birth of Jesus Christ.
His earthly life covered a period of thirty-three years; and of these but three were spent by Him as an acknowledged Teacher openly engaged in the activities of public ministry. He was brought to a violent death before He had attained what we now regard as the age of manhood's prime. As an individual He was personally known to but few; and His fame as a world character became general only after His death.
His life on Earth lasted thirty-three years, but only three of those were spent as a recognized Teacher actively involved in public ministry. He died a violent death before reaching what we now consider the prime age of adulthood. As an individual, He was personally known to very few, and His reputation as a significant figure in history only grew after His death.
Brief account of some of His words and works has been preserved to us; and this record, fragmentary and incomplete though it be, is rightly esteemed as the world's greatest treasure. The earliest and most extended history of His mortal existence is embodied within the compilation of scriptures known as the New Testament; indeed but little is said of Him by secular historians of His time. Few and short as are the allusions to Him made by non-scriptural writers in the period immediately following that of His ministry, enough is found to corroborate the sacred record as to the actuality and period of Christ's earthly existence.
A brief account of some of His words and actions has been preserved for us, and this record, although fragmentary and incomplete, is rightly considered the world's greatest treasure. The earliest and most comprehensive history of His life on Earth is found in the collection of writings known as the New Testament; in fact, very little is mentioned about Him by secular historians of His time. While the references to Him by non-scriptural writers in the immediate aftermath of His ministry are few and brief, they provide enough evidence to support the sacred record regarding the reality and timeframe of Christ's life on Earth.
No adequate biography of Jesus as Boy and Man has been or can be written, for the sufficing reason that a fulness of data is lacking. Nevertheless, man never lived of whom more has been said and sung, none to whom is devoted a greater proportion of the world's literature. He is extolled by Christian, Mohammedan and Jew, by skeptic and infidel, by the world's greatest poets, philosophers, statesmen, scientists, and historian. Even the profane sinner in the foul, sacrilege of his oath acclaims the divine supremacy of Him whose name he desecrates.
No comprehensive biography of Jesus as a boy and man has been or can be written, simply because there isn't enough information available. Still, no one has been talked about or celebrated more; no one has a greater share of the world's literature devoted to them. He is praised by Christians, Muslims, and Jews, by skeptics and non-believers, and by some of the greatest poets, philosophers, statesmen, scientists, and historians. Even those who speak carelessly and disrespectfully acknowledge the divine superiority of Him whose name they profane.
The purpose of the present treatise is that of considering the life and mission of Jesus as the Christ. In this undertaking we are to be guided by the light of both ancient and modern scriptures; and, thus led, we shall discover, even in the early stages of our course, that the word of God as revealed in latter days is effective in illuming and making plain[Pg 4] the Holy Writ of ancient times, and this, in many matters of the profoundest imports.[3]
The goal of this writing is to explore the life and mission of Jesus as the Christ. In this effort, we will be guided by the insights of both ancient and modern scriptures; and, as we proceed, we will find that the word of God revealed in recent times is effective in illuminating and clarifying the Holy Scriptures of the past, particularly in matters of great significance.[Pg 4][3]
Instead of beginning our study with the earthly birth of the Holy Babe of Bethlehem, we shall consider the part taken by the Firstborn Son of God in the primeval councils of heaven, at the time when He was chosen and ordained to be the Savior of the unborn race of mortals, the Redeemer of a world then in its formative stages of development. We are to study Him as the Creator of the world, as the Word of Power, through whom the purposes of the Eternal Father were realized in the preparation of the earth for the abode of His myriad spirit-children during the appointed period of their mortal probation. Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the God of Adam and of Noah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God at whose instance the prophets of the ages have spoken, the God of all nations, and He who shall yet reign on earth as King of kings and Lord of lords.
Instead of starting our study with the earthly birth of the Holy Child of Bethlehem, we will look at the role played by the Firstborn Son of God in the original councils of heaven, when He was chosen and set apart to be the Savior of the yet-to-be-born human race, the Redeemer of a world that was still developing. We will examine Him as the Creator of the world, as the Word of Power, through whom the purposes of the Eternal Father were fulfilled in preparing the earth for the home of His countless spirit-children during their designated time of mortal testing. Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the God of Adam and Noah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God who inspired the prophets throughout history, the God of all nations, and He who will one day rule on earth as King of kings and Lord of lords.
His wondrous yet natural birth, His immaculate life in the flesh, and His voluntary death as a consecrated sacrifice for the sins of mankind, shall claim our reverent attention; as shall also His redeeming service in the world of disembodied spirits; His literal resurrection from bodily death to immortality; His several appearings to men and His continued ministry as the Resurrected Lord on both continents; the reestablishment of His Church through His personal presence and that of the Eternal Father in the latter days; and His coming to His temple in the current dispensation. All these developments in the ministration of the Christ are already of the past. Our proposed course of investigation will lead yet onward, into the future concerning which the word of divine revelation is of record. We shall consider[Pg 5] the conditions incident to the Lord's return in power and glory to inaugurate the dominion of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, and to usher in the predicted Millennium of peace and righteousness. And yet beyond we shall follow Him, through the post-Millennial conflict between the powers of heaven and the forces of hell, to the completion of His victory over Satan, sin, and death, when He shall present the glorified earth and its sanctified hosts, spotless and celestialized, unto the Father.
His amazing yet natural birth, His perfect life in human form, and His willing death as a sacred sacrifice for humanity's sins deserve our deep respect; as do His saving work in the world of spirits, His literal resurrection from death to eternal life, His various appearances to people, and His ongoing ministry as the Resurrected Lord on both continents; the restoration of His Church through His presence and that of the Eternal Father in the last days; and His arrival at His temple in the current age. All these events in the ministry of Christ are already behind us. Our planned study will lead us forward into the future, concerning which divine revelation has provided guidance. We will examine[Pg 5] the circumstances surrounding the Lord's return in power and glory to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth and to bring about the foretold Millennium of peace and righteousness. And further, we will follow Him through the post-Millennial struggle between the forces of heaven and hell, until His ultimate victory over Satan, sin, and death, when He will present the glorified earth and its purified people, spotless and celestial, to the Father.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms her possession of divine authority for the use of the sacred name, Jesus Christ, as the essential part of her distinctive designation. In view of this exalted claim, it is pertinent to inquire as to what special or particular message the Church has to give to the world concerning the Redeemer and Savior of the race, and as to what she has to say in justification of her solemn affirmation, or in vindication of her exclusive name and title. As we proceed with our study, we shall find that among the specific teachings of the Church respecting the Christ are these:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asserts that it has divine authority to use the sacred name, Jesus Christ, as a key part of its unique identity. Given this significant claim, it's important to ask what special message the Church has for the world about the Redeemer and Savior of humanity, and what justification it offers for its serious claim or for its unique name and title. As we continue our study, we will discover that among the specific teachings of the Church regarding Christ are the following:
(1) The unity and continuity of His mission in all ages—this of necessity involving the verity of His preexistence and foreordination. (2) The fact of His antemortal Godship. (3) The actuality of His birth in the flesh as the natural issue of divine and mortal parentage. (4) The reality of His death and physical resurrection, as a result of which the power of death shall be eventually overcome. (5) The literalness of the atonement wrought by Him, including the absolute requirement of individual compliance with the laws and ordinances of His gospel as the means by which salvation may be attained. (6) The restoration of His Priesthood and the reestablishment of His Church in the current age, which is verily the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. (7) The certainty of His return to earth in the near future, with power and great glory, to reign in Person and bodily presence as Lord and King.[Pg 6]
(1) The unity and continuity of His mission throughout all ages—this necessarily involves the truth of His preexistence and foreordination. (2) The fact of His existence as God before birth. (3) The reality of His birth in the flesh as the natural result of divine and human parentage. (4) The truth of His death and physical resurrection, through which the power of death will ultimately be overcome. (5) The literal nature of the atonement He provided, which includes the absolute requirement for individuals to follow the laws and ordinances of His gospel to achieve salvation. (6) The restoration of His Priesthood and the reestablishment of His Church in today's age, which is indeed the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. (7) The certainty of His return to earth in the near future, with power and great glory, to reign in person and bodily presence as Lord and King.[Pg 6]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[3] The Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price constitute the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These will be cited alike as Scriptures in the following pages, for such they are.
[3] The Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are the official scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They will all be referred to as Scriptures in the following pages, because that’s what they are.
CHAPTER 2.
PREEXISTENCE AND FOREORDINATION OF THE CHRIST.
We affirm, on the authority of Holy Scripture, that the Being who is known among men as Jesus of Nazareth, and by all who acknowledge His Godhood as Jesus the Christ, existed with the Father prior to birth in the flesh; and that in the preexistent state He was chosen and ordained to be the one and only Savior and Redeemer of the human race. Foreordination implies and comprizes preexistence as an essential condition; therefore scriptures bearing upon the one are germane to the other; and consequently in this presentation no segregation of evidence as applying specifically to the preexistence of Christ or to His foreordination will be attempted.
We affirm, based on the authority of the Bible, that the Being known to people as Jesus of Nazareth, and recognized by all who acknowledge His divinity as Jesus the Christ, existed with the Father before His birth in the flesh; and that in this preexisting state, He was chosen and appointed to be the one and only Savior and Redeemer of humanity. Foreordination implies and includes preexistence as a necessary condition; therefore, scriptures regarding one are relevant to the other; and as a result, in this presentation, we won’t separate evidence that specifically applies to Christ’s preexistence or to His foreordination.
John the Revelator beheld in vision some of the scenes that had been enacted in the spirit-world before the beginning of human history. He witnessed strife and contention between loyalty and rebellion, with the hosts defending the former led by Michael the archangel, and the rebellious forces captained by Satan, who is also called the devil, the serpent, and the dragon. We read: "And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels."[4]
John the Revelator saw in a vision some of the events that took place in the spirit world before human history began. He witnessed conflict and struggle between loyalty and rebellion, with the loyal forces led by Michael the archangel, and the rebellious forces led by Satan, who is also known as the devil, the serpent, and the dragon. We read: "And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels."[4]
In this struggle between unembodied hosts the forces were unequally divided; Satan drew to his standard only a third part of the children of God, who are symbolized as the "stars of heaven";[5] the majority either fought with Michael, or at least refrained from active opposition,[Pg 7] thus accomplishing the purpose of their "first estate"; while the angels who arrayed themselves on the side of Satan "kept not their first estate",[6] and therefore rendered themselves ineligible for the glorious possibilities of an advanced condition or "second estate".[7] The victory was with Michael and his angels; and Satan or Lucifer, theretofore a "son of the morning", was cast out of heaven, yea "he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him".[8] The prophet Isaiah, to whom these momentous occurrences had been revealed about eight centuries prior to the time of John's writings, laments with inspired pathos the fall of so great a one; and specifies selfish ambition as the occasion: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascent into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."[9]
In this battle between disembodied beings, the forces were unevenly matched; Satan was able to rally only a third of God's children, represented as the "stars of heaven";[5] while the majority fought for Michael or at least refrained from taking sides,[Pg 7] thus fulfilling the purpose of their "first estate"; meanwhile, the angels who sided with Satan "didn't keep their first estate",[6] making themselves unfit for the glorious potential of a higher level or "second estate".[7] The victory belonged to Michael and his angels, and Satan, once known as "son of the morning," was expelled from heaven, indeed "he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."[8] The prophet Isaiah, who was made aware of these significant events about eight centuries before John's writings, mournfully reflects on the fall of such a powerful figure, attributing his downfall to selfish ambition: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."[9]
Justification for citing these scriptures in connection with our present consideration will be found in the cause of the great contention—the conditions that led to this war in heaven. It is plain from the words of Isaiah that Lucifer, already of exalted rank, sought to aggrandize himself without regard to the rights and agency of others. The matter is set forth, in words that none may misapprehend, in a revelation given to Moses and repeated through the first prophet of the present dispensation: "And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold,[Pg 8] here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; and he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."[10]
Justification for referencing these scriptures concerning our current discussion can be found in the reasons behind the significant conflict—the conditions that led to this war in heaven. It's clear from Isaiah's words that Lucifer, already in a high position, wanted to elevate himself without considering the rights and choices of others. This is expressed in unmistakable terms in a revelation given to Moses and reiterated through the first prophet of this era: "And I, the Lord God, spoke to Moses, saying: That Satan, whom you have commanded in the name of my Only Begotten, is the same one who was there from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Look, here I am, send me, I will be your son, and I will save all mankind, that not one soul shall be lost, and I will definitely do it; so give me your honor. But, look, my Beloved Son, who was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said to me—Father, your will be done, and the glory be yours forever. Therefore, because Satan rebelled against me and tried to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also to take my own power; by the power of my Only Begotten, I caused him to be cast down, and he became Satan, yes, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and blind people, and to lead them captive at his will, as many as would not listen to my voice."
Thus it is shown that prior to the placing of man upon the earth, how long before we do not know, Christ and Satan, together with the hosts of the spirit-children of God, existed as intelligent individuals,[11] possessing power and opportunity to choose the course they would pursue and the leaders whom they would follow and obey.[12] In that great concourse of spirit-intelligences, the Father's plan, whereby His children would be advanced to their second estate, was submitted and doubtless discussed. The opportunity so placed within the reach of the spirits who were to be privileged to take bodies upon the earth was so transcendently glorious that those heavenly multitudes burst forth into song and shouted for joy.[13]
Thus it is shown that before humanity was placed on the earth, we don’t know how long ago, Christ and Satan, along with the hosts of God’s spirit-children, existed as intelligent beings,[11] having the power and opportunity to choose which path to take and which leaders to follow and obey.[12] In that vast gathering of spirit-intelligences, the Father’s plan, through which His children would advance to their second estate, was presented and likely discussed. The chance given to the spirits who would be privileged to take on bodies on earth was so incredibly glorious that those heavenly multitudes broke into song and shouted for joy.[13]
Satan's plan of compulsion, whereby all would be safely conducted through the career of mortality, bereft of freedom to act and agency to choose, so circumscribed that they would be compelled to do right—that one soul would not be lost—was rejected; and the humble offer of Jesus the First-born—to assume mortality and live among men as their Exemplar[Pg 9] and Teacher, observing the sanctity of man's agency but teaching men to use aright that divine heritage—was accepted. The decision brought war, which resulted in the vanquishment of Satan and his angels, who were cast out and deprived of the boundless privileges incident to the mortal or second estate.
Satan's plan of force, which would ensure everyone made it through life without the freedom to act or the ability to choose, so restricted that they would have no choice but to do what's right—ensuring that no one would be lost—was rejected. The humble offer from Jesus, the Firstborn, to take on human life and live among people as their example and teacher while respecting the sanctity of human agency and guiding people to use that divine gift wisely—was accepted. This decision led to a war, resulting in the defeat of Satan and his angels, who were cast out and stripped of the limitless privileges associated with the mortal or second estate.[Pg 9]
In that august council of the angels and the Gods, the Being who later was born in flesh as Mary's Son, Jesus, took prominent part, and there was He ordained of the Father to be the Savior of mankind. As to time, the term being used in the sense of all duration past, this is our earliest record of the Firstborn among the sons of God; to us who read, it marks the beginning of the written history of Jesus the Christ.[14]
In that esteemed gathering of angels and Gods, the Being who would later be born in flesh as Mary's Son, Jesus, played a significant role, and there He was appointed by the Father to be the Savior of humanity. In terms of time, the term is understood to encompass all duration that has passed, making this our earliest account of the Firstborn among the sons of God; for us readers, it signifies the start of the written history of Jesus the Christ.[14]
Old Testament scriptures, while abounding in promises relating to the actuality of Christ's advent in the flesh, are less specific in information concerning His antemortal existence. By the children of Israel, while living under the law and still unprepared to receive the gospel, the Messiah was looked for as one to be born in the lineage of Abraham and David, empowered to deliver them from personal and national burdens, and to vanquish their enemies. The actuality of the Messiah's status as the chosen Son of God, who was with the Father from the beginning, a Being of preexistent power and glory, was but dimly perceived, if conceived at all, by the people in general; and although to prophets specially commissioned in the authorities and privileges of the Holy Priesthood, revelation of the great truth was given,[15] they transmitted it to the people rather in the language of imagery and parable than in words of direct plainness. Nevertheless the testimony of the evangelists and the apostles, the attestation of the Christ Himself while in the flesh, and the revelations given in the present dispensation leave us without dearth of scriptural proof.
Old Testament scriptures, while full of promises about the reality of Christ's coming in the flesh, are less clear about the details of His preexistence. The children of Israel, living under the law and still unprepared to accept the gospel, expected the Messiah to be born into the lineage of Abraham and David, someone who would save them from their personal and national troubles and defeat their enemies. The reality of the Messiah as the chosen Son of God, who was with the Father from the beginning and a being of preexistent power and glory, was only vaguely understood, if at all, by the general population; and even though prophets who held the authority of the Holy Priesthood were given revelations of this great truth, they often shared it with the people through imagery and parables rather than in straightforward terms. Nevertheless, the testimonies of the evangelists and the apostles, the affirmations of Christ Himself while He was on Earth, and the revelations made in the current dispensation provide us with plenty of scriptural evidence.
In the opening lines of the Gospel book written by John the apostle, we read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth."[16]
In the opening lines of the Gospel written by John the apostle, we read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him, all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made... And the Word became flesh and lived among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father), full of grace and truth."[16]
The passage is simple, precise and unambiguous. We may reasonably give to the phrase "In the beginning" the same meaning as attaches thereto in the first line of Genesis; and such signification must indicate a time antecedent to the earliest stages of human existence upon the earth. That the Word is Jesus Christ, who was with the Father in that beginning and who was Himself invested with the powers and rank of Godship, and that He came into the world and dwelt among men, are definitely affirmed. These statements are corroborated through a revelation given to Moses, in which he was permitted to see many of the creations of God, and to hear the voice of the Father with respect to the things that had been made: "And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth."[17]
The passage is straightforward, clear, and direct. We can reasonably interpret the phrase "In the beginning" the same way it is understood in the first line of Genesis; and this meaning indicates a time that came before the earliest stages of human life on Earth. It's clearly stated that the Word is Jesus Christ, who was with the Father at that beginning and who was Himself endowed with the powers and status of divinity, and that He came into the world and lived among people. These claims are supported by a revelation given to Moses, in which he was allowed to see many of God's creations and to hear the Father's voice regarding what had been made: "And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth." [17]
John the apostle repeatedly affirms the preexistence of the Christ and the fact of His authority and power in the antemortal state.[18] To the same effect is the testimony of Paul[19] and of Peter. Instructing the saints concerning the basis of their faith, the last-named apostle impressed upon them that their redemption was not to be secured through corruptible things nor by the outward observance of traditional requirements, "But with the precious blood of Christ,[Pg 11] as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you."[20]
John the apostle consistently emphasizes that Christ existed before His earthly life and confirms His authority and power in the pre-mortal state.[18] Paul[19] and Peter share this same testimony. Teaching the believers about the foundation of their faith, Peter made it clear that their redemption could not be achieved through corruptible things or by simply following traditional practices. "But with the precious blood of Christ,[Pg 11] as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who truly was chosen before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for you."[20]
Even more impressive and yet more truly conclusive are the personal testimonies of the Savior as to His own pre-existent life and the mission among men to which He had been appointed. No one who accepts Jesus as the Messiah can consistently reject these evidences of His eternal nature. When, on a certain occasion, the Jews in the synagogue disputed among themselves and murmured because of their failure to understand aright His doctrine concerning Himself, especially as touching His relationship with the Father, Jesus said unto them: "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." And then, continuing the lesson based upon the contrast between the manna with which their fathers had been fed in the wilderness and the bread of life which He had to offer, He added: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven," and again declared "the living Father hath sent me." Not a few of the disciples failed to comprehend His teachings; and their complaints drew from Him these words: "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?"[21]
Even more impressive and truly conclusive are the personal testimonies of the Savior about His own pre-existent life and the mission among people to which He was appointed. No one who accepts Jesus as the Messiah can consistently disregard these proofs of His eternal nature. On one occasion, when the Jews in the synagogue were arguing among themselves and murmuring because they couldn't properly understand His teachings about Himself, especially regarding His relationship with the Father, Jesus said to them: "For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me." He then continued his lesson comparing the manna their ancestors were fed in the wilderness to the bread of life He had to offer, adding: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven," and once again stated, "the living Father has sent me." Many of the disciples struggled to understand His teachings, and their complaints prompted Him to say, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?"[21]
To certain wicked Jews, wrapped in the mantle of racial pride, boastful of their descent through the lineage of Abraham, and seeking to excuse their sins through an unwarranted use of the great patriarch's name, our Lord thus proclaimed His own preeminence: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."[22] The fuller significance of this remark will be treated later; suffice it in the present connection to consider this scripture as a plain avowal of our Lord's seniority and supremacy over Abraham. But as Abraham's birth had preceded that of Christ by more than[Pg 12] nineteen centuries, such seniority must have reference to a state of existence antedating that of mortality.
To certain wicked Jews, wrapped in pride about their heritage, boasting of their descent from Abraham, and trying to justify their sins by misusing the name of the great patriarch, our Lord declared His own superiority: "Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am."[22] The deeper meaning of this statement will be discussed later; for now, it’s enough to view this scripture as a clear declaration of our Lord's seniority and dominance over Abraham. However, since Abraham was born more than[Pg 12] nineteen centuries before Christ, this seniority must refer to a state of existence that existed before mortal life.
When the hour of His betrayal was near, in the last interview with the apostles prior to His agonizing experience in Gethsemane, Jesus comforted them saying: "For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world again, I leave the world, and go to the Father."[23] Furthermore, in the course of upwelling prayer for those who had been true to their testimony of His Messiahship, He addressed the Father with this solemn invocation: "And this is the life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father glorify thou with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."[24]
When the time of His betrayal was approaching, during His final conversation with the apostles before His painful experience in Gethsemane, Jesus comforted them by saying: "The Father loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."[23] Additionally, while praying profoundly for those who had remained faithful to His messiahship, He addressed the Father with this serious invocation: "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have glorified you on earth; I have completed the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed."[24]
Book of Mormon scriptures are likewise explicit in proof of the preexistence of the Christ and of His foreappointed mission. One only of the many evidences therein found will be cited here. An ancient prophet, designated in the record as the brother of Jared,[25] once pleaded with the Lord in special supplication: "And the Lord said unto him, Believest thou the words which I shall speak? And he answered, Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie. And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord shewed himself unto him, and said, Because thou knowest these things, ye are redeemed from the fall: therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I shew myself unto you. Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the[Pg 13] Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. And never have I shewed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning, after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit, will I appear unto my people in the flesh."[26] The main facts attested by this scripture as having a direct bearing upon our present subject are those of the Christ manifesting Himself while yet in His antemortal state, and of His declaration that He had been chosen from the foundation of the world as the Redeemer.
The Book of Mormon scriptures clearly demonstrate the preexistence of Christ and the specific mission He was appointed for. Here's one of the many pieces of evidence found there. An ancient prophet, referred to in the record as the brother of Jared,[25] once earnestly asked the Lord: "And the Lord said to him, Do you believe the words I’m about to say? And he answered, Yes, Lord, I know that you are telling the truth because you are a God of truth and cannot lie. After he said this, the Lord revealed Himself to him and said, Because you know these things, you are redeemed from the fall; therefore, you are brought back into my presence, which is why I show myself to you. Look, I am the one who was chosen from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. I am Jesus Christ. I am the[Pg 13] Father and the Son. In me, all mankind will find light, and this will be eternal for those who believe in my name; they will become my sons and daughters. I have never shown myself to any man I created because no one has ever believed in me as you have. Do you see that you are created in my image? Yes, all men were created in the beginning in my image. Look, this body that you see now is the body of my spirit; I have created man after the body of my spirit; and just as I appear to you in the spirit, I will appear to my people in the flesh."[26] The key points confirmed by this scripture, which directly relate to our current topic, are that Christ revealed Himself while still in His pre-mortal state and declared that He was chosen from the foundation of the world as the Redeemer.
Revelation given through the prophets of God in the present dispensation is replete with evidence of Christ's appointment and ordination in the primeval world; and the whole tenor of the scriptures contained in the Doctrine and Covenants may be called in witness. The following instances are particularly in point. In a communication to Joseph Smith the prophet, in May, 1833, the Lord declared Himself as the One who had previously come into the world from the Father, and of whom John had borne testimony as the Word; and the solemn truth is reiterated that He, Jesus Christ, "was in the beginning, before the world was", and further, that He was the Redeemer who "came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men." Again, He is referred to as "the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh." In the course of the same revelation the Lord said: "And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with[Pg 14] the Father and am the firstborn."[27] On an earlier occasion, as the modern prophet testifies, he and an associate in the priesthood were enlightened by the Spirit so that they were able to see and understand the things of God—"Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning, of whom we bear record, and the record which we bear is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, whom we saw and with whom we conversed in the heavenly vision."[28]
Revelation given through God's prophets in this time is full of evidence of Christ's appointment and ordination in the ancient world; the entire message of the scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants can confirm this. The following examples are particularly relevant. In a message to the prophet Joseph Smith in May 1833, the Lord identified Himself as the One who had previously come into the world from the Father, whom John had testified about as the Word; and the solemn truth is repeated that He, Jesus Christ, "was in the beginning, before the world was," and additionally, that He was the Redeemer who "came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men." Again, He is called "the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh." In the same revelation, the Lord said: "And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with[Pg 14] the Father and am the firstborn."[27] On an earlier occasion, as the modern prophet testified, he and a fellow priesthood holder were enlightened by the Spirit so that they could see and understand the things of God—"Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning, of whom we bear record, and the record which we bear is the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, whom we saw and with whom we conversed in the heavenly vision."[28]
The testimony of scriptures written on both hemispheres, that of records both ancient and modern, the inspired utterances of prophets and apostles, and the words of the Lord Himself, are of one voice in proclaiming the preexistence of the Christ and His ordination as the chosen Savior and Redeemer of mankind—in the beginning, yea, even before the foundation of the world.
The testimony of scriptures from both sides of the world, including both ancient and modern records, the inspired words of prophets and apostles, and the words of the Lord Himself, all agree in declaring the preexistence of Christ and His appointment as the chosen Savior and Redeemer of humanity—from the very beginning, even before the foundation of the world.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2.
1. Graded Intelligences in the Antemortal State.—That the spirits of men existed as individual intelligences, of varying degrees of ability and power, prior to the inauguration of the mortal state upon this earth and even prior to the creation of the world as a suitable abode for human beings, is shown in great plainness through a divine revelation to Abraham: "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; and God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born." (P. of G.P., Abraham 3:22, 23.)
1. Graded Intelligences in the Antemortal State.—The spirits of humans existed as individual intelligences, with different levels of ability and power, before the start of mortal life on this earth and even before the creation of the world as a home for people. This is clearly illustrated through a divine revelation to Abraham: "Now the Lord had shown me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many noble and great ones; and God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the middle of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said to me: Abraham, you are one of them; you were chosen before you were born." (P. of G.P., Abraham 3:22, 23.)
That both Christ and Satan were among those exalted intelligences, and that Christ was chosen while Satan was rejected as the future Savior of mankind, are shown by the portions of the revelation immediately following that above quoted: "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an[Pg 15] earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; and they who keep their first estate shall be added upon, and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads forever and ever. And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first. And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him" (verses 24-28).
That both Christ and Satan were among those elevated beings, and that Christ was chosen while Satan was rejected as the future Savior of humanity, is shown by the parts of the revelation immediately following what was just quoted: "And there stood one among them who was like God, and he said to those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an[Pg 15] earth where they may dwell; and we will test them here to see if they will do all the things that the Lord their God commands them; and those who keep their first estate shall be given more, and those who do not keep their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom as those who do keep their first estate; and those who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads forever and ever. And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first. And the second was angry, and did not keep his first estate; and, on that day, many followed him" (verses 24-28).
2. The Primeval Council in the Heavens.—"It is definitely stated in the Book of Genesis that God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;' and again, after Adam had taken of the forbidden fruit the Lord said, 'Behold, the man has become as one of us;' and the inference is direct that in all that related to the work of the creation of the world there was a consultation; and though God spake as it is recorded in the Bible, yet it is evident He counseled with others. The scriptures tell us there are 'Gods many and Lords many. But to us there is but one God, the Father' (1 Cor. 8:5). And for this reason, though there were others engaged in the creation of the worlds, it is given to us in the Bible in the shape that it is; for the fulness of these truths is only revealed to highly favored persons for certain reasons known to God; as we are told in the scriptures: 'The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will show them his covenant.'—Psalms 25:14.
2. The Primeval Council in the Heavens.—"In the Book of Genesis, it's clearly stated that God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' Later, after Adam ate the forbidden fruit, the Lord said, 'Look, the man has become like one of us.' This directly implies that there was a consultation regarding the creation of the world; even though God spoke as recorded in the Bible, it's clear He consulted with others. The scriptures tell us there are 'many gods and many lords. But for us, there is only one God, the Father' (1 Cor. 8:5). Therefore, even though others participated in creating the worlds, the biblical account is presented as it is; the fullness of these truths is only revealed to those favored for specific reasons known to God. As stated in the scriptures: 'The secret of the Lord is with those who fear him; and he will show them his covenant.'—Psalms 25:14.
"It is consistent to believe that at this Council in the heavens the plan that should be adopted in relation to the sons of God who were then spirits, and had not yet obtained tabernacles, was duly considered. For, in view of the creation of the world and the placing of men upon it, whereby it would be possible for them to obtain tabernacles, and in those tabernacles obey laws of life, and with them again be exalted among the Gods, we are told that at that time, 'the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.' The question then arose, how, and upon what principle, should the salvation, exaltation and eternal glory of God's sons be brought about? It is evident that at that Council certain plans had been proposed and discussed, and that after a full discussion of those principles, and the declaration of the Father's will pertaining to His design, Lucifer came before the Father with a plan of his own, saying, 'Behold [here am] I; send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore, give me thine honor.' But Jesus, on hearing this statement made by Lucifer, said, 'Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.' From these remarks made by the well beloved Son, we should naturally infer that in the discussion of this subject the Father had made known His will and developed His plan and design pertaining to these matters, and all that His well beloved Son wanted to do was to carry out the will of His Father, as it would appear had been before expressed. He also wished the[Pg 16] glory to be given to His Father, who, as God the Father, and the originator and designer of the plan, had a right to all the honor and glory. But Lucifer wanted to introduce a plan contrary to the will of his Father, and then wanted His honor, and said: 'I will save every soul of man, wherefore give me thine honor.' He wanted to go contrary to the will of his Father, and presumptuously sought to deprive man of his free agency, thus making him a serf, and placing him in a position in which it was impossible for him to obtain that exaltation which God designed should be man's, through obedience to the law which He had suggested; and again, Lucifer wanted the honor and power of his Father, to enable him to carry out principles which were contrary to the Father's wish."—John Taylor—Mediation and Atonement, pp. 93, 94.
"It makes sense to believe that at this heavenly Council, the plan regarding the sons of God, who were then spirits and had not yet received bodies, was thoroughly discussed. Given the creation of the world and the placement of people on it, allowing them to receive bodies, obey the laws of life, and eventually be exalted among the Gods, it is said that at that time, 'the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.' The question then arose: how and on what basis should the salvation, exaltation, and eternal glory of God's sons be achieved? It's clear that during that Council, certain plans were proposed and debated, and after a comprehensive discussion of those principles, and with the Father’s will concerning His design being declared, Lucifer presented his own plan, saying, 'Here I am; send me, I will be your son, and I will redeem all of mankind, so that not one soul will be lost, and I will surely do it; therefore, give me your honor.' However, Jesus, upon hearing this from Lucifer, replied, 'Father, your will be done, and the glory be yours forever.' From these words spoken by the beloved Son, we can reasonably conclude that in discussing this matter, the Father revealed His will and outlined His plan and design. All that His beloved Son wanted to do was to fulfill His Father’s will, as had been expressed. He also desired the glory to be given to His Father, who, as God the Father, the originator and designer of the plan, deserved all honor and glory. But Lucifer wanted to propose a plan against his Father's will, seeking His honor by saying: 'I will save every soul of man; therefore, give me your honor.' He intended to act contrary to his Father’s will and arrogantly tried to take away man’s free agency, effectively making him a servant and preventing him from achieving the exaltation that God intended for him through obedience to the laws He established; additionally, Lucifer sought the honor and power of his Father to implement principles that opposed the Father’s desires."—John Taylor—Mediation and Atonement, pp. 93, 94.
3. The Jaredites.—"Of the two nations whose histories constitute the Book of Mormon, the first in order of time consisted of the people of Jared, who followed their leader from the Tower of Babel at the time of the confusion of tongues. Their history was written on twenty-four plates of gold by Ether, the last of their prophets, who, foreseeing the destruction of his people because of their wickedness, hid away the historical plates. They were afterward found, B.C. 123, by an expedition sent out by King Limhi, a Nephite ruler. The record engraved on these plates was subsequently abridged by Moroni, and the condensed account was attached by him to the Book of Mormon record; it appears in the modern translation under the name of the Book of Ether.
3. The Jaredites.—"The first of the two nations whose histories make up the Book of Mormon is the group led by Jared, who left the Tower of Babel during the time of the language confusion. Their story was recorded on twenty-four gold plates by Ether, the last of their prophets, who, foreseeing the destruction of his people due to their wickedness, hid the historical plates. They were later discovered in 123 B.C. by a team sent out by King Limhi, a Nephite leader. Moroni later summarized the record on these plates, and his abridged version was included in the Book of Mormon; it is found in the current translation as the Book of Ether."
"The first and chief prophet of the Jaredites is not mentioned by name in the record as we have it; he is known only as the brother of Jared. Of the people, we learn that, amid the confusion of Babel, Jared and his brother importuned the Lord that He would spare them and their associates from the impending disruption. Their prayer was heard, and the Lord led them with a considerable company, who, like themselves, were free from the taint of idolatry, away from their homes, promising to conduct them to a land choice above all other lands. Their course of travel is not given with exactness; we learn only that they reached the ocean, and there constructed eight vessels, called barges, in which they set out upon the waters. These vessels were small and dark within; but the Lord made luminous certain stones, which gave light to the imprisoned voyagers. After a passage of three hundred and forty-four days, the colony landed on the western shore of North America, probably at a place south of the Gulf of California, and north of the Isthmus of Panama.
The first and main prophet of the Jaredites isn't named in the account we have; he's known only as the brother of Jared. We learn that during the chaos of Babel, Jared and his brother pleaded with the Lord to spare them and their group from the coming disruption. Their prayer was answered, and the Lord guided them along with a significant company, who, like them, were free from the influence of idolatry, away from their homes, promising to lead them to a land superior to all others. The details of their travel are not precise; we only know that they reached the ocean, where they built eight vessels, called barges, to set out on the waters. These vessels were small and dark inside, but the Lord made certain stones shine, providing light to the voyagers inside. After three hundred and forty-four days at sea, the colony landed on the western shore of North America, likely in a spot south of the Gulf of California and north of the Isthmus of Panama.
"Here they became a flourishing nation; but, giving way in time to internal dissensions, they divided into factions, which warred with one another until the people were totally destroyed. This destruction, which occurred near the hill Ramah, afterward known among the Nephites as Cumorah, probably took place at about the time of Lehi's landing in South America—590 B.C."—The author, Articles of Faith, xiv:10-12.[Pg 17]
"Here they became a successful nation; however, over time, internal conflicts led to divisions into factions that fought against each other until the people were completely wiped out. This destruction, which happened near the hill Ramah—later known to the Nephites as Cumorah—likely occurred around the time of Lehi's arrival in South America, around 590 B.C."—The author, Articles of Faith, xiv:10-12.[Pg 17]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[6] Jude 6.
[7] P. of G.P., Abraham 3:26.
[8] Rev. 12:9.
Rev. 12:9.
[13] Job 38:7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Job 38:7.
[15] Psalm 25:14; Amos 3:7.
[19] 2 Tim. 1:9, 10; Rom. 16:25; Eph. 1:4; 3:9, 11; Titus 1:2. See especially Rom. 3:25; and note the marginal rendering—"foreordained"—making the passage read: "Whom God hath foreordained to be a propitiation."
[19] 2 Tim. 1:9, 10; Rom. 16:25; Eph. 1:4; 3:9, 11; Titus 1:2. See especially Rom. 3:25; and note the marginal rendering—"foreordained"—making the passage read: "Whom God has foreordained to be a propitiation."
[20] 1 Peter 1:19, 20.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Peter 1:19, 20.
[26] B. of M., Ether 3:11-16. See also 1 Nephi 17:30; 19:7; 2 Nephi 9:5; 11:7; 25:12; 26:12; Mosiah 3:5; 4:2; 7:27; 13:34; 15:1; Alma 11:40; Hela. 14:12; 3 Nephi 9:15.
[26] B. of M., Ether 3:11-16. See also 1 Nephi 17:30; 19:7; 2 Nephi 9:5; 11:7; 25:12; 26:12; Mosiah 3:5; 4:2; 7:27; 13:34; 15:1; Alma 11:40; Hela. 14:12; 3 Nephi 9:15.
[27] Doc. and Cov. 93:1-17, 21.
[28] Doc. and Cov. 76:13, 14.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Doc. and Cov. 76:13, 14.
CHAPTER 3.
THE NEED OF A REDEEMER.
We have heretofore shown that the entire human race existed as spirit-beings in the primeval world, and that for the purpose of making possible to them the experiences of mortality this earth was created. They were endowed with the powers of agency or choice while yet but spirits; and the divine plan provided that they be free-born in the flesh, heirs to the inalienable birthright of liberty to choose and to act for themselves in mortality. It is undeniably essential to the eternal progression of God's children that they be subjected to the influences of both good and evil, that they be tried and tested and proved withal, "to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them."[29] Free agency is an indispensable element of such a test.
We have previously shown that all of humanity existed as spirit beings in the ancient world, and that this earth was created so they could have the experiences of being mortal. They were given the ability to choose while still being spirits; and the divine plan ensured that they would be born free in the flesh, inheriting the undeniable right to choose and act for themselves during their lives. It's absolutely essential to the eternal growth of God's children that they experience both good and evil, that they be tested and tried, "to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them."[29] Free will is a crucial part of such a test.
The Eternal Father well understood the diverse natures and varied capacities of His spirit-offspring; and His infinite foreknowledge made plain to Him, even in the beginning, that in the school of life some of His children would succeed and others would fail; some would be faithful, others false; some would choose the good, others the evil; some would seek the way of life while others would elect to follow the road to destruction. He further foresaw that death would enter the world, and that the possession of bodies by His children would be of but brief individual duration. He saw that His commandments would be disobeyed and His law violated; and that men, shut out from His presence and left to themselves, would sink rather than rise, would retrograde rather than advance, and would be lost to the heavens. It[Pg 18] was necessary that a means of redemption be provided, whereby erring man might make amends, and by compliance with established law achieve salvation and eventual exaltation in the eternal worlds. The power of death was to be overcome, so that, though men would of necessity die, they would live anew, their spirits clothed with immortalized bodies over which death could not again prevail.
The Eternal Father fully understood the different natures and abilities of His spirit children; and His endless foresight made it clear to Him, even from the start, that in life's journey some of His children would thrive while others would struggle; some would be loyal, while others would betray; some would choose good, while others would choose evil; some would seek the path of life while others would opt for the way to destruction. He also predicted that death would come into the world, and that His children would only have their physical bodies for a short time. He saw that His commandments would be ignored and His laws would be broken; and that people, separated from His presence and left to their own devices, would fall instead of rise, would regress instead of progress, and would be lost to the heavens. It[Pg 18] was essential to provide a way of redemption, so that flawed humans could make amends, and by following established laws, attain salvation and eventual exaltation in the eternal realms. The power of death had to be defeated, so that, although people would inevitably die, they would live again, their spirits united with immortalized bodies that death could never overpower again.
Let not ignorance and thoughtlessness lead us into the error of assuming that the Father's foreknowledge as to what would be, under given conditions, determined that such must be. It was not His design that the souls of mankind be lost; on the contrary it was and is His work and glory, "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."[30] Nevertheless He saw the evil into which His children would assuredly fall; and with infinite love and mercy did He ordain means of averting the dire effect, provided the transgressor would elect to avail himself thereof.[31] The offer of the firstborn Son to establish through His own ministry among men the gospel of salvation, and to sacrifice Himself, through labor, humiliation and suffering even unto death, was accepted and made the foreordained plan of man's redemption from death, of his eventual salvation from the effects of sin, and of his possible exaltation through righteous achievement.
Don't let ignorance and thoughtlessness lead us to the mistake of assuming that the Father's foreknowledge of what *would be* under certain conditions meant that it *had to be*. It wasn't His intention for humanity to be lost; instead, His work and glory is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."[30] However, He recognized the evil that His children would undoubtedly fall into, and with infinite love and mercy, He provided ways to prevent the terrible consequences, as long as the transgressor chose to take advantage of them.[31] The offer of the firstborn Son to establish the gospel of salvation through His ministry among humans, and to sacrifice Himself through work, humiliation, and suffering even unto death, was accepted and became the preordained plan for humanity's redemption from death, their eventual salvation from the effects of sin, and their potential exaltation through righteous achievement.
In accordance with the plan adopted in the council of the Gods, man was created as an embodied spirit; his tabernacle of flesh was composed of the elements of earth.[32] He was given commandment and law, and was free to obey or disobey—with the just and inevitable condition that he should enjoy or suffer the natural results of his choice.[33] Adam, the first man[34] placed upon the earth in pursuance of the[Pg 19] established plan, and Eve who was given unto him as companion and associate, indispensable to him in the appointed mission of peopling the earth, disobeyed the express commandment of God and so brought about the "fall of man", whereby the mortal state, of which death is an essential element, was inaugurated.[35] It is not proposed to consider here at length the doctrine of the fall; for the present argument it is sufficient to establish the fact of the momentous occurrence and its portentous consequences.[36] The woman was deceived, and in direct violation of counsel and commandment partook of the food that had been forbidden, as a result of which act her body became degenerate and subject to death. Adam realized the disparity that had been brought between him and his companion, and with some measure of understanding followed her course, thus becoming her partner in bodily degeneracy. Note in this matter the words of Paul the apostle: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."[37]
According to the plan established by the council of the Gods, man was created as a physical spirit; his body was made from the elements of the earth.[32] He was given commandments and laws, and he had the freedom to obey or disobey—with the just and inevitable condition that he would experience the natural consequences of his choices.[33] Adam, the first man[34] placed on earth according to the[Pg 19] established plan, and Eve, who was given to him as a companion and partner, essential for the mission of populating the earth, disobeyed the clear commandment of God, leading to the "fall of man," which initiated the mortal state characterized by death.[35] We won't dive deep into the doctrine of the fall here; for our current discussion, it’s enough to recognize the significance of this event and its serious consequences.[36] The woman was misled and, in direct defiance of guidance and commandment, ate the forbidden food, which caused her body to deteriorate and be subject to death. Adam understood the separation that occurred between him and his partner, and with some understanding, he followed her lead, thus becoming her partner in physical decay. Note what Paul the apostle said: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."[37]
The man and the woman had now become mortal; through indulgence in food unsuited to their nature and condition and against which they had been specifically warned, and as the inevitable result of their disobeying the divine law and commandment, they became liable to the physical ailments and bodily frailties to which mankind has since been the natural heir.[38] Those bodies, which before the fall had been perfect in form and function, were now subjects for eventual dissolution or death. The arch-tempter through whose sophistries, half-truths and infamous falsehoods, Eve had been beguiled, was none other than Satan, or Lucifer, that rebellious and fallen "son of the morning", whose proposal involving the destruction of man's liberty had been rejected in the council of the heavens, and who had been "cast out into the earth", he and all his angels as unbodied[Pg 20] spirits, never to be tabernacled in bodies of their own.[39] As an act of diabolic reprisal following his rejection in the council, his defeat by Michael and the heavenly hosts, and his ignominious expulsion from heaven, Satan planned to destroy the bodies in which the faithful spirits—those who had kept their first estate—would be born; and his beguilement of Eve was but an early stage of that infernal scheme.
The man and the woman had now become mortal; due to their indulgence in food that was not right for them and against which they had been specifically warned. As a direct result of disobeying divine laws and commandments, they became susceptible to the physical ailments and weaknesses that all humanity has since inherited. Those bodies, which had been perfect in form and function before the fall, were now destined for eventual decay or death. The main tempter, whose deceptive arguments, half-truths, and notorious lies led Eve astray, was none other than Satan, or Lucifer, that rebellious and fallen "son of the morning," whose proposal to take away man's freedom had been rejected in the heavenly council. He and all his angels, as disembodied spirits, were "cast out into the earth," never to possess bodies of their own again. As an act of revenge for his rejection in the council, his defeat by Michael and the heavenly hosts, and his disgraceful expulsion from heaven, Satan planned to ruin the bodies in which the faithful spirits—those who had maintained their original state—would be born; and his deception of Eve was just an early part of that wicked plan.
Death has come to be the universal heritage; it may claim its victim in infancy or youth, in the period of life's prime, or its summons may be deferred until the snows of age have gathered upon the hoary head; it may befall as the result of accident or disease, by violence, or as we say, through natural causes; but come it must, as Satan well knows; and in this knowledge is his present though but temporary triumph. But the purposes of God, as they ever have been and ever shall be, are infinitely superior to the deepest designs of men or devils; and the Satanic machinations to make death inevitable, perpetual and supreme were provided against even before the first man had been created in the flesh. The atonement to be wrought by Jesus the Christ was ordained to overcome death and to provide a means of ransom from the power of Satan.
Death has become a universal part of life; it can take us in infancy or youth, during our prime, or it may wait until we’re old and gray. It can happen from accidents or illnesses, through violence, or as we say, of natural causes; but it will come, as Satan knows all too well, and in that awareness lies his current, albeit temporary, victory. However, God’s purposes, as they always have been and always will be, are far greater than the deepest schemes of humans or demons. The devil’s attempts to make death unavoidable, endless, and supreme were thwarted even before the first human was created. The sacrifice made by Jesus Christ was meant to conquer death and provide a way to escape the power of Satan.
As the penalty incident to the fall came upon the race through an individual act, it would be manifestly unjust, and therefore impossible as part of the divine purpose, to make all men suffer the results thereof without provision for deliverance.[40] Moreover, since by the transgression of one man sin came into the world and death was entailed upon all, it is consistent with reason that the atonement thus made necessary should be wrought by one.[41] "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ... Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all[Pg 21] men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."[42] So taught the apostle Paul; and, further: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."[43]
As the penalty from the fall affected the race through an individual action, it would be clearly unjust, and therefore impossible as part of the divine plan, to make everyone endure the consequences without providing a way out.[40] Furthermore, since sin entered the world through one man's wrongdoing and death came to all because of it, it makes sense that the necessary atonement should be achieved by one person.[41] "Therefore, just as by one man sin entered the world, and death came through sin; and so death spread to all people, because all sinned ... Thus, just as through the offense of one judgment came upon all people to condemnation; so through the righteousness of one, the free gift came to all people for justification of life."[42] This is what the Apostle Paul taught; and, additionally: "For since death came through one man, it is also through one man that the resurrection of the dead has come. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."[43]
The atonement was plainly to be a vicarious sacrifice, voluntary and love-inspired on the Savior's part, universal in its application to mankind so far as men shall accept the means of deliverance thus placed within their reach. For such a mission only one who was without sin could be eligible. Even the altar victims of ancient Israel offered as a provisional propitiation for the offenses of the people under the Mosaic law had to be clean and devoid of spot or blemish; otherwise they were unacceptable and the attempt to offer them was sacrilege.[44] Jesus Christ was the only Being suited to the requirements of the great sacrifice:
The atonement was clearly meant to be a sacrifice made vicariously, voluntary, and inspired by love on the Savior's part, universally applicable to humanity as long as people accept the means of deliverance that have been provided. For such a mission, only someone without sin could qualify. Even the sacrificial animals of ancient Israel, offered as a temporary means to atone for the people's wrongs under the Mosaic law, had to be clean and without defect; otherwise, they were unacceptable and trying to offer them was a sacrilege.[44] Jesus Christ was the only Being who met the requirements of this great sacrifice:
1—As the one and only sinless Man;
As the only perfect person;
2—As the Only Begotten of the Father and therefore the only Being born to earth possessing in their fulness the attributes of both Godhood and manhood;
2—As the Only Begotten of the Father and thus the only Being born on earth who fully embodies the characteristics of both divinity and humanity;
3—As the One who had been chosen in the heavens and foreordained to this service.
3—As the one who had been chosen in the heavens and appointed for this role.
What other man has been without sin, and therefore wholly exempt from the dominion of Satan, and to whom death, the wage of sin, is not naturally due? Had Jesus Christ met death as other men have done—the result of the power that Satan has gained over them through their sins—His death would have been but an individual experience, expiatory in no degree of any faults or offenses but His own. Christ's absolute sinlessness made Him eligible, His humility and willingness rendered Him acceptable to the Father, as[Pg 22] the atoning sacrifice whereby propitiation could be made for the sins of all men.
What other person has lived without sin and is therefore completely free from the control of Satan, to whom death, the consequence of sin, is not naturally owed? If Jesus Christ had faced death like everyone else—due to the power Satan has gained over people through their sins—His death would only have been a personal event, offering no atonement for any faults or offenses beyond His own. Christ's total sinlessness qualified Him, while His humility and willingness made Him pleasing to the Father, as[Pg 22] the sacrificial offering that could make amends for the sins of all humanity.
What other man has lived with power to withstand death, over whom death could not prevail except through his own submission? Yet Jesus Christ could not be slain until His "hour had come", and that, the hour in which He voluntarily surrendered His life, and permitted His own decease through an act of will. Born of a mortal mother He inherited the capacity to die; begotten by an immortal Sire He possessed as a heritage the power to withstand death indefinitely. He literally gave up His life; to this effect is His own affirmation: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."[45] And further: "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself."[46] Only such a One could conquer death; in none but Jesus the Christ was realized this requisite condition of a Redeemer of the world.
What other man has had the power to resist death, over whom death could not win except through his own choice? Yet Jesus Christ could not be killed until His "hour had come," and that was the time when He voluntarily gave up His life and allowed His own death through an act of will. Born of a mortal mother, He inherited the ability to die; begotten by an immortal Father, He possessed the heritage of the power to resist death indefinitely. He literally gave up His life; to this effect is His own statement: "Therefore my Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it again."[45] And further: "For as the Father has life in himself; so has He given to the Son to have life in himself."[46] Only such a person could conquer death; in none but Jesus the Christ was this essential condition of a Redeemer of the world fulfilled.
What other man has come to earth with such appointment, clothed with the authority of such foreordination? The atoning mission of Jesus Christ was no self-assumption. True, He had offered Himself when the call was made in the heavens; true, He had been accepted, and in due time came to earth to carry into effect the terms of that acceptance; but He was chosen by One greater than Himself. The burden of His confession of authority was ever to the effect that He operated under the direction of the Father, as witness these words: "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."[47] "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."[48] "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my[Pg 23] judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent me."[49]
What other man has come to earth with such a purpose, given the authority of such a divine plan? The atoning mission of Jesus Christ was not something He claimed for Himself. Yes, He had offered Himself when the call was made in the heavens; yes, He had been accepted, and eventually came to earth to fulfill the terms of that acceptance; but He was chosen by Someone greater than Himself. The weight of His declaration of authority consistently emphasized that He acted under the guidance of the Father, as evidenced by these words: "I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me."[47] "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me, and to finish His work."[48] "I can do nothing by myself: I judge only as I hear, and my[Pg 23] judgment is fair; because I seek not my own will but the will of the Father who sent me."[49]
Through the atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ—a redeeming service, vicariously rendered in behalf of mankind, all of whom have become estranged from God by the effects of sin both inherited and individually incurred—the way is opened for a reconciliation whereby man may come again into communion with God, and be made fit to dwell anew and forever in the presence of his Eternal Father. This basal thought is admirably implied in our English word, "atonement," which, as its syllables attest, is at-one-ment, "denoting reconciliation, or the bringing into agreement of those who have been estranged."[50] The effect of the atonement may be conveniently considered as twofold:
Through the atonement achieved by Jesus Christ—an act of redemption performed on behalf of humanity, all of whom have become distanced from God due to the consequences of sin, both inherited and personally committed—the path is opened for reconciliation that allows people to reconnect with God and be made worthy to dwell once more in the presence of their Eternal Father. This fundamental idea is skillfully captured in our English word, "atonement," which, as its syllables indicate, is at-one-ment, "signifying reconciliation or the bringing together of those who have been separated."[50] The impact of the atonement can be conveniently seen in two main aspects:
1—The universal redemption of the human race from death invoked by the fall of our first parents; and,
1—The universal salvation of humanity from death brought about by the fall of our first parents; and,
2—Salvation, whereby means of relief from the results of individual sin are provided.
2—Salvation, which provides a way to relieve the consequences of individual sin.
The victory over death was made manifest in the resurrection of the crucified Christ; He was the first to pass from death to immortality and so is justly known as "the first fruits of them that slept."[51] That the resurrection of the dead so inaugurated is to be extended to every one who has or shall have lived is proved by an abundance of scriptural evidence. Following our Lord's resurrection, others who had slept in the tomb arose and were seen of many, not as spirit-apparitions but as resurrected beings possessing immortalized bodies: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."[52]
The victory over death was shown in the resurrection of the crucified Christ; He was the first to move from death to everlasting life and is rightly called "the first fruits of those who have died."[51] The resurrection of the dead that began then will be extended to everyone who has lived or will live, as supported by numerous scriptural references. After our Lord's resurrection, others who had died also rose and were seen by many, not as ghostly apparitions but as resurrected beings with immortal bodies: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."[52]
Those who thus early came forth are spoken of as "the[Pg 24] saints"; and other scriptures confirm the fact that only the righteous shall be brought forth in the earlier stages of the resurrection yet to be consummated; but that all the dead shall in turn resume bodies of flesh and bones is placed beyond doubt by the revealed word. The Savior's direct affirmation ought to be conclusive: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.... Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."[53] The doctrine of a universal resurrection was taught by the apostles of old,[54] as also by the Nephite prophets;[55] and the same is confirmed by revelation incident to the present dispensation.[56] Even the heathen who have not known God shall be brought forth from their graves; and, inasmuch as they have lived and died in ignorance of the saving law, a means of making the plan of salvation known unto them is provided. "And then shall the heathen nations be redeemed, and they that knew no law shall have part in the first resurrection."[57]
Those who came forward early are referred to as "the[Pg 24] saints"; and other scriptures support the idea that only the righteous will be resurrected first in the eventual resurrection to come; however, it is clearly stated that all the dead will eventually receive bodies of flesh and bones. The Savior's direct statement should be conclusive: "Truly, truly, I tell you, the time is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.... Don't be amazed at this: for the time is coming when all who are in the graves will hear his voice and will come out; those who have done good will go to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil will go to the resurrection of damnation." The belief in a universal resurrection was taught by the early apostles,[54] as well as by the Nephite prophets;[55] and it is confirmed by revelations related to the current dispensation.[56] Even those who have not known God will be brought forth from their graves; since they lived and died without knowledge of the saving law, there is a way for them to understand the plan of salvation. "And then the heathen nations will be redeemed, and those who knew no law will take part in the first resurrection."[57]
Jacob, a Nephite prophet, taught the universality of the resurrection, and set forth the absolute need of a Redeemer, without whom the purposes of God in the creation of man would be rendered futile. His words constitute a concise and forceful summary of revealed truth directly bearing upon our present subject:
Jacob, a Nephite prophet, taught that everyone will be resurrected and emphasized the essential role of a Redeemer. Without this Redeemer, God’s intentions in creating humanity would be pointless. His words provide a clear and impactful summary of revealed truth that directly relates to our current topic:
"For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a[Pg 25] power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord; wherefore it must needs be an infinite atonement; save it should be an infinite atonement, this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man, must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more. O the wisdom of God! his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more, our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more. And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents; who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder, and all manner of secret works of darkness. O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. And because of the way of deliverance of our God, the Holy One of Israel, this death, of which I have spoken, which is the temporal, shall deliver up its dead; which death is the grave. And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. O how great the plan of our God! For on the other hand, the paradise of God must deliver up the spirits of the righteous, and the grave deliver up the body of the righteous; and the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal, and they are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like unto us in the flesh; save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect."[58]
"Since death has come to everyone to fulfill the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must be a[Pg 25] power of resurrection, and this resurrection must come to humanity because of the fall; and the fall happened due to transgression; and because humanity fell, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord; therefore, there must be an infinite atonement; without such an infinite atonement, this corruption could not become incorruption. Thus, the first judgment that came upon humanity would have lasted forever. If that were the case, this flesh would have decayed and returned to dust, never to rise again. Oh, the wisdom of God! His mercy and grace! For look, if the flesh could rise no more, our spirits would be subject to the angel who fell from the presence of the eternal God, becoming the devil, never to rise again. Our spirits would have been like him, and we would become devils, angels to a devil, shut out from the presence of our God, condemned to dwell with the father of lies, in misery, just like him; yes, to that being who deceived our first parents; who transforms himself almost into an angel of light, and incites humans to secret plots of murder, and all kinds of hidden acts of darkness. Oh, how great is the goodness of our God, who prepares a way for our escape from the grip of this terrible monster; yes, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. And because of our God’s way of deliverance, the Holy One of Israel, this death I have mentioned, which is temporal, will deliver up its dead; and this death I have talked about, which is spiritual death, will deliver up its dead; this spiritual death is hell; therefore, death and hell must give up their dead, hell must release its captive spirits, and the grave must release its captive bodies, and the bodies and spirits of humanity will be reunited; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. Oh, how great is the plan of our God! Because on the other hand, the paradise of God must release the spirits of the righteous, and the grave must deliver the bodies of the righteous; and the spirit and the body will be restored to each other, and all humanity will become incorruptible, and immortal, living souls, possessing perfect knowledge like us in the flesh; except our knowledge will be perfect."
The application of the atonement to individual transgression, whereby the sinner may obtain absolution through compliance with the laws and ordinances embodied in the gospel of Jesus Christ, is conclusively attested by scripture. Since forgiveness of sins can be secured in none other way, there being either in heaven or earth no name save that of Jesus Christ whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men,[59] every soul stands in need of the Savior's mediation, since all are sinners. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God", said Paul of old,[60] and John the apostle added his testimony in these words: "If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."[61]
The application of atonement to personal wrongdoing, through which a sinner can receive forgiveness by following the laws and principles found in the gospel of Jesus Christ, is clearly supported by scripture. Since forgiveness of sins can only be achieved in this way—because there is no other name in heaven or on earth except that of Jesus Christ through which salvation comes to humanity,[59] every person needs the Savior's mediation, as we are all sinners. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Paul said long ago,[60] and John the apostle reinforced this by stating, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."[61]
Who shall question the justice of God, which denies salvation to all who will not comply with the prescribed conditions on which alone it is declared obtainable? Christ is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him",[62] and God "will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil."[63]
Who can question the justice of God, which denies salvation to anyone who won't follow the stated conditions under which it can be obtained? Christ is "the author of eternal salvation for everyone who obeys him",[62] and God "will reward each person according to their actions: those who, through patient perseverance in doing good, seek glory, honor, and immortality will receive eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but instead obey wickedness, there will be wrath and anger, distress and suffering for every soul that does evil."[63]
Such then is the need of a Redeemer, for without Him mankind would forever remain in a fallen state, and as to hope of eternal progression would be inevitably lost.[64] The mortal probation is provided as an opportunity for advancement; but so great are the difficulties and the dangers, so strong is the influence of evil in the world, and so weak is man in resistance thereto, that without the aid of a power above that of humanity no soul would find its way back to[Pg 27] God from whom it came. The need of a Redeemer lies in the inability of man to raise himself from the temporal to the spiritual plane, from the lower kingdom to the higher. In this conception we are not without analogies in the natural world. We recognize a fundamental distinction between inanimate and living matter, between the inorganic and the organic, between the lifeless mineral on the one hand and the living plant or animal on the other. Within the limitations of its order the dead mineral grows by accretion of substance, and may attain a relatively perfect condition of structure and form as is seen in the crystal. But mineral matter, though acted upon favorably by the forces of nature—light, heat, electric energy and others—can never become a living organism; nor can the dead elements, through any process of chemical combination dissociated from life, enter into the tissues of the plant as essential parts thereof. But the plant, which is of a higher order, sends its rootlets into the earth, spreads its leaves in the atmosphere, and through these organs absorbs the solutions of the soil, inspires the gases of the air, and from such lifeless materials weaves the tissue of its wondrous structure. No mineral particle, no dead chemical substance has ever been made a constituent of organic tissue except through the agency of life. We may, perhaps with profit, carry the analogy a step farther. The plant is unable to advance its own tissue to the animal plane. Though it be the recognized order of nature that the "animal kingdom" is dependent upon the "vegetable kingdom" for its sustenance, the substance of the plant may become part of the animal organism only as the latter reaches down from its higher plane and by its own vital action incorporates the vegetable compounds with itself. In turn, animal matter can never become, even transitorily, part of a human body, except as the living man assimilates it, and by the vital processes of his own existence lifts, for the time being, the substance of the animal that supplied him[Pg 28] food to the higher plane of his own existence. The comparison herein employed is admittedly defective if carried beyond reasonable limits of application; for the raising of mineral matter to the plane of the plant, vegetable tissue to the level of the animal, and the elevation of either to the human plane, is but a temporary change; with the dissolution of the higher tissues the material thereof falls again to the level of the inanimate and the dead. But, as a means of illustration the analogy may not be wholly without value.
Such is the need for a Redeemer, for without Him, humanity would remain in a fallen state forever, and the hope for eternal progression would be lost. The mortal experience is given as a chance for advancement; however, the challenges and dangers are immense, the influence of evil is strong, and humans are weak in resisting it. Without the help of a power greater than humanity, no soul would find its way back to God, from whom it originated. The need for a Redeemer arises from humanity's inability to elevate itself from the temporal to the spiritual, from the lower kingdom to the higher. In this idea, we can see parallels in the natural world. We recognize the fundamental difference between non-living and living matter, between the inorganic and the organic, between lifeless minerals and living plants or animals. Within its own limitations, dead minerals can grow by accumulating substance and may reach a relatively perfect state, as seen in crystals. However, mineral matter, even when positively influenced by natural forces—like light, heat, electric energy, and others—can never become a living organism; nor can lifeless elements, through any chemical processes separate from life, become essential parts of plant tissues. But the plant, which exists on a higher plane, sends its roots into the earth, spreads its leaves into the air, and through these parts absorbs nutrients from the soil and gases from the atmosphere, creating its incredible structure from these lifeless materials. No mineral particle or dead chemical substance has ever become part of organic tissue without the presence of life. We might find it informative to extend this analogy further. A plant cannot elevate its own tissues to the level of animals. Although it is natural for the animal kingdom to depend on the vegetable kingdom for nourishment, plant matter becomes part of the animal only when the animal reaches down from its higher level and integrates the plant compounds through its own vital processes. Likewise, animal matter can never, even temporarily, become part of a human body unless the living person assimilates it. By the vital processes of life, a person temporarily elevates the substance of the animal that provided their food to a higher state of existence. This comparison has its limitations if pushed beyond reasonable bounds; the elevation of mineral matter to the plant level, plant tissues to the animal level, and either to the human level represents only temporary changes. When higher tissues break down, their material returns to the inanimate and dead state. However, this analogy may still hold some value as an illustration.
So, for the advancement of man from his present fallen and relatively degenerate state to the higher condition of spiritual life, a power above his own must cooperate. Through the operation of the laws obtaining in the higher kingdom man may be reached and lifted; himself he cannot save by his own unaided effort.[65] A Redeemer and Savior of mankind is beyond all question essential to the realization of the plan of the Eternal Father, "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man";[66] and that Redeemer and Savior is Jesus the Christ, beside whom there is and can be none other.
So, for people to move from their current lost and relatively low state to a higher level of spiritual life, a power greater than their own needs to help. By following the laws in the higher realm, people can be reached and uplifted; they can't save themselves through their own efforts alone.[65] A Redeemer and Savior for humanity is undoubtedly essential to fulfill the plan of the Eternal Father, "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man";[66] and that Redeemer and Savior is Jesus Christ, the only one who exists and can exist.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3.
1. God's Foreknowledge Not a Determining Cause.—"Respecting the foreknowledge of God, let it not be said that divine omniscience is of itself a determining cause whereby events are inevitably brought to pass. A mortal father, who knows the weaknesses and frailties of his son, may by reason of that knowledge sorrowfully predict the calamities and sufferings awaiting his wayward boy. He may foresee in that son's future a forfeiture of blessings that could have been won, loss of position, self-respect, reputation and honor; even the dark shadows of a felon's cell and the night of a drunkard's grave may appear in the saddening visions of that fond father's soul; yet, convinced by experience of the impossibility of bringing about that son's reform, he foresees the dread developments of the future, and he finds but sorrow and anguish in his knowledge. Can it be said that the father's foreknowledge is a cause of the son's sinful life?[Pg 29] The son, perchance, has reached his maturity; he is the master of his own destiny; a free agent unto himself. The father is powerless to control by force or to direct by arbitrary command; and, while he would gladly make any effort or sacrifice to save his son from the fate impending, he fears for what seems to be an awful certainty. But surely that thoughtful, prayerful, loving parent does not, because of his knowledge, contribute to the son's waywardness. To reason otherwise would be to say that a neglectful father, who takes not the trouble to study the nature and character of his son, who shuts his eyes to sinful tendencies, and rests in careless indifference as to the probable future, will by his very heartlessness be benefitting his child, because his lack of forethought cannot operate as a contributory cause to dereliction.
1. God's Foreknowledge Not a Determining Cause.—"Regarding God's foreknowledge, it shouldn't be assumed that divine omniscience itself is a decisive factor that leads to events happening inevitably. A human father, aware of his son's weaknesses and flaws, may sadly predict the troubles and pain awaiting his rebellious boy because of that knowledge. He can see his son’s future filled with missed opportunities, loss of status, self-worth, reputation, and dignity; disturbing images of prison or an early grave due to alcohol might haunt the loving father’s thoughts. Yet, knowing from experience that he can’t change his son, he anticipates these unsettling future events and is filled with sorrow over what he knows. Can we say that the father's awareness is the reason for the son's poor choices?[Pg 29] The son, perhaps, has come of age; he is in control of his own future; a free agent in his life. The father has no power to force him or to command him arbitrarily; and while he would willingly do anything to prevent his son from a tragic fate, he is anxious about what seems like a terrible certainty. But certainly, that caring, prayerful parent does not contribute to the son’s waywardness just because of his knowledge. To think otherwise would imply that a negligent father, who ignores his son's nature and character, who turns a blind eye to sinful behavior, and who remains indifferent to the likely future, would somehow be aiding his child because his lack of foresight cannot lead to wrongdoing.
"Our Heavenly Father has a full knowledge of the nature and disposition of each of His children, a knowledge gained by long observation and experience in the past eternity of our primeval childhood; a knowledge compared with which that gained by earthly parents through mortal experience with their children is infinitesimally small. By reason of that surpassing knowledge, God reads the future of child and children, of men individually and of men collectively as communities and nations; He knows what each will do under given conditions, and sees the end from the beginning. His foreknowledge is based on intelligence and reason. He foresees the future as a state which naturally and surely will be; not as one which must be because He has arbitrarily willed that it shall be."—From the author's Great Apostasy, pp. 19, 20.
"Our Heavenly Father has a complete understanding of the nature and disposition of each of His children, a knowledge developed through long observation and experience throughout the eternal past of our early existence; this knowledge far surpasses what earthly parents gain from their limited experiences with their children. Because of this immense understanding, God can foresee the futures of each child, as well as individuals and groups as communities and nations; He knows how each will act in specific situations and sees the end result from the beginning. His foreknowledge is grounded in intelligence and reason. He envisions the future as a reality that will naturally and inevitably occur, not as something that must happen because He has simply decided it will."—From the author's Great Apostasy, pp. 19, 20.
2. Man Free to Choose for Himself.—"The Father of souls has endowed His children with the divine birthright of free agency; He does not and will not control them by arbitrary force; He impels no man toward sin; He compels none to righteousness. Unto man has been given freedom to act for himself; and, associated with this independence, is the fact of strict responsibility and the assurance of individual accountability. In the judgment with which we shall be judged, all the conditions and circumstances of our lives shall be considered. The inborn tendencies due to heredity, the effect of environment whether conducive to good or evil, the wholesome teachings of youth, or the absence of good instruction—these and all other contributory elements must be taken into account in the rendering of a just verdict as to the soul's guilt or innocence. Nevertheless, the divine wisdom makes plain what will be the result with given conditions operating on known natures and dispositions of men, while every individual is free to choose good or evil within the limits of the many conditions existing and operative."—Great Apostasy, p. 21; see also Articles of Faith, iii:1, 2.
2. Man Free to Choose for Himself.—"The Father of souls has given His children the divine right of free will; He does not and will not control them by force; He does not push anyone toward sin; He does not force anyone to be righteous. People have the freedom to act for themselves; and with this independence comes the reality of strict responsibility and the promise of individual accountability. In the judgment we will face, all the conditions and circumstances of our lives will be considered. The natural tendencies inherited from our ancestors, the influence of our surroundings—whether they lead us toward good or evil, the positive teachings of our youth, or the lack of good guidance—these and all other factors must be taken into account when delivering a fair verdict regarding a soul's guilt or innocence. Nevertheless, divine wisdom clearly shows what the outcomes will be when specific conditions affect known human natures and tendencies, while each person remains free to choose between good and evil within the many existing and operating conditions."—Great Apostasy, p. 21; see also Articles of Faith, iii:1, 2.
3. The Fall a Process of Physical Degeneracy.—A modern revelation given to the Church in 1833 (Doc. and Cov. Sec. 89), prescribes rules for right living, particularly as regards the uses of stimulants, narcotics, and foods unsuited to the body. Concerning the physical causes by which the fall was brought about,[Pg 30] and the close relation between those causes and current violations of the Word of Wisdom embodied in the revelation referred to above, the following is in point. "This, [the Word of Wisdom] like other revelations that have come in the present dispensation, is not wholly new. It is as old as the human race. The principle of the Word of Wisdom was revealed unto Adam. All the essentials of the Word of Wisdom were made known unto him in his immortal state, before he had taken into his body those things that made of it a thing of earth. He was warned against that very practise. He was not told to treat his body as something to be tortured. He was not told to look upon it as the fakir of India has come to look upon his body, or professes to look upon it, as a thing to be utterly contemned; but he was told that he must not take into that body certain things which were there at hand. He was warned that, if he did, his body would lose the power which it then held of living for ever, and that he would become subject to death. It was pointed out to him, as it has been pointed out to you, that there are many good fruits to be plucked, to be eaten, to be enjoyed. We believe in enjoying good food. We think that these good things are given us of God. We believe in getting all the enjoyment out of eating that we can; and, therefore, we should avoid gluttony, and we should avoid extremes in all our habits of eating; and as was told unto Adam, so is it told unto us: Touch not these things; for in the day that thou doest it thy life shall be shortened and thou shalt die.
3. The Fall as a Process of Physical Decline.—A modern revelation given to the Church in 1833 (Doc. and Cov. Sec. 89) outlines guidelines for healthy living, particularly regarding the use of stimulants, narcotics, and foods that aren't good for the body. Regarding the physical reasons for the fall and the connection between those reasons and today's disregard for the Word of Wisdom mentioned in the revelation above, the following is relevant. "This, [the Word of Wisdom], like other revelations received in this current dispensation, isn't entirely new. It has been around as long as humanity. The principle of the Word of Wisdom was revealed to Adam. All the key aspects of the Word of Wisdom were shared with him in his immortal state, before he took in anything that made his body a mere earthly vessel. He was cautioned against that very practice. He was not instructed to treat his body cruelly. He wasn't told to view it like the fakir of India, who claims to see his body as something to be completely despised; instead, he was told he must not allow certain things into his body that were readily available. He was warned that if he did, his body would lose its ability to live forever and that he would become subject to death. It was shown to him, as it has been shown to you, that many good fruits are there to be gathered, eaten, and enjoyed. We believe in savoring good food. We see these good things as gifts from God. We believe in deriving as much pleasure as we can from eating; therefore, we should steer clear of gluttony and avoid extremes in our eating habits; and as was told to Adam, so it is told to us: Do not touch these things; for on the day you do, your life will be shortened, and you will die.
"Here let me say that therein consisted the fall—the eating of things unfit, the taking into the body of the things that made of that body a thing of earth: and I take this occasion to raise my voice against the false interpretation of scripture, which has been adopted by certain people, and is current in their minds, and is referred to in a hushed and half-secret way, that the fall of man consisted in some offense against the laws of chastity and of virtue. Such a doctrine is an abomination. What right have we to turn the scriptures from their proper sense and meaning? What right have we to declare that God meant not what He said? The fall was a natural process, resulting through the incorporation into the bodies of our first parents of the things that came from food unfit, through the violation of the command of God regarding what they should eat. Don't go around whispering that the fall consisted in the mother of the race losing her chastity and her virtue. It is not true; the human race is not born of fornication. These bodies that are given unto us are given in the way that God has provided. Let it not be said that the patriarch of the race, who stood with the gods before he came here upon the earth, and his equally royal consort, were guilty of any such foul offense. The adoption of that belief has led many to excuse departures from the path of chastity and the path of virtue, by saying that it is the sin of the race, that it is as old as Adam. It was not introduced by Adam. It was not committed by Eve. It was the introduction of the devil and came in order that he might sow the seeds of early death in the bodies of men and women, that the race should degenerate as it[Pg 31] has degenerated whenever the laws of virtue and of chastity have been transgressed.
"Let me be clear: the fall was about eating things that were harmful, the choice to take into our bodies what turned them into something earthly. I want to take this moment to speak out against the misguided interpretation of scripture that some people have adopted and quietly refer to, claiming that humanity's fall was due to some kind of wrongdoing related to chastity and virtue. That belief is disgusting. What right do we have to twist the scriptures from their true meaning? What right do we have to say that God didn't mean what He said? The fall was a natural consequence of our first parents incorporating unsuitable food into their bodies by breaking God's command about what they should eat. It's wrong to suggest that the fall was about the mother of humanity losing her chastity and virtue. That's simply not true; the human race is not born from sin. The bodies we've been given are granted to us as God intended. We should not claim that the patriarch of our race, who was with the gods before coming to earth, and his equally noble partner committed any such terrible act. Believing that has allowed many to justify straying from the paths of chastity and virtue by claiming it's a sin inherent to humanity, as old as Adam. This was not introduced by Adam. It was not Eve's fault. It was the devil's entry into the world, meant to plant seeds of early death in humans, leading to the degeneration of the race whenever the laws of virtue and chastity have been broken."
"Our first parents were pure and noble, and when we pass behind the veil we shall perhaps learn something of their high estate, more than we know now. But be it known that they were pure; they were noble. It is true that they disobeyed the law of God, in eating things they were told not to eat; but who amongst you can rise up and condemn?"—From an address by the author at the Eighty-fourth Semiannual Conference of the Church, Oct. 6, 1913; published in the Proceedings of the Conference, pp. 118, 119.
"Our first parents were pure and noble, and when we go beyond the veil, we might learn more about their elevated status than we know now. But it's important to recognize that they were pure and noble. It's true that they disobeyed God's command by eating what they were told not to eat; but who among you can step forward and judge?"—From an address by the author at the Eighty-fourth Semiannual Conference of the Church, Oct. 6, 1913; published in the Proceedings of the Conference, pp. 118, 119.
4. Christ Wrought Redemption from the Fall.—"The Savior thus becomes master of the situation—the debt is paid, the redemption made, the covenant fulfilled, justice satisfied, the will of God done, and all power is now given into the hands of the Son of God—the power of the resurrection, the power of the redemption, the power of salvation, the power to enact laws for the carrying out and accomplishment of this design. Hence life and immortality are brought to light, the gospel is introduced, and He becomes the author of eternal life and exaltation. He is the Redeemer, the Resurrector, the Savior of man and the world; and He has appointed the law of the gospel as the medium which must be complied with in this world or the next, as He complied with His Father's law; hence 'he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.' The plan, the arrangement, the agreement, the covenant was made, entered into and accepted before the foundation of the world; it was prefigured by sacrifices, and was carried out and consummated on the cross. Hence being the mediator between God and man, He becomes by right the dictator and director on earth and in heaven for the living and for the dead, for the past, the present and the future, pertaining to man as associated with this earth or the heavens, in time or eternity, the Captain of our salvation, the Apostle and High-Priest of our profession, the Lord and Giver of life."—John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, p. 171.
4. Christ Wrought Redemption from the Fall.—"The Savior now takes control—the debt is settled, redemption is achieved, the covenant is fulfilled, justice is served, God's will is carried out, and all power is now entrusted to the Son of God—the power of resurrection, the power of redemption, the power of salvation, the authority to enact laws to achieve this purpose. Thus, life and immortality are revealed, the gospel is introduced, and He becomes the source of eternal life and exaltation. He is the Redeemer, the Resurrector, the Savior of humanity and the world; and He has established the law of the gospel as the means that must be followed in this world or the next, just as He adhered to His Father's law; therefore, 'whoever believes will be saved, and whoever does not believe will be condemned.' The plan, the arrangement, the agreement, the covenant was made, entered into, and accepted before the foundation of the world; it was foreshadowed by sacrifices and was fulfilled on the cross. As the mediator between God and humanity, He rightly becomes the ruler and guide on earth and in heaven for the living and the dead, for the past, present, and future, concerning humanity both in this life and the next, in time or eternity, the Captain of our salvation, the Apostle and High Priest of our faith, the Lord and Giver of life."—John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, p. 171.
5. Redemption from the Effect of the Fall.—"'Mormonism' accepts the doctrine of the fall, and the account of the transgression in Eden, as set forth in Genesis; but it affirms that none but Adam is or shall be answerable for Adam's disobedience; that mankind in general are absolutely absolved from responsibility for that 'original sin,' and that each shall account for his own transgressions alone; that the fall was foreknown of God, that it was turned to good effect by which the necessary condition of mortality should be inaugurated; and that a Redeemer was provided before the world was; that general salvation, in the sense of redemption from the effects of the fall, comes to all without their seeking it; but that individual salvation or rescue from the effects of personal sins is to be acquired by each for himself by faith and good works through the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ."—From the author's Story and Philosophy of 'Mormonism,' p. 111.[Pg 32]
5. Redemption from the Effect of the Fall.—"'Mormonism' accepts the concept of the fall and the story of the transgression in Eden as outlined in Genesis; however, it insists that only Adam is responsible for Adam's disobedience. Mankind, as a whole, is completely absolved from accountability for that 'original sin,' and everyone will answer for their own transgressions individually. The fall was known by God beforehand and it was transformed into a positive outcome that initiated the necessary condition of mortality; a Redeemer was provided even before the world was created. General salvation, in the context of redemption from the effects of the fall, is given to everyone without them having to seek it out. However, individual salvation or deliverance from the consequences of personal sins must be achieved by each person through faith and good deeds, by means of the redemption achieved by Jesus Christ."—From the author's Story and Philosophy of 'Mormonism,' p. 111.[Pg 32]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[29] P. of G.P., Abraham 3:25. For a fuller treatment of man's Free Agency, see the author's "Articles of Faith," iii:1-10, and the numerous references there given.
[29] P. of G.P., Abraham 3:25. For a more detailed discussion on free agency, check out the author's "Articles of Faith," iii:1-10, along with the many references provided there.
[34] Gen. 2:8; compare statement in verse 5—that prior to that time there was "not a man to till the ground"; see also P. of G.P., Moses 3:7; Abraham 1:3; and B. of M., 1 Nephi 5:11.
[34] Gen. 2:8; see the comment in verse 5—that before that time there was "not a man to till the ground"; also refer to P. of G.P., Moses 3:7; Abraham 1:3; and B. of M., 1 Nephi 5:11.
[36] See "Articles of Faith," iii:21-32.
[42] Rom. 5:12, 18.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Rom. 5:12, 18.
[43] 1 Cor. 15:21, 22.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Cor. 15:21, 22.
[45] John 10:17-18
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 10:17-18
[46] John 5:26
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 5:26
[47] John 6:38
[48] John 4:34
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 4:34
[50] New Standard Dictionary under "propitiation."
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ New Standard Dictionary under "appeasement."
[52] Matt. 27:52, 53.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 27:52, 53.
[53] John 5:25, 28, 29. A modern scripture attesting the same truth reads: "They who have done good in the resurrection of the just; and they who have done evil in the resurrection of the unjust."—Doc. and Cov. 76:17.
[53] John 5:25, 28, 29. A modern scripture confirming the same truth says: "Those who have acted righteously will rise in the resurrection of the just; and those who have done wrong will rise in the resurrection of the unjust."—Doc. and Cov. 76:17.
[57] Doc. and Cov. 45:54.
[61] 1 John 1:8.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 John 1:8.
[62] Heb. 5:9.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Heb. 5:9.
[63] Rom. 2:6-9.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Rom. 2:6-9.
[64] No special treatment relating to the Fall, the Atonement, or the Resurrection has been either attempted or intended in this chapter. For such the student is referred to doctrinal works dealing with these subjects. See the author's "Articles of Faith," lectures iii, iv, and xxi.
[64] This chapter does not include any special discussion about the Fall, the Atonement, or the Resurrection. For that, students should refer to doctrinal works that cover these topics. See the author's "Articles of Faith," lectures iii, iv, and xxi.
[65] A comparison related to that given in the text is treated at length by Henry Drummond in his essay, "Biogenesis," which the reader may study with profit.
[65] A detailed comparison similar to what's in the text is discussed extensively by Henry Drummond in his essay, "Biogenesis," which readers might find worthwhile to study.
[66] P. of G.P., Moses 1:39.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. of G.P., Moses 1:39.
CHAPTER 4.
THE ANTEMORTAL GODSHIP OF CHRIST.
It now becomes our purpose to inquire as to the position and status of Jesus the Christ in the antemortal world, from the period of the solemn council in heaven, in which He was chosen to be the future Savior and Redeemer of mankind, to the time at which He was born in the flesh.
It is now our goal to explore the position and role of Jesus Christ in the pre-mortal world, from the time of the solemn council in heaven, where He was chosen to be the future Savior and Redeemer of humanity, to the moment He was born in the flesh.
We claim scriptural authority for the assertion that Jesus Christ was and is God the Creator, the God who revealed Himself to Adam, Enoch, and all the antediluvial patriarchs and prophets down to Noah; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel as a united people, and the God of Ephraim and Judah after the disruption of the Hebrew nation; the God who made Himself known to the prophets from Moses to Malachi; the God of the Old Testament record; and the God of the Nephites. We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One.
We assert that we have scriptural backing for the statement that Jesus Christ was and is God the Creator, the God who revealed Himself to Adam, Enoch, and all the pre-flood patriarchs and prophets up to Noah; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God of Israel as a united people, and the God of Ephraim and Judah after the division of the Hebrew nation; the God who made Himself known to the prophets from Moses to Malachi; the God of the Old Testament; and the God of the Nephites. We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One.
The scriptures specify three personages in the Godhead; (1) God the Eternal Father, (2) His Son Jesus Christ, and (3) the Holy Ghost. These constitute the Holy Trinity, comprizing three physically separate and distinct individuals, who together constitute the presiding council of the heavens.[67] At least two of these appear as directing participants in the work of creation; this fact is instanced by the plurality expressed in Genesis: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"; and later, in the course of consultation concerning Adam's act of transgression, "the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us."[68] From the words of Moses, as revealed anew in the present dispensation,[Pg 33] we learn more fully of the Gods who were actively engaged in the creation of this earth: "And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Then, further, with regard to the condition of Adam after the fall: "I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us."[69] In the account of the creation recorded by Abraham, "the Gods" are repeatedly mentioned.[70]
The scriptures identify three figures in the Godhead: (1) God the Eternal Father, (2) His Son Jesus Christ, and (3) the Holy Ghost. These make up the Holy Trinity, consisting of three physically separate and distinct individuals, who together form the governing council of the heavens.[67] At least two of them actively participate in the work of creation; this is illustrated by the plural language in Genesis: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"; and later, during the discussion about Adam's transgression, "the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us."[68] From the words of Moses, as revealed again in the current dispensation,[Pg 33] we gain a clearer understanding of the Gods who were actively involved in creating this earth: "And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Then, regarding Adam's condition after the fall: "I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us."[69] In the creation account recorded by Abraham, "the Gods" are mentioned repeatedly.[70]
As heretofore shown in another connection, the Father operated in the work of creation through the Son, who thus became the executive through whom the will, commandment, or word of the Father was put into effect. It is with incisive appropriateness therefore, that the Son, Jesus Christ, is designated by the apostle John as the Word; or as declared by the Father "the word of my power".[71] The part taken by Jesus Christ in the creation, a part so prominent as to justify our calling Him the Creator, is set forth in many scriptures. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers in this wise distinctively to the Father and the Son as separate though associated Beings: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."[72] Paul is even more explicit in his letter to the Colossians, wherein, speaking of Jesus the Son, he says: "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist."[73] And here let be repeated the testimony of John, that by the Word,[Pg 34] "who was with God, and who was God even in the beginning, all things were made; and without him was not anything made that was made."[74]
As previously shown in another context, the Father worked in the act of creation through the Son, who became the means by which the Father’s will, command, or word was carried out. Therefore, it is fitting that the Son, Jesus Christ, is referred to by the apostle John as the Word; or as the Father declared, "the word of my power."[71] The role played by Jesus Christ in creation, which is significant enough to warrant calling Him the Creator, is highlighted in many scriptures. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews distinctly refers to the Father and the Son as separate yet associated Beings: "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in the past to the ancestors by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he made the worlds."[72] Paul is even more specific in his letter to the Colossians, where he speaks of Jesus the Son: "For by him all things were created, that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers: all things were created through him and for him; and he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."[73] And here, let us reiterate the testimony of John, that through the Word,[Pg 34] "who was with God, and who was God even in the beginning, all things were made; and without him nothing was made that was made."[74]
That the Christ who was to come was in reality God the Creator was revealed in plainness to the prophets on the western hemisphere. Samuel, the converted Lamanite, in preaching to the unbelieving Nephites justified his testimony as follows: "And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things, from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name."[75]
That the Christ who was to come was actually God the Creator was clearly revealed to the prophets in the western hemisphere. Samuel, the converted Lamanite, justified his testimony while preaching to the unbelieving Nephites with these words: "And also that you might know about the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that you might know the signs of his coming, so that you might believe in his name."[75]
To these citations of ancient scripture may most properly be added the personal testimony of the Lord Jesus after He had become a resurrected Being. In His visitation to the Nephites He thus proclaimed Himself: "Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name."[76] To the Nephites, who failed to comprehend the relation between the gospel declared unto them by the Resurrected Lord, and the Mosaic law which they held traditionally to be in force, and who marveled at His saying that old things had passed away, He explained in this wise: "Behold I say unto you, that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel: therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end."[77]
To these references from ancient scripture, we can fittingly add the personal testimony of Jesus after He rose from the dead. When He visited the Nephites, He declared, "Look, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father is in me; and through me, the Father has glorified His name." [76] To the Nephites, who struggled to understand the connection between the gospel proclaimed to them by the Resurrected Lord and the Mosaic law they traditionally acknowledged, and who were astonished by His statement that old things had passed away, He explained it like this: "Listen, I tell you that the law given to Moses is fulfilled. I am the one who gave the law, and I am the one who made a covenant with my people Israel; therefore, the law is fulfilled in me, because I have come to fulfill the law; therefore, it has an end." [77]
Through revelation in the present or last dispensation the voice of Jesus Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, has been heard anew: "Hearken, O ye people of my church[Pg 35] to whom the kingdom has been given—hearken ye and give ear to him who laid the foundation of the earth, who made the heavens and all the hosts thereof, and by whom all things were made which live, and move, and have a being."[78] And again, "Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of the living God, who created the heavens and the earth; a light which cannot be hid in darkness."[79]
Through revelation in the present or last time, the voice of Jesus Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, has been heard again: "Listen, O people of my church[Pg 35] to whom the kingdom has been given—pay attention and listen to him who laid the foundation of the earth, who made the heavens and all their hosts, and by whom all things that live, move, and exist were created."[78] And again, "Look, I am Jesus Christ the Son of the living God, who created the heavens and the earth; a light that cannot be hidden in darkness."[79]
The divinity of Jesus Christ is indicated by the specific names and titles authoritatively applied to Him. According to man's judgment there may be but little importance attached to names; but in the nomenclature of the Gods every name is a title of power or station. God is righteously zealous of the sanctity of His own name[80] and of names given by His appointment. In the case of children of promise names have been prescribed before birth; this is true of our Lord Jesus and of the Baptist, John, who was sent to prepare the way for the Christ. Names of persons have been changed by divine direction, when not sufficiently definite as titles denoting the particular service to which the bearers were called, or the special blessings conferred upon them.[81]
The divinity of Jesus Christ is shown through the specific names and titles that are officially given to Him. People might not see much importance in names, but in the context of the divine, every name carries weight and significance. God is rightfully passionate about the holiness of His name[80] and the names given through His authority. For those chosen for special purposes, names have been determined before they were born; this is true for our Lord Jesus and for John the Baptist, who was sent to prepare the way for Christ. Names of people have been altered by divine direction when they weren't clear enough as titles representing the specific role they were meant to play or the unique blessings bestowed upon them.[81]
Jesus is the individual name of the Savior, and as thus spelled is of Greek derivation; its Hebrew equivalent was Yehoshua or Yeshua, or, as we render it in English, Joshua. In the original the name was well understood as meaning "Help of Jehovah", or "Savior". Though as common an appellation as John or Henry or Charles today, the name was nevertheless divinely prescribed, as already stated. Thus, unto Joseph, the espoused husband of the Virgin, the angel said, "And thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."[82]
Jesus is the personal name of the Savior, and as spelled, it comes from Greek. Its Hebrew equivalent was Yehoshua or Yeshua, which we translate in English as Joshua. The name originally meant "Help of Jehovah" or "Savior." While it is as common as names like John, Henry, or Charles today, the name was still divinely designated, as previously noted. Therefore, to Joseph, the betrothed husband of the Virgin, the angel said, "And you shall call his name JESUS: for he will save his people from their sins."[82]
Christ is a sacred title, and not an ordinary appellation or common name; it is of Greek derivation, and in meaning[Pg 36] is identical with its Hebrew equivalent Messiah or Messias, signifying the Anointed One.[83] Other titles, each possessing a definitive meaning, such as Emmanuel, Savior, Redeemer, Only Begotten Son, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man, and many more, are of scriptural occurrence; the fact of main present importance to us is that these several titles are expressive of our Lord's divine origin and Godship. As seen, the essential names or titles of Jesus the Christ were made known before His birth, and were revealed to prophets who preceded Him in the mortal state.[84]
Christ is a sacred title, not just an ordinary name; it comes from Greek and has the same meaning[Pg 36] as its Hebrew counterpart Messiah or Messias, which means the Anointed One.[83] Other titles, each with a specific meaning, like Emmanuel, Savior, Redeemer, Only Begotten Son, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man, and many others, are found in scripture; what is most important for us to recognize is that these various titles express our Lord's divine origin and status as God. As we can see, the essential names or titles of Jesus the Christ were revealed before His birth to the prophets who lived before Him.[84]
Jehovah is the Anglicized rendering of the Hebrew, Yahveh or Jahveh, signifying the Self-existent One, or The Eternal. This name is generally rendered in our English version of the Old Testament as LORD, printed in capitals.[85] The Hebrew, Ehyeh, signifying I Am, is related in meaning and through derivation with the term Yahveh or Jehovah; and herein lies the significance of this name by which the Lord revealed Himself to Moses when the latter received the commission to go into Egypt and deliver the children of Israel from bondage: "Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."[86] In the succeeding verse the Lord declares Himself to be "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." While Moses was in Egypt, the Lord further revealed Himself, saying "I am the LORD: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto[Pg 37] Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."[87] The central fact connoted by this name, I Am, or Jehovah, the two having essentially the same meaning, is that of existence or duration that shall have no end, and which, judged by all human standards of reckoning, could have had no beginning; the name is related to such other titles as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.[88]
Jehovah is the English version of the Hebrew, Yahveh or Jahveh, meaning the Self-existent One or The Eternal. This name usually appears as LORD in all caps in our English translation of the Old Testament.[85] The Hebrew word Ehyeh, meaning I Am, is related in meaning and derivation to the term Yahveh or Jehovah; and this is significant because this is how the Lord introduced Himself to Moses when Moses was tasked with going to Egypt to free the Israelites from slavery: "Moses said to God, 'When I go to the Israelites and say to them, The God of your ancestors has sent me to you, and they ask me, What is his name? what should I tell them?' God said to Moses, 'I AM WHAT I AM: and you shall say to the Israelites, I AM has sent me to you.'"[86] In the next verse, the Lord identifies Himself as "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." While Moses was in Egypt, the Lord revealed more, saying, "I am the LORD: I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but I was not known to them by my name JEHOVAH."[87] The main idea conveyed by this name, I Am or Jehovah, which essentially means the same thing, is the concept of existence or an eternal duration that has no end and could have had no beginning by human standards; this name is connected to other titles like Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.[88]
Jesus, when once assailed with question and criticism from certain Jews who regarded their Abrahamic lineage as an assurance of divine preferment, met their abusive words with the declaration: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am".[89] The true significance of this saying would be more plainly expressed were the sentence punctuated and pointed as follows: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham, was I AM;" which means the same as had He said—Before Abraham, was I, Jehovah. The captious Jews were so offended at hearing Him use a name which, through an erroneous rendering of an earlier scripture,[90] they held was not to be uttered on pain of death, that they immediately took up stones with the intent of killing Him. The Jews regarded Jehovah as an ineffable name, not to be spoken; they substituted for it the sacred, though to them the not-forbidden name, Adonai, signifying the Lord. The original of the terms Lord and God as they appear in the Old Testament, was either Yahveh or Adonai; and the divine Being designated by these sacred names was, as shown by the scriptures cited, Jesus the Christ. John, evangelist and apostle, positively identifies Jesus Christ with Adonai, or the Lord who spoke through the voice of Isaiah,[91] and with Jehovah who spoke through Zechariah.[92]
Jesus, when confronted with questions and criticism from certain Jews who believed their lineage from Abraham guaranteed them a favored status with God, responded to their harsh remarks by saying, "Truly, I tell you, Before Abraham was, I am." [89] The true meaning of this statement would be clearer if punctuated like this: "Truly, I tell you, Before Abraham, was I AM;" which means the same as if He had said—Before Abraham, was I, Jehovah. The hostile Jews were so angry to hear Him use a name that, due to a misinterpretation of an earlier scripture, [90] they believed should not be spoken under penalty of death, that they immediately picked up stones intending to kill Him. The Jews considered Jehovah an unspeakable name, so they replaced it with the sacred but permissible name, Adonai, meaning the Lord. The original terms Lord and God in the Old Testament were either Yahveh or Adonai; and the divine Being represented by these sacred names was, as shown by the quoted scriptures, Jesus the Christ. John, evangelist and apostle, clearly identifies Jesus Christ with Adonai, or the Lord who spoke through the voice of Isaiah, [91] and with Jehovah who spoke through Zechariah. [92]
The name Elohim is of frequent occurrence in the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, though it is not found in our English versions. In form the word is a Hebrew plural noun;[93] but it connotes the plurality of excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number. It is expressive of supreme or absolute exaltation and power. Elohim, as understood and used in the restored Church of Jesus Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is Jehovah—the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ.
The name Elohim appears frequently in the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, although it’s not seen in our English versions. The word is a Hebrew plural noun;[93] but it refers to a plurality of excellence or intensity rather than just a numerical count. It expresses supreme or absolute exaltation and power. Elohim, as understood and used in the restored Church of Jesus Christ, is the name for God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is Jehovah—the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ.
Jesus of Nazareth, who in solemn testimony to the Jews declared Himself the I Am or Jehovah, who was God before Abraham lived on earth, was the same Being who is repeatedly proclaimed as the God who made covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God who led Israel from the bondage of Egypt to the freedom of the promised land, the one and only God known by direct and personal revelation to the Hebrew prophets in general.
Jesus of Nazareth, who in a serious declaration to the Jews called Himself the I Am or Jehovah, the God who existed before Abraham lived, was the same Being who is continually recognized as the God who made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God who led Israel from slavery in Egypt to the freedom of the promised land, the one and only God known through direct and personal revelation to the Hebrew prophets in general.
The identity of Jesus Christ with the Jehovah of the Israelites was well understood by the Nephite prophets, and the truth of their teachings was confirmed by the risen Lord who manifested Himself unto them shortly after His ascension from the midst of the apostles at Jerusalem. This is the record: "And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying, Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."[94]
The Nephite prophets clearly understood that Jesus Christ was the same as the Jehovah of the Israelites, and their teachings were confirmed by the risen Lord who appeared to them shortly after He ascended from the apostles in Jerusalem. Here’s the record: "And it came to pass that the Lord spoke to them saying, Arise and come forth unto me, that you may thrust your hands into my side, and also that you may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that you may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."[94]
It would appear unnecessary to cite at greater length in substantiating our affirmation that Jesus Christ was God even before He assumed a body of flesh. During that antemortal[Pg 39] period there was essential difference between the Father and the Son, in that the former had already passed through the experiences of mortal life, including death and resurrection, and was therefore a Being possessed of a perfect, immortalized body of flesh and bones, while the Son was yet unembodied. Through His death and subsequent resurrection Jesus the Christ is today a Being like unto the Father in all essential characteristics.
It seems unnecessary to go into more detail to support our claim that Jesus Christ was God even before He took on a physical body. During that pre-mortal[Pg 39] time, there was a significant difference between the Father and the Son; the Father had already experienced mortal life, including death and resurrection, and thus had a perfect, immortal body of flesh and bones, while the Son was still without a body. Through His death and later resurrection, Jesus the Christ is now a Being who is like the Father in all essential aspects.
A general consideration of scriptural evidence leads to the conclusion that God the Eternal Father has manifested Himself to earthly prophets or revelators on very few occasions, and then principally to attest the divine authority of His Son, Jesus Christ. As before shown, the Son was the active executive in the work of creation; throughout the creative scenes the Father appears mostly in a directing or consulting capacity. Unto Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Moses the Father revealed Himself, attesting the Godship of the Christ, and the fact that the Son was the chosen Savior of mankind.[95] On the occasion of the baptism of Jesus, the Father's voice was heard, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased";[96] and at the transfiguration a similar testimony was given by the Father.[97] On an occasion yet later, while Jesus prayed in anguish of soul, submitting Himself that the Father's purposes be fulfilled and the Father's name glorified, "Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again."[98] The resurrected and glorified Christ was announced by the Father to the Nephites on the western hemisphere, in these words: "Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name: hear ye him."[99] From the time of the occurrence last noted,[Pg 40] the voice of the Father was not heard again among men, so far as the scriptures aver, until the spring of 1820, when both the Father and the Son ministered unto the prophet Joseph Smith, the Father saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear him!"[100] These are the instances of record in which the Eternal Father has been manifest in personal utterance or other revelation to man apart from the Son. God the Creator, the Jehovah of Israel, the Savior and Redeemer of all nations, kindreds and tongues, are the same, and He is Jesus the Christ.
A general look at scriptural evidence leads to the conclusion that God the Eternal Father has revealed Himself to earthly prophets or messengers only on a few occasions, mainly to confirm the divine authority of His Son, Jesus Christ. As previously mentioned, the Son was the main force in the work of creation; throughout these creative events, the Father mostly appeared in a guiding or consulting role. To Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, the Father revealed Himself, affirming the divinity of Christ and the fact that the Son was the chosen Savior of humanity.[95] At Jesus' baptism, the Father's voice was heard saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased";[96] and at the transfiguration, a similar declaration was made by the Father.[97] Later on, when Jesus prayed in deep anguish, submitting Himself to fulfill the Father's purposes and glorify His name, "Then there came a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again."[98] The resurrected and glorified Christ was announced by the Father to the Nephites in the western hemisphere with these words: "Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name: hear him."[99] From that time,[Pg 40] the Father's voice was not heard again among men, as far as scriptures say, until the spring of 1820, when both the Father and the Son ministered to the prophet Joseph Smith, with the Father saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear him!"[100] These are the documented instances in which the Eternal Father has been manifest in personal speech or other revelation to humanity apart from the Son. God the Creator, the Jehovah of Israel, the Savior and Redeemer of all nations, peoples, and languages, are the same, and He is Jesus the Christ.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4.
1. Names Given of God.—The significance of names when given of God finds illustration in many scriptural instances. The following are examples: "Jesus" meaning Savior (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:31); "John," signifying Jehovah's gift, specifically applied to the Baptist, who was sent to earth to prepare the way for Jehovah's coming in the flesh (Luke 1:13); "Ishmael," signifying God shall hear him (Gen. 16:11); "Isaac," meaning laughter (Gen. 17:19, compare 18:10-15). As instances of names changed by divine authority to express added blessings, or special callings, consider the following: "Abram," which connoted nobility or exaltation and as usually rendered, father of elevation, was changed to "Abraham," father of a multitude which expressed the reason for the change as given at the time thereof, "for a father of many nations have I made thee" (Gen. 17:5). "Sarai," the name of Abraham's wife, and of uncertain distinctive meaning, was substituted by "Sarah" which signified the princess (Gen 17:15). "Jacob," a name given to the son of Isaac with reference to a circumstance attending his birth, and signifying a supplanter, was superseded by "Israel" meaning a soldier of God, a prince of God; as expressed in the words effecting the change, "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." (Gen. 32:28; compare 35:9, 10.) "Simon," meaning a hearer, the name of the man who became the chief apostle of Jesus Christ, was changed by the Lord to "Cephas" (Aramaic) or "Peter" (Greek) meaning a rock (John 1:42; Matt 16:18; Luke 6:14). On James and John the sons of Zebedee, the Lord conferred the name or title "Boanerges" meaning sons of thunder (Mark 3:17).
1. Names Given of God.—The importance of names given by God is illustrated through many examples in Scripture. Here are a few: "Jesus," which means Savior (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:31); "John," meaning Jehovah's gift, specifically related to the Baptist, who was sent to prepare the way for Jehovah's arrival in human form (Luke 1:13); "Ishmael," meaning God will hear him (Gen. 16:11); "Isaac," which means laughter (Gen. 17:19, compare 18:10-15). As examples of names changed by divine authority to reflect new blessings or special callings, consider these: "Abram," meaning nobility or exaltation, often rendered as father of elevation, was changed to "Abraham," which means father of a multitude, reflecting the reason for the change, "for a father of many nations have I made thee" (Gen. 17:5). "Sarai," the name of Abraham's wife with an uncertain meaning, was replaced by "Sarah," which means the princess (Gen 17:15). "Jacob," a name given to Isaac's son relating to circumstances of his birth and meaning a supplanter, was changed to "Israel," meaning a soldier of God, a prince of God; as stated when the change was made, "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed" (Gen. 32:28; compare 35:9, 10). "Simon," meaning a hearer, the name of the man who became the chief apostle of Jesus Christ, was changed by the Lord to "Cephas" (Aramaic) or "Peter" (Greek), meaning a rock (John 1:42; Matt 16:18; Luke 6:14). The Lord also gave James and John, the sons of Zebedee, the name or title "Boanerges," meaning sons of thunder (Mark 3:17).
The following is an instructive excerpt: "Name in the scriptures not only = that by which a person is designated, but frequently = all that is known to belong to the person having this designation, and the person himself. Thus 'the name of God' or 'of Jehovah,' etc., indicates His authority (Deut. 18:20; Matt.[Pg 41] 21:9, etc.), His dignity and glory (Isa. 48:9, etc.), His protection and favor (Prov. 18:10, etc.), His character (Exo. 34:5, 14, compare 6, 7, etc.), His divine attributes in general (Matt. 6:9, etc.), etc. The Lord is said to set or put His name where the revelation or manifestation of His perfections is made (Deut. 12:5, 14:24, etc.). To believe in or on the name of Christ is to receive and treat Him in accordance with the revelation which the scriptures make of Him (John 1:12; 2:23), etc."—Smith's Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible, article "Name."
The following is an instructive excerpt: "Name in the scriptures means not just what a person is called, but often includes everything associated with that person and the person themselves. So 'the name of God' or 'Jehovah,' etc., points to His authority (Deut. 18:20; Matt.[Pg 41] 21:9, etc.), His dignity and glory (Isa. 48:9, etc.), His protection and favor (Prov. 18:10, etc.), His character (Exo. 34:5, 14, compare 6, 7, etc.), and His divine attributes in general (Matt. 6:9, etc.), etc. The Lord is said to place His name where He reveals or shows His qualities (Deut. 12:5, 14:24, etc.). To believe in or on the name of Christ means to accept and treat Him according to how the scriptures reveal Him (John 1:12; 2:23), etc."—Smith's Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible, article "Name."
2. Jesus Christ, the God of Israel.—"That Jesus Christ was the same Being who called Abraham from his native country, who led Israel out of the land of Egypt with mighty miracles and wonders, who made known to them His law amid the thunderings of Sinai, who delivered them from their enemies, who chastened them for their disobedience, who inspired their prophets, and whose glory filled Solomon's temple, is evident from all the inspired writings, and in none more so than in the Bible.
2. Jesus Christ, the God of Israel.—"Jesus Christ is the same Being who called Abraham from his homeland, who led the Israelites out of Egypt with powerful miracles and wonders, who revealed His law to them amid the thunder at Sinai, who rescued them from their enemies, who disciplined them for their disobedience, who inspired their prophets, and whose glory filled Solomon's temple. This is clear from all the inspired texts, especially in the Bible."
"His lamentation over Jerusalem evidences that, in His humanity, He had not forgotten His former exalted position: 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together ... and ye would not!' (Matt. 23:37). It was this Creator of the world, this mighty Ruler, this Controller of the destinies of the human family, who, in His last moments, cried out in the agony of His soul, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'" (Mark 15:34.)—From Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel, by Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little.
"His sorrow over Jerusalem shows that, in His humanity, He hadn't forgotten His former high status: 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together ... and you were not willing!' (Matt. 23:37). It was this Creator of the world, this mighty Ruler, this Controller of the fates of humanity, who, in His final moments, cried out in the agony of His soul, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" (Mark 15:34.)—From Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel, by Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little.
3. "Jehovah" a Name Not Uttered by the Jews.—Long prior to the time of Christ, certain schools among the Jews, ever intent on the observance of the letter of the law, though not without disregard of its spirit, had taught that the mere utterance of the name of God was blasphemous, and that the sin of so doing constituted a capital offense. This extreme conception arose from the accepted though uninspired interpretation of Lev. 24:16, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." We take the following from Smith's Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible, article "Jehovah": "The true pronunciation of this name, [Yehovah] by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost, the Jews themselves scrupulously avoiding every mention of it, and substituting in its stead one or other of the words with whose proper vowel-points it may happen to be written [Adonai, Lord, or Elohim, God].... According to Jewish tradition it was pronounced but once a year by the high priest on the day of atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies; but on this point there is some doubt."[Pg 42]
3. "Jehovah" a Name Not Uttered by the Jews.—Long before Christ's time, some Jewish groups, focused strictly on following the letter of the law while neglecting its spirit, taught that simply saying God's name was blasphemous and that doing so was a serious crime. This extreme view came from a traditional yet non-inspired interpretation of Lev. 24:16, "Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death. The entire community must stone him, whether he is a foreigner or a native-born Israelite; when he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he must be put to death." We take the following from Smith's Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible, article "Jehovah": "The true pronunciation of this name, [Yehovah], by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been completely lost. The Jews themselves carefully avoid mentioning it and instead use one of the words that match its vowel points [Adonai, Lord, or Elohim, God].... According to Jewish tradition, it was only pronounced once a year by the high priest on the Day of Atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies; however, there is some uncertainty about this." [Pg 42]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[68] Gen. 1:26; and 3:22.
[73] Colos. 1:16, 17.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Col. 1:16, 17.
[74] John 1:1-3.
[78] Doc. and Cov. 45:1.
[83] John 1:41; 4:25.
[84] Luke 1:31; 2:21; Matt. 1:21, 25; see also verse 23 and compare Isa. 7:14; Luke 2:11. See further P. of G.P., Moses 6:51, 57; 7:20; 8:24. B. of M., 1 Nephi 10:4; 2 Nephi 10:3; Mosiah 3:8.
[84] Luke 1:31; 2:21; Matt. 1:21, 25; see also verse 23 and compare Isa. 7:14; Luke 2:11. See further P. of G.P., Moses 6:51, 57; 7:20; 8:24. B. of M., 1 Nephi 10:4; 2 Nephi 10:3; Mosiah 3:8.
[86] Exo. 3:13, 14; compare with respect to the fact of eternal duration expressed in this name, Isa. 44:6; John 8:58; Colos. 1:17; Heb. 13:8; Rev. 1:4; see also P. of G.P., Moses 1:3 and the references there given.
[86] Exo. 3:13, 14; compare with the eternal nature indicated by this name, Isa. 44:6; John 8:58; Colos. 1:17; Heb. 13:8; Rev. 1:4; see also P. of G.P., Moses 1:3 and the references listed there.
[89] John 8:58.
[92] Zech. 12:10; compare John 19:37.
[94] B. of M., 3 Nephi 11:13, 14; also 1 Nephi 17:40 and observe from verse 30 that the Redeemer is here spoken of as the God who delivered Israel. See further Mosiah 7:19. Chapter 39 herein.
[94] B. of M., 3 Nephi 11:13, 14; also 1 Nephi 17:40 and notice from verse 30 that the Redeemer is referred to as the God who freed Israel. See also Mosiah 7:19. Chapter 39 herein.
[97] Matt. 17:5; Luke 9:35.
[98] John 12:28.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 12:28.
CHAPTER 5.
EARTHLY ADVENT OF THE CHRIST PREDICTED.
The coming of Christ to earth to tabernacle in the flesh was no unexpected or unheralded event. For centuries prior to the great occurrence the Jews had professed to be looking for the advent of their King; and, in the appointed ceremonials of worship as in private devotions, the coming of the promised Messiah was prominent as a matter of the supplication of Israel to Jehovah. True, there was much diversity in lay opinion and in rabbinical exposition as to the time and manner of His appearing; but the certainty thereof was fundamentally established in the beliefs and hopes of the Hebrew nation.
The arrival of Christ on Earth in human form was not a surprise or an unannounced event. For centuries before this significant event, the Jews had claimed to be waiting for their King to come; and in their worship ceremonies and personal prayers, the coming of the promised Messiah was a central focus of Israel's plea to God. It's true that there were many different opinions among the people and varying interpretations by religious leaders regarding when and how He would appear; but the belief in His coming was firmly rooted in the faith and hopes of the Jewish people.
The records known to us as the books of the Old Testament, together with other inspired writings once regarded as authentic but excluded from later compilations as not strictly canonical, were current among the Hebrews at and long before the time of Christ's birth. These scriptures had their beginning in the proclamation of the law through Moses,[101] who wrote the same, and delivered the writing into the official custody of the priests with an express command that it be read in the assemblies of the people at stated times. To these earlier writings were added the utterances of divinely commissioned prophets, the records of appointed historians, and the songs of inspired poets, as the centuries passed; so that at the time of our Lord's ministry the Jews possessed a great accumulation of writings accepted and revered by them as authoritative.[102] These records are rich[Pg 43] in prediction and promise respecting the earthly advent of the Messiah, as are other scriptures to which the Israel of old had not access.
The records we know as the books of the Old Testament, along with other inspired writings once considered authentic but later excluded from compilations as not strictly official, were known among the Hebrews during and long before the time of Christ's birth. These scriptures began with the proclamation of the law through Moses,[101] who wrote them down and entrusted the writing to the priests with a clear command to read it to the people at set times. Over the centuries, the messages of divinely appointed prophets, records of designated historians, and songs of inspired poets were added to these earlier writings; by the time of our Lord's ministry, the Jews had a significant collection of writings that they accepted and revered as authoritative.[102] These records are rich[Pg 43] in predictions and promises about the earthly arrival of the Messiah, as are other scriptures that the ancient Israelites did not have access to.
Adam, the patriarch of the race, rejoiced in the assurance of the Savior's appointed ministry, through the acceptance of which, he, the transgressor, might gain redemption. Brief mention of the plan of salvation, the author of which is Jesus Christ, appears in the promise given of God following the fall—that though the devil, represented by the serpent in Eden, should have power to bruise the heel of Adam's posterity, through the seed of the woman should come the power to bruise the adversary's head.[103] It is significant that this assurance of eventual victory over sin and its inevitable effect, death, both of which were introduced to earth through Satan the arch-enemy of mankind, was to be realized through the offspring of woman; the promise was not made specifically to the man, nor to the pair. The only instance of offspring from woman dissociated from mortal fatherhood is the birth of Jesus the Christ, who was the earthly Son of a mortal mother, begotten by an immortal Father. He is the Only Begotten of the Eternal Father in the flesh, and was born of woman.
Adam, the father of humanity, was glad to know about the Savior's planned ministry, which offered him, a sinner, the chance for redemption. A brief mention of the salvation plan, created by Jesus Christ, appears in the promise given by God after the fall—that even though the devil, portrayed by the serpent in Eden, would have the power to hurt Adam's descendants, through the woman's offspring would come the ability to defeat the enemy. It is important to note that this promise of eventual victory over sin and its unavoidable consequence, death, which were brought into the world by Satan, humanity's greatest enemy, would come through a woman's child; the promise was not specifically given to the man or the couple. The only example of offspring from a woman without a mortal father is the birth of Jesus Christ, who was the earthly Son of a mortal mother and conceived by an immortal Father. He is the Only Begotten of the Eternal Father in the flesh and was born of a woman.
Through scriptures other than those embodied in the Old Testament we learn with greater fulness of the revelations of God to Adam respecting the coming of the Redeemer. As a natural and inevitable result of his disobedience, Adam had forfeited the high privilege he once enjoyed—that of holding direct and personal association with his God; nevertheless in his fallen state he was visited by an angel of the Lord, who revealed unto him the plan of redemption: "And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me. And then the[Pg 44] angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son for evermore. And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and for ever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will."[104]
Through scriptures outside of those in the Old Testament, we learn more fully about God's revelations to Adam regarding the coming of the Redeemer. As a natural and unavoidable consequence of his disobedience, Adam lost the high privilege he once had—direct and personal association with God; however, even in his fallen state, an angel of the Lord visited him and revealed the plan of redemption: "And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared to Adam, saying: Why are you offering sacrifices to the Lord? And Adam replied: I don’t know, except that the Lord commanded me. The angel then spoke, saying: This is a representation of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, who is full of grace and truth. Therefore, you shall do everything in the name of the Son, and you shall repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forever. And on that day, the Holy Ghost came upon Adam, bearing witness of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, and I will be forever, so that as you have fallen, you may be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will."
The Lord's revelation to Adam making known the ordained plan whereby the Son of God was to take upon Himself flesh in the meridian of time, and become the Redeemer of the world, was attested by Enoch, son of Jared and father of Methuselah. From the words of Enoch we learn that to him as to his great progenitor, Adam, the very name by which the Savior would be known among men was revealed—"which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men."[105] The recorded covenant of God with Abraham, and the reiteration and confirmation thereof with Isaac and in turn with Jacob—that through their posterity should all nations of the earth be blessed—presaged the birth of the Redeemer through that chosen lineage.[106] Its fulfilment is the blessed heritage of the ages.
The Lord revealed to Adam the plan in which the Son of God would take on human form at the right time and become the Redeemer of the world, a message confirmed by Enoch, the son of Jared and father of Methuselah. From Enoch’s words, we understand that, just like his great ancestor Adam, he was told the very name by which the Savior would be known among people—"which is Jesus Christ, the only name under heaven that will bring salvation to humanity."[105] The written covenant of God with Abraham, and its repetition and confirmation with Isaac and Jacob—that through their descendants all nations of the earth would be blessed—predicted the birth of the Redeemer from that chosen lineage.[106] Its fulfillment is the blessed legacy of the ages.
In pronouncing his patriarchal blessing upon the head of Judah, Jacob prophesied: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."[107] That by Shiloh is meant the Christ is evidenced by the fulfilment of the conditions set forth in the prediction,[Pg 45] in the state of the Jewish nation at the time of our Lord's birth.[108]
In giving his patriarchal blessing to Judah, Jacob predicted: "The scepter will not leave Judah, nor a lawgiver from among his descendants, until Shiloh comes; and to him will be the gathering of the people."[107] That Shiloh refers to Christ is shown by the fulfillment of the conditions set out in the prophecy,[Pg 45] in the situation of the Jewish nation at the time of our Lord's birth.[108]
Moses proclaimed the coming of a great Prophet in Israel, whose ministry was to be of such importance that all men who would not accept Him would be under condemnation; and that this prediction had sole reference to Jesus Christ is conclusively shown by later scriptures. Thus spake the Lord unto Moses: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."[109] The system of sacrifice expressly enjoined in the Mosaic code was essentially a prototype of the sacrificial death to be accomplished by the Savior on Calvary. The blood of countless altar victims, slain by Israel's priests in the course of prescribed ritual, ran throughout the centuries from Moses to Christ as a prophetic flood in similitude of the blood of the Son of God appointed to be shed as an expiatory sacrifice for the redemption of the race. But, as already shown, the institution of bloody sacrifice as a type of the future death of Jesus Christ dates from the beginning of human history; since the offering of animal sacrifices through the shedding of blood was required of Adam, to whom the significance of the ordinance, as "a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father", was expressly defined.[110]
Moses announced the arrival of a great Prophet in Israel whose ministry would be so significant that anyone who did not accept Him would face condemnation; later scriptures clearly show that this prophecy referred solely to Jesus Christ. The Lord spoke to Moses: "I will raise up a Prophet from among their people, like you, and I will put my words in His mouth; He will tell them everything I command Him. And it will happen that whoever does not listen to my words that He speaks in my name, I will hold him accountable." [109] The system of sacrifice outlined in the Mosaic law was essentially a preview of the sacrificial death that the Savior would fulfill on Calvary. The blood of countless altar sacrifices made by Israel's priests in their rituals flowed through the centuries from Moses to Christ, serving as a prophetic symbol of the blood of the Son of God meant to be shed as a sacrifice for the redemption of humanity. However, as already noted, the practice of bloody sacrifice as a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ's future death dates back to the very beginning of human history; the requirement for animal sacrifices through the shedding of blood was established for Adam, who was explicitly told about the significance of the ordinance as "a symbol of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father." [110]
The paschal lamb, slain for every Israelitish household at the annually recurring feast of the Passover, was a particular type of the Lamb of God who in due time would be slain for the sins of the world. The crucifixion of Christ was effected at the Passover season; and the consummation of the supreme[Pg 46] Sacrifice, of which the paschal lambs had been but lesser prototypes, led Paul the apostle to affirm in later times: "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."[111]
The Passover lamb, sacrificed for every Israelite household during the annual Passover feast, foreshadowed the Lamb of God who would eventually be sacrificed for the sins of the world. Christ was crucified during Passover season, and the completion of the ultimate Sacrifice, of which the Passover lambs were just lesser examples, prompted the apostle Paul to later say, "For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us."[111]
Job in the day of dire affliction rejoiced in his testimony of the coming Messiah, and declared with prophetic conviction: "I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth."[112] The songs of David the psalmist abound in oft-recurring allusion to the earthly life of Christ, many circumstances of which are described in detail, and, as to these, corroboration of the utterances is found in New Testament scriptures.[113]
Job, during his intense suffering, found joy in his belief in the coming Messiah and confidently declared, "I know that my redeemer lives, and that he will stand on the earth in the last days."[112] The songs of David the psalmist frequently reference the earthly life of Christ, detailing many events that are supported by statements found in the New Testament.[113]
Isaiah, whose prophetic office was honored by the personal testimony of Christ and the apostles, manifested in numerous passages the burden of his conviction relating to the great event of the Savior's advent and ministry on earth. With the forcefulness of direct revelation he told of the Virgin's divine maternity, whereof Immanuel should be born, and his prediction was reiterated by the angel of the Lord, over seven centuries later.[114] Looking down through the ages the prophet saw the accomplishment of the divine purposes as if already achieved, and sang in triumph: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to[Pg 47] establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever."[115]
Isaiah, whose prophetic role was acknowledged by Christ and the apostles, expressed throughout numerous passages his deep conviction about the significant event of the Savior’s arrival and ministry on earth. With the clarity of direct revelation, he spoke of the Virgin’s divine motherhood, from which Immanuel would be born, and this prophecy was confirmed by the angel of the Lord more than seven centuries later.[114] Looking ahead to the future, the prophet envisioned the fulfillment of divine purposes as if they had already taken place, and he proclaimed triumphantly: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. He will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of his government and peace. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing it and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever."[115]
Immediately prior to its fulfilment, the blessed promise was repeated by Gabriel, sent from the presence of God to the chosen Virgin of Nazareth.[116] As made known to the prophet and by him proclaimed, the coming Lord was the living Branch that should spring from the undying root typified in the family of Jesse;[117] the foundation Stone insuring the stability of Zion;[118] the Shepherd of the house of Israel;[119] the Light of the world,[120] to Gentile as well as Jew; the Leader and Commander of His people.[121] The same inspired voice predicted the forerunner who should cry in the wilderness: "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."[122]
Right before it was fulfilled, the blessed promise was reiterated by Gabriel, sent from God's presence to the chosen Virgin of Nazareth.[116] As revealed to the prophet and proclaimed by him, the coming Lord was the living Branch that would come from the everlasting root represented by the family of Jesse;[117] the foundation Stone that guarantees the stability of Zion;[118] the Shepherd of the house of Israel;[119] the Light of the world,[120] for Gentile as well as Jew; the Leader and Commander of His people.[121] The same inspired voice foretold the forerunner who would cry in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord, make a straight highway in the desert for our God."[122]
Isaiah was permitted to read the scroll of futurity as to many distinguishing conditions to attend the Messiah's lowly life and atoning death. In Him the prophet saw One who would be despized and rejected of men, a Man of sorrows, acquainted with grief, One to be wounded and bruised for the transgressions of the race, on whom would be laid the iniquity of us all—a patient and willing Sacrifice, silent under affliction, as a lamb brought to the slaughter. The Lord's dying with sinners, and His burial in the tomb of the wealthy were likewise declared with prophetic certainty.[123]
Isaiah was allowed to read the scroll of the future, detailing many unique aspects of the Messiah's humble life and sacrificial death. The prophet envisioned Someone who would be despised and rejected by people, a Man of sorrows, familiar with suffering, One who would be wounded and bruised for the sins of humanity, on whom the weight of all our wrongdoing would rest—a patient and willing Sacrifice, silent in the face of hardship, like a lamb being led to slaughter. The Lord's death alongside sinners and His burial in the tomb of a rich man were also foretold with clear prophecy.[123]
Unto Jeremiah came the word of the Lord in terms of plainness, declaring the sure advent of the King by whom the safety of both Judah and Israel should be assured;[124] the[Pg 48] Prince of the House of David, through whom the divine promise to the son of Jesse should be realized.[125] Under the same spirit prophesied Ezekiel,[126] Hosea,[127] and Micah.[128] Zechariah broke off in the midst of fateful prediction to voice the glad song of thanksgiving and praise as he beheld in vision the simple pageantry of the King's triumphal entry into the city of David.[129] Then the prophet bewailed the grief of the conscience-smitten nation, by whom, as was foreseen, the Savior of humankind would be pierced, even unto death;[130] and showed that, when subdued by contrition His own people would ask, "What are these wounds in thy hands?", the Lord would answer: "Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."[131] The very price to be paid for the betrayal of the Christ to His death was foretold as in parable.[132]
The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah clearly, announcing the certain arrival of the King who would ensure the safety of both Judah and Israel;[124] the[Pg 48] Prince of the House of David, through whom the divine promise to Jesse's son would be fulfilled.[125] Ezekiel,[126] Hosea,[127] and Micah also prophesied in the same spirit.[128] Zechariah paused in the midst of his dire predictions to express joy and gratitude as he envisioned the simple celebration of the King's triumphant entry into the city of David.[129] Then the prophet mourned over the heartbroken nation, which, as foretold, would pierce the Savior of humanity, even unto death;[130] and he showed that, when His own people, filled with remorse, would ask, "What are these wounds in your hands?", the Lord would respond: "Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."[131] The very cost of betraying Christ to His death was foretold as a parable.[132]
The fact, that these predictions of the Old Testament prophets had reference to Jesus Christ and to Him only, is put beyond question by the attestation of the resurrected Lord. To the assembled apostles He said: "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day."[133]
The fact that these predictions from the Old Testament prophets were specifically about Jesus Christ is clearly confirmed by the testimony of the resurrected Lord. He told the gathered apostles, "These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything must be fulfilled as written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms about me." Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures and said to them, "This is what is written: that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day."[133]
John the Baptist, whose ministry immediately preceded that of the Christ, proclaimed the coming of One mightier than himself, One who should baptize with the Holy Ghost, and specifically identified Jesus of Nazareth as that One,[Pg 49] the Son of God, the Lamb who should assume the burden of the world's sins.[134]
The predictions thus far cited as relating to the life, ministry, and death of the Lord Jesus, are the utterances of prophets who, excepting Adam and Enoch, lived and died on the eastern hemisphere. All save John the Baptist are of Old Testament record, and he, a contemporary of the Christ in mortality, figures in the early chapters of the Gospels. It is important to know that the scriptures of the western hemisphere are likewise explicit in the declaration of the great truth that the Son of God would be born in the flesh. The Book of Mormon contains a history of a colony of Israelites, of the tribe of Joseph, who left Jerusalem 600 B.C., during the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, on the eve of the subjugation of Judea by Nebuchadnezzar and the inauguration of the Babylonian captivity. This colony was led by divine guidance to the American continent, whereon they developed into a numerous and mighty people; though, divided by dissension, they formed two opposing nations known respectively as Nephites and Lamanites. The former cultivated the arts of industry and refinement, and preserved a record embodying both history and scripture, while the latter became degenerate and debased. The Nephites suffered extinction about 400 A.D., but the Lamanites lived on in their degraded course, and are today extant upon the land as the American Indians.[135]
The predictions mentioned so far regarding the life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ come from prophets who, apart from Adam and Enoch, lived and died in the eastern hemisphere. Everyone except John the Baptist is recorded in the Old Testament, and he was a contemporary of Christ during His life. It's important to know that the scriptures from the western hemisphere also clearly state the great truth that the Son of God would be born in the flesh. The Book of Mormon tells the story of a colony of Israelites from the tribe of Joseph who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. during the reign of Zedekiah, the king of Judah, right before Judea was taken over by Nebuchadnezzar, leading to the Babylonian captivity. This colony was guided by divine direction to the American continent, where they grew into a large and powerful people; however, due to internal conflicts, they split into two opposing nations known as the Nephites and Lamanites. The Nephites embraced the arts of industry and culture and kept a record that included both history and scripture, while the Lamanites became morally corrupt and degraded. The Nephites were wiped out around 400 A.D., but the Lamanites continued on their downward path and today exist on the land as the American Indians.[135]
The Nephite annals from the beginning thereof down to the time of our Lord's birth abound in prediction and promise of the Christ; and this chronicle is followed by a record of the actual visitation of the resurrected Savior to the Nephites, and the establishment of His Church among them. Unto Lehi, the leader of the colony, the Lord revealed the time, place, and manner of Christ's then future advent,[Pg 50] together with many important facts of His ministry, and the preparatory work of John the forerunner. This revelation was given while the company was journeying in the wilderness of Arabia, prior to their crossing the great waters. The prophecy is thus written by Nephi, a son of Lehi and his successor in the prophetic calling: "Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews; even a Messiah; or, in other words, a Savior of the world. And he also spake concerning the prophets, how great a number had testified of these things concerning this Messiah, of whom he had spoken, or this Redeemer of the world. Wherefore all mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be, save they should rely on this Redeemer. And he spake also concerning a prophet who should come before the Messiah, to prepare the way of the Lord; yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there standeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. And much spake my father concerning this thing. And my father said he should baptize in Bethabara, beyond Jordan; and he also said he should baptize with water; even that he should baptize the Messiah with water. And after he had baptized the Messiah with water, he should behold and bear record, that he had baptized the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world. And it came to pass after my father had spoken these words, he spake unto my brethren concerning the gospel which should be preached among the Jews; and also concerning the dwindling of the Jews in unbelief. And after they had slain the Messiah, who should come, and after he had been slain, he should rise from the dead, and should make himself manifest, by the Holy Ghost, unto the Gentiles."[136]
The Nephite records from the very beginning up until the time of our Lord's birth are filled with predictions and promises about Christ. This account is followed by a record of the actual visit of the resurrected Savior to the Nephites and the establishment of His Church among them. To Lehi, the leader of the colony, the Lord revealed the time, place, and manner of Christ's future coming,[Pg 50] along with many significant details about His ministry and the preparatory work of John the Baptist. This revelation was given while the group was traveling in the wilderness of Arabia, before they crossed the ocean. Nephi, Lehi's son and his successor as a prophet, wrote about the prophecy: "Yes, even six hundred years after my father left Jerusalem, the Lord God would raise up a prophet among the Jews; even a Messiah; in other words, a Savior of the world. He also spoke about how many prophets had testified about this Messiah, or Redeemer of the world. Therefore, all mankind was in a lost and fallen state and always would be unless they relied on this Redeemer. He also spoke of a prophet who would come before the Messiah to prepare the way for the Lord; yes, he would go out and cry in the wilderness. 'Prepare the way of the Lord, and make His paths straight; for there stands one among you whom you do not know; and He is mightier than I, whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.' My father spoke a lot about this. He said that this prophet would baptize in Bethabara, across the Jordan; and he also said he would baptize with water; in fact, he would baptize the Messiah with water. After he had baptized the Messiah with water, he would see and bear record that he had baptized the Lamb of God, who would take away the sins of the world. After my father spoke these words, he told my brothers about the gospel that would be preached among the Jews and also about the Jews slowly falling into unbelief. After they had killed the Messiah, who was to come, He would rise from the dead and make Himself known, through the Holy Ghost, to the Gentiles."[136]
At a later time Nephi writes, not as his father's scribe, but as a prophet and revelator voicing the word of God as made known to himself. He was permitted to behold in vision and to declare to his people the circumstances of the Messiah's birth, His baptism by John and the ministration of the Holy Ghost with its accompanying sign of the dove; he beheld our Lord moving as a Teacher of righteousness among the people, healing the afflicted and rebuking spirits of evil; he saw and bore record of the dread scenes of Calvary; he beheld and predicted the calling of the chosen Twelve, the apostles of the Lamb, for so these were designated by Him who vouchsafed the vision. Moreover he told of the iniquity of the Jews, who were seen in contention with the apostles; and thus concludes the portentous prophecy: "And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying, Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb."[137] Soon after the defection whereby the distinction between Nephites and Lamanites was established, Jacob, a brother of Nephi, continued in prophecy of the assured coming of the Messiah, specifically declaring that He would minister at Jerusalem and affirming the necessity of His atoning death as the ordained means of human redemption.[138] The prophet Abinadi, in his fearless denunciation of sin to the wicked king Noah, preached the Christ who was to come;[139] and righteous Benjamin, who was at once prophet and king, proclaimed the same great truth to his people about 125 B.C. So taught Alma[140] in his inspired admonition to his wayward son, Corianton; and so also Amulek[141] in his contention with Zeezrom. So proclaimed the Lamanite prophet, Samuel, only five years prior[Pg 52] to the actual occurrence; furthermore he specified the signs by which the birth of Jesus in Judea would be made known to the people of the western world. Said he: "Behold, I give unto you a sign; for five years more cometh, and behold, then cometh the Son of God to redeem all those who shall believe on his name. And behold, this will I give unto you for a sign at the time of his coming; for behold, there shall be great lights in heaven, insomuch that in the night before he cometh there shall be no darkness, insomuch that it shall appear unto man as if it was day, therefore there shall be one day and a night, and a day, as if it were one day, and there were no night; and this shall be unto you for a sign; for ye shall know of the rising of the sun, and also of its setting; therefore they shall know of a surety that there shall be two days and a night; nevertheless the night shall not be darkened; and it shall be the night before he is born. And behold there shall a new star arise, such an one as ye never have beheld; and this also shall be a sign unto you. And behold this is not all, there shall be many signs and wonders in heaven."[142]
At a later time, Nephi writes not as his father's scribe, but as a prophet and revelator sharing the word of God as revealed to him. He was allowed to see in vision and to tell his people about the circumstances surrounding the Messiah's birth, His baptism by John, and the presence of the Holy Ghost with its sign of the dove; he saw our Lord acting as a Teacher of righteousness among the people, healing the sick and confronting evil spirits; he witnessed and testified to the terrifying events of Calvary; he saw and predicted the calling of the chosen Twelve, the apostles of the Lamb, as designated by Him who granted the vision. Moreover, he spoke of the wrongdoing of the Jews, who were depicted as arguing with the apostles; and thus he concludes the significant prophecy: "And the angel of the Lord spoke to me again, saying, Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb."[137] Shortly after the split that established the distinction between Nephites and Lamanites, Jacob, Nephi's brother, continued to prophesy about the certain coming of the Messiah, specifically declaring that He would minister in Jerusalem and emphasizing the necessity of His atoning death as the divine means of human redemption.[138] The prophet Abinadi, in his fearless condemnation of sin to the wicked king Noah, preached about the Christ who was to come;[139] and the righteous Benjamin, who was both prophet and king, proclaimed the same great truth to his people around 125 B.C. So taught Alma[140] in his inspired advice to his wayward son, Corianton; and so did Amulek[141] in his argument with Zeezrom. The Lamanite prophet, Samuel, proclaimed this only five years before the actual event; furthermore, he specified the signs that would indicate the birth of Jesus in Judea to the people of the western world. He said: "Behold, I give unto you a sign; for five years more will come, and behold, then the Son of God will come to redeem all those who believe in His name. And behold, this will be the sign at the time of His coming; for behold, there shall be great lights in heaven, so that during the night before He comes, there will be no darkness, it will seem to man as if it were day, therefore there will be one day and a night, and a day, as if it were one continuous day without night; and this shall be a sign to you; for you shall know the rising and setting of the sun; thus they shall know for sure that there will be two days and a night; however, the night shall not be darkened; it shall be the night before He is born. And behold, a new star will rise, such as you have never seen; and this will also be a sign to you. And this is not all, there shall be many signs and wonders in heaven."[142]
Thus the scriptures of both hemispheres and in all ages of ante-meridian time bore solemn testimony to the certainty of Messiah's advent; thus the holy prophets of old voiced the word of revelation predicting the coming of the world's King and Lord, through whom alone is salvation provided, and redemption from death made sure. It is a characteristic of prophets sent of God that they possess and proclaim a personal assurance of the Christ, "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."[143] Not a word of inspired prophecy relating to the great event has been found void. The literal fulfilment of the predictions is ample attestation of their origin in divine revelation, and proof conclusive of the divinity of Him whose coming was so abundantly foretold. [Pg 53]
Thus, the scriptures from both hemispheres and throughout all times before Christ provide strong evidence of the certainty of the Messiah's arrival; the holy prophets of old expressed the revelation predicting the coming of the world's King and Lord, through whom alone salvation is offered and redemption from death is guaranteed. It is a hallmark of prophets sent by God that they have and share a personal conviction of Christ, "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."[143] Not a single word of inspired prophecy concerning this significant event has proven false. The literal fulfillment of these predictions serves as clear evidence of their divine origin and provides conclusive proof of the divinity of the one whose arrival was prophesied in abundance. [Pg 53]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5.
1. The Antiquity of Sacrifice as a Prototype of Christ's Atoning Death.—While the Biblical record expressly attests the offering of sacrifices long prior to Israel's exodus from Egypt—e.g. by Abel and by Cain (Gen. 4:3, 4); by Noah after the deluge (Gen. 8:20); by Abraham (Gen. 22:2, 13); by Jacob (Gen. 31:54; 46:1)—it is silent concerning the divine origin of sacrifice as a propitiatory requirement prefiguring the atoning death of Jesus Christ. The difficulty of determining time and circumstance, under which the offering of symbolical sacrifices originated amongst mankind, is recognized by all investigators save those who admit the validity of modern revelation. The necessity of assuming early instruction from God to man on the subject has been asserted by many Bible scholars. Thus, the writer of the article "Sacrifice" in the Cassell Bible Dictionary says: "The idea of sacrifice is prominent throughout the scriptures, and one of the most ancient and widely recognized in the rites of religion throughout the world. There is also a remarkable similarity in the developments and applications of the idea. On these and other accounts it has been judiciously inferred that sacrifice formed an element in the primeval worship of man; and that its universality is not merely an indirect argument for the unity of the human race, but an illustration and confirmation of the first inspired pages of the world's history. The notion of sacrifice can hardly be viewed as a product of unassisted human nature, and must therefore be traced to a higher source and viewed as a divine revelation to primitive man."
1. The Ancient Practice of Sacrifice as a Model for Christ's Atoning Death.—The Biblical record clearly shows that sacrifices were offered long before Israel's exodus from Egypt—such as by Abel and Cain (Gen. 4:3, 4); by Noah after the flood (Gen. 8:20); by Abraham (Gen. 22:2, 13); and by Jacob (Gen. 31:54; 46:1)—but it does not mention the divine origin of sacrifice as a form of atonement foreshadowing the death of Jesus Christ. There is a recognized challenge in pinpointing the time and circumstances under which symbolic sacrifices began among humanity, acknowledged by all researchers except those who accept modern revelation. Many Bible scholars argue for the necessity of assuming that early instruction came from God to humanity on this topic. For instance, the author of the article "Sacrifice" in the Cassell Bible Dictionary states: "The concept of sacrifice is prominent throughout the scriptures and is one of the most ancient and well-known practices in religious rites globally. There's also a notable similarity in how this idea has developed and been applied. For these reasons, it’s been wisely concluded that sacrifice was a part of mankind's early worship and that its universality not only supports the idea of humanity's unity but also illustrates and confirms the first inspired accounts of the world's history. The concept of sacrifice is unlikely to be seen as a product of unaided human nature and should therefore be traced back to a higher source, viewed as divine revelation to early humanity."
Smith's Dic. of the Bible presents the following: "In tracing the history of sacrifice from its first beginning to its perfect development in the Mosaic ritual, we are at once met by the long-disputed question as to the origin of sacrifice, whether it arose from a natural instinct of man, sanctioned and guided by God, or was the subject of some distinct primeval revelation. There can be no doubt that sacrifice was sanctioned by God's Law, with a special, typical reference to the Atonement of Christ; its universal prevalence, independent of, and often opposed to, man's natural reasonings on his relation to God, shows it to have been primeval, and deeply rooted in the instincts of humanity. Whether it was first enjoined by an external command, or was based on that sense of sin and lost communion with God, which is stamped by His hand on the heart of man—is an historical question, perhaps insoluble."
Smith's Dic. of the Bible states: "When we look at the history of sacrifice from its beginnings to its full expression in the Mosaic rituals, we encounter the long-debated question of its origin. Did it come from a natural instinct in humans, approved and guided by God, or was it a result of some specific ancient revelation? It's clear that sacrifice was approved by God's Law, particularly pointing to Christ's Atonement; its widespread existence, often conflicting with human reasoning about our relationship with God, indicates that it is ancient and deeply rooted in human instincts. Whether it was initially commanded from outside or emerged from that innate sense of sin and lost connection with God, which is imprinted on the hearts of humans, remains a historical question that might be impossible to answer."
The difficulty vanishes, and the "historical question" as to the origin of sacrifice is definitely solved by the revelations of God in the current dispensation, whereby parts of the record of Moses—not contained in the Bible—have been restored to human knowledge. The scripture quoted in the text (pp. 43, 44) makes clear the fact that the offering of sacrifices was required of Adam after his transgression, and that the significance of the divinely established requirement was explained in fulness to the patriarch of the race. The shedding of the blood of animals in sacrifice[Pg 54] to God, as a prototype "of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father," dates from the time immediately following the fall. Its origin is based on a specific revelation to Adam. See P. of G.P., Moses 5:5-8.
The difficulty disappears, and the "historical question" about the origin of sacrifice is clearly answered by God’s revelations in the current era, where parts of Moses's record—not found in the Bible—have been restored to human knowledge. The scripture referenced in the text (pp. 43, 44) clearly indicates that Adam was required to offer sacrifices after his transgression, and that the meaning of this divinely established requirement was fully explained to the patriarch of humanity. The shedding of animal blood in sacrifice[Pg 54] to God, serving as a prototype "of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father," began right after the fall. Its origin comes from a specific revelation to Adam. See P. of G.P., Moses 5:5-8.
2. Jacob's Prophecy Concerning "Shiloh."—The prediction of the patriarch Jacob—that the sceptre should not depart from Judah before the coming of Shiloh—has given rise to much disputation among Bible students. Some insist that "Shiloh" is the name of a place and not that of a person. That there was a place known by that name is beyond question (see Josh. 18:1; 19:51; 21:2; 22:9; 1 Sam. 1:3; Jer. 7:12); but the name occurring in Gen. 49:10 is plainly that of a person. It should be known that the use of the word in the King James or authorized version of the Bible is held to be correct by many eminent authorities. Thus, in Dummelow's Commentary on the Holy Bible, we read: "This verse has always been regarded by both Jews and Christians as a remarkable prophecy of the coming of the Messiah.... On the rendering given above, the whole verse foretells that Judah would retain authority until the advent of the rightful ruler, the Messiah, to whom all peoples would gather. And, broadly speaking, it may be said that the last traces of Jewish legislative power (as vested in the Sanhedrin) did not disappear until the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, from which time His kingdom was set up among men."
2. Jacob's Prophecy About "Shiloh."—The prediction by the patriarch Jacob that the scepter would not depart from Judah before the arrival of Shiloh has sparked a lot of debate among Bible scholars. Some claim that "Shiloh" refers to a place rather than a person. It's indisputable that there was a location by that name (see Josh. 18:1; 19:51; 21:2; 22:9; 1 Sam. 1:3; Jer. 7:12); however, the name used in Gen. 49:10 clearly refers to a person. Many respected authorities agree that the usage of the term in the King James or authorized version of the Bible is correct. For example, in Dummelow's Commentary on the Holy Bible, we read: "This verse has always been viewed by both Jews and Christians as a significant prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah.... According to this interpretation, the entire verse predicts that Judah would maintain authority until the arrival of the rightful ruler, the Messiah, to whom all nations would come. Broadly speaking, it can be said that the last remnants of Jewish legislative power (as held by the Sanhedrin) did not vanish until the arrival of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, at which point His kingdom was established among men."
Adam Clarke, in his exhaustive Bible Commentary, briefly analyzes the objections urged against the admissibility of this passage as applying to the Messiah's advent, and dismisses them all as unfounded. His conclusion as to the meaning of the passage is thus worded: "Judah shall continue a distinct tribe until the Messiah shall come; and it did so; and after His coming it was confounded with the others, so that all distinction has been ever since lost."
Adam Clarke, in his thorough Bible Commentary, briefly examines the objections raised against this passage being related to the Messiah's arrival and dismisses them all as baseless. His conclusion regarding the meaning of the passage is stated as follows: "Judah will remain a distinct tribe until the Messiah comes; and it did so; and after His arrival, it became mixed with the others, so that all distinction has been lost ever since."
Prof. Douglas, as cited in Smith's Dictionary, "claims that something of Judah's sceptre still remained, a total eclipse being no proof that the day is at an end—that the proper fulfilment of the prophecy did not begin till David's time, and is consummated in Christ according to Luke 1:32, 33."
Prof. Douglas, as noted in Smith's Dictionary, "argues that there is still some authority from Judah's scepter; a complete eclipse doesn’t mean that the day is over—that the true fulfillment of the prophecy didn’t start until David's time and is completed in Christ according to Luke 1:32, 33."
The accepted meaning of the word by derivation is "Peaceable," and this is applicable to the attributes of the Christ, who in Isa. 9:6, is designated the Prince of Peace.
The accepted meaning of the word by derivation is "peaceable," and this applies to the qualities of Christ, who in Isa. 9:6, is referred to as the Prince of Peace.
Eusebius, who lived between 260 and 339 A.D., and is known in ecclesiastical history as Bishop of Cæsarea, wrote: "At the time that Herod was king, who was the first foreigner that reigned over the Jewish people, the prophecy recorded by Moses received its fulfilment, viz. 'That a prince should not fail of Judah, nor a ruler from his loins, until He should come for whom it is reserved, the expectation of nations.'" (The quoted passage is founded on the Septuagint rendering of Genesis 49:10).
Eusebius, who lived from 260 to 339 A.D. and is recognized in church history as the Bishop of Cæsarea, wrote: "At the time when Herod was king, the first foreigner to rule over the Jewish people, the prophecy recorded by Moses came true, namely, 'A prince will not depart from Judah, nor a ruler from his descendants, until He comes for whom it is reserved, the hope of nations.'" (The quoted passage is based on the Septuagint translation of Genesis 49:10).
Some critics have held that in Jacob's use of the word "Shiloh" he did not intend it as a name or proper noun at all. The writer of the article "Shiloh" in Cassell's Bible Dictionary[Pg 55] says: "The preponderance of evidence is in favor of the Messianic interpretation, but opinions are very divided respecting the retention of the word 'Shiloh' as a proper name.... Notwithstanding all the objections that are urged against it being so regarded, we are of the opinion that it is rightly considered to be a proper name, and that the English version represents the true sense of the passage. We recommend those who wish to enter more fully into a question which cannot well be discussed without Hebrew criticism, to the excellent notes upon Gen. 49:10 in the 'Commentary on the Pentateuch' by Keil and Delitzsch. Here the text is thus rendered: 'The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, till Shiloh come, and the willing obedience of the nations be to him.'
Some critics argue that when Jacob used the word "Shiloh," he didn’t intend it as a name or proper noun at all. The writer of the article "Shiloh" in Cassell's Bible Dictionary[Pg 55] states: "The majority of evidence supports the Messianic interpretation, but opinions are very split regarding whether 'Shiloh' should be considered a proper name.... Despite all the objections raised against it being viewed this way, we believe it is correctly seen as a proper name, and that the English version conveys the true meaning of the passage. We suggest that those who want to delve deeper into this topic, which can't be properly discussed without Hebrew analysis, refer to the insightful notes on Gen. 49:10 in the 'Commentary on the Pentateuch' by Keil and Delitzsch. In this text, it is translated as: 'The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, till Shiloh comes, and the willing obedience of the nations is his.'"
"Notwithstanding the slight put upon the Messianic interpretation by some writers, even those from whom we should scarcely expect it, we see this explanation confirmed and not weakened in the events of history. The text is not taken to mean that Judah should at no time be without a royal ruler of his own, but that the regal power should not finally cease from Judah until Shiloh had come. The objections founded on the Babylonian captivity, and similar intermissions, are of no force, because it is the complete and final termination which is pointed out, and that only happened after the time of Christ." See further The Book of Prophecy, by G. Smith, LL.D., p. 320. See also Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel, by Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little, article "Christ's First Coming."
"Despite the slight against the Messianic interpretation by some writers, even those we wouldn't expect it from, we see this explanation confirmed rather than weakened by historical events. The text doesn’t suggest that Judah would never be without a royal ruler, but rather that the royal authority wouldn’t completely end for Judah until Shiloh had arrived. The objections based on the Babylonian captivity and similar interruptions hold no weight, because it's the complete and final end that is highlighted, which only occurred after the time of Christ." See further The Book of Prophecy, by G. Smith, LL.D., p. 320. See also Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel, by Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little, article "Christ's First Coming."
3. Nephites and Lamanites.—The progenitors of the Nephite nation were led from Jerusalem, 600 B.C., by Lehi, a Jewish prophet of the tribe of Manasseh. His immediate family, at the time of their departure from Jerusalem, comprized his wife Sariah, and their sons, Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi; at a later stage of the history, daughters are mentioned, but whether any of these were born before the family exodus we are not told. Beside his own family, the colony of Lehi included Zoram, and Ishmael, the latter an Israelite of the tribe of Ephraim. Ishmael, with his family, joined Lehi in the wilderness; and his descendants were numbered with the nation of whom we are speaking. The company journeyed somewhat east of south, keeping near the borders of the Red Sea; then, changing their course to the eastward, crossed the peninsula of Arabia; and there, on the shores of the Arabian Sea, built and provisioned a vessel in which they committed themselves to divine care upon the waters. Their voyage carried them eastward across the Indian Ocean, then over the south Pacific Ocean to the western coast of South America, whereon they landed (590 B.C.).... The people established themselves on what to them was the land of promise; many children were born, and in the course of a few generations a numerous posterity held possession of the land. After the death of Lehi, a division occurred, some of the people accepting as their leader, Nephi, who had been duly appointed to the prophetic office; while the rest proclaimed Laman, the eldest of Lehi's sons, as their chief. Henceforth the divided[Pg 56] people were known as Nephites and Lamanites respectively. At times they observed toward each other fairly friendly relations; but generally they were opposed, the Lamanites manifesting implacable hatred and hostility toward their Nephite kindred. The Nephites advanced in the arts of civilization, built large cities and established prosperous commonwealths; yet they often fell into transgression; and the Lord chastened them by allowing their foes to become victorious. They spread northward, occupying the northern part of South America; then, crossing the Isthmus, they extended their domain over the southern, central and eastern portions of what is now the United States of America. The Lamanites, while increasing in numbers, fell under the curse of darkness; they became dark in skin and benighted in spirit, forgot the God of their fathers, lived a wild nomadic life, and degenerated into the fallen state in which the American Indians—their lineal descendants—were found by those who rediscovered the western continent in later times. See the author's Articles of Faith xiv:7, 8.
3. Nephites and Lamanites.—The ancestors of the Nephite nation were led from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. by Lehi, a Jewish prophet from the tribe of Manasseh. His immediate family during their departure from Jerusalem included his wife Sariah and their sons Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi; later accounts mention daughters, but it's unclear if any were born before the family's exodus. In addition to his family, Lehi's group included Zoram and Ishmael, the latter being an Israelite from the tribe of Ephraim. Ishmael and his family joined Lehi in the wilderness, and their descendants became part of the nation we are discussing. The group traveled slightly east of south, staying near the Red Sea; then they changed direction to head east and crossed the Arabian Peninsula. There, on the shores of the Arabian Sea, they built and stocked a ship, trusting in divine protection as they set out on the waters. Their journey took them east across the Indian Ocean and then over the southern Pacific Ocean to the western coast of South America, where they landed in 590 B.C. The people settled in what they considered the promised land; many children were born, and within a few generations, they became a large and thriving population. After Lehi's death, a split occurred, with some people following Nephi, who was appointed as their prophet, while others chose Laman, the eldest of Lehi's sons, as their leader. From then on, the split communities were known as Nephites and Lamanites, respectively. At times, they maintained relatively friendly relations, but generally, they were in conflict, with the Lamanites showing deep hatred and hostility toward their Nephite relatives. The Nephites progressed in civilization, building large cities and creating prosperous societies; however, they frequently fell into wrongdoing, and the Lord punished them by allowing their enemies to prevail. They moved northward, taking over the northern part of South America; then, they crossed the Isthmus and expanded their territory into the southern, central, and eastern regions of what is now the United States. While the Lamanites grew in numbers, they fell under a curse of darkness; their skin became dark, their spirits dimmed, they forgot the God of their ancestors, lived a wild nomadic life, and declined into the fallen state in which the American Indians—their direct descendants—were found by those who rediscovered the western continent later on. See the author's Articles of Faith xiv:7, 8.
4. The First Gospel Dispensation.—The gospel of Jesus Christ was revealed to Adam. Faith in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son the Savior of Adam and all his posterity, repentance of sin, water baptism by immersion, and the reception of the Holy Ghost as a divine bestowal were proclaimed in the beginning of human history as the essentials to salvation. The following scriptures attest this fact. "And thus the Gospel began to be preached, from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice and by the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Moses 5:58). The prophet Enoch thus testified: "But God hath made known unto our fathers that all men must repent. And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh. And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you" (Moses 6:50-52; read also 53-61). "And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time" (62). "And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water. And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit and became quickened in the inner man. And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and for ever" (64-66). Compare Doc. and Cov 29:42.[Pg 57]
4. The First Gospel Dispensation.—The gospel of Jesus Christ was revealed to Adam. Belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, the Savior of Adam and all his descendants, along with repentance of sin, water baptism by immersion, and receiving the Holy Ghost as a divine gift, were proclaimed at the start of human history as essential for salvation. The following scriptures confirm this. "And thus the Gospel began to be preached, from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice and by the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Moses 5:58). The prophet Enoch testified: "But God has made known to our ancestors that all people must repent. And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and people before they existed in the flesh. And he also said to him: If you will turn unto me, and listen to my voice, and believe, and repent of all your wrongdoings, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of my Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name that will be given under heaven, by which salvation will come to the children of men, you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatever you ask will be given to you" (Moses 6:50-52; read also 53-61). "And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation for all people, through the blood of my Only Begotten, who will come in the meridian of time" (62). "And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was brought down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought up out of the water. And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit and became alive in the inner man. And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: You are baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from this time forth and forever" (64-66). Compare Doc. and Cov 29:42.[Pg 57]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[102] "Articles of Faith," xiii:7-10.
[107] Gen. 49:10.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Gen. 49:10.
[111] 1 Cor. 5:7. For references to Christ as the Lamb of God, see John 1:29, 36; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. chaps. 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22; also B. of M., 1 Nephi 10:10, and chaps. 11, 12, 13, 14; 2 Nephi 31:4, 5, 6; 33:14; Alma 7:14; Mormon 9:2, 3; Doc. and Cov. 58:11; 132:19.
[111] 1 Cor. 5:7. For mentions of Christ as the Lamb of God, see John 1:29, 36; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. chaps. 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22; also B. of M., 1 Nephi 10:10, and chaps. 11, 12, 13, 14; 2 Nephi 31:4, 5, 6; 33:14; Alma 7:14; Mormon 9:2, 3; Doc. and Cov. 58:11; 132:19.
[113] Instances: Psalm 2:7; compare Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Psa. 16:10; compare Acts 13:34-37. Psa. 22:18; compare Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24. Psa. 41:9; compare John 13:18. Psa. 69:9 and 21; compare Matt. 27:34, 48; Mark 15:23; John 19:29; and John 2:17. Psa. 110:1 and 4; compare Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; and Heb. 5:6. Psa. 118:22, 23; compare Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:4, 7. The following are known specifically as Messianic Psalms: 2, 21, 22, 45, 67, 69, 89, 96, 110, 132; in them the psalmist extols in poetic measure the excellencies of the Messiah, and the certainty of His coming.
[113] Instances: Psalm 2:7; see also Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Psa. 16:10; see also Acts 13:34-37. Psa. 22:18; see also Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24. Psa. 41:9; see also John 13:18. Psa. 69:9 and 21; see also Matt. 27:34, 48; Mark 15:23; John 19:29; and John 2:17. Psa. 110:1 and 4; see also Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; and Heb. 5:6. Psa. 118:22, 23; see also Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:4, 7. The following are specifically known as Messianic Psalms: 2, 21, 22, 45, 67, 69, 89, 96, 110, 132; in these, the psalmist praises in poetic form the greatness of the Messiah and the certainty of His arrival.
[115] Isa. 9:6,7.
[116] Luke 1:26-33.
[121] Isa. 55:4; compare John 18:37.
[125] Jer. 30:9.
[126] Ezek. 34:23; 37:24, 25.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ezek. 34:23; 37:24, 25.
[127] Hos. 11:11; compare Matt. 2:15.
[129] Zech. 9:9; compare Matt. 21:4-9.
[130] Zech. 12:10; compare John 19:37.
[131] Zech. 13:6.
[141] B. of M., Alma 11:31-44.
[143] Rev. 19:10.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Rev. 19:10.
CHAPTER 6.
THE MERIDIAN OF TIME.
Unto Moses, with whom the Lord spake "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend,"[144] the course of the human race, both as then past and future, was made known; and the coming of the Redeemer was recognized by him as the event of greatest import in all the happenings to which the earth and its inhabitants would be witness. The curse of God had aforetime fallen upon the wicked, and upon the earth because of them, "For they would not hearken unto his voice, nor believe on his Only Begotten Son, even him whom he declared should come in the meridian of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of the world."[145] In this scripture appears the earliest mention of the expressive and profoundly significant designation of the period in which the Christ should appear—the meridian of time. If the expression be regarded as figurative, be it remembered the figure is the Lord's.
To Moses, with whom the Lord spoke "face to face, as a man speaks to his friend,"[144] the story of humanity, both past and future, was revealed; and he recognized the coming of the Redeemer as the most important event in everything that the earth and its people would experience. God's curse had previously fallen on the wicked and on the earth because of them, "For they would not listen to his voice, nor believe in his Only Begotten Son, whom he declared would come in the meridian of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of the world."[145] In this scripture, we see the first mention of the meaningful and deeply significant term for the time when Christ would come—the meridian of time. If this expression is to be taken figuratively, remember that the figure belongs to the Lord.
The term "meridian", as commonly used, conveys the thought of a principal division of time or space[146] thus we speak of the hours before the daily noon as ante-meridian (a.m.) and those after noon as post-meridian (p.m.). So the years and the centuries of human history are divided by the great event of the birth of Jesus Christ. The years preceding that epoch-making occurrence are now designated as time Before Christ (B.C.); while subsequent years are each[Pg 58] specified as a certain Year of our Lord, or, as in the Latin tongue, Anno Domini (A.D.). Thus the world's chronology has been adjusted and systematized with reference to the time of the Savior's birth; and this method of reckoning is in use among all Christian nations. It is instructive to note that a similar system was adopted by the isolated branch of the house of Israel that had been brought from the land of Palestine to the western continent; for from the appearance of the promised sign among the people betokening the birth of Him who had been so abundantly predicted by their prophets, the Nephite reckoning of the years, starting with the departure of Lehi and his colony from Jerusalem, was superseded by the annals of the new era.[147]
The term "meridian," as it's used today, refers to a main division of time or space[146] so we refer to the hours before noon as ante-meridian (a.m.) and those after noon as post-meridian (p.m.). Similarly, human history is divided by the significant event of the birth of Jesus Christ. The years before this pivotal event are labeled as time Before Christ (B.C.); while the years that follow are each identified as a specific Year of our Lord, or in Latin, Anno Domini (A.D.). Thus, the world’s timeline has been organized around the time of the Savior’s birth; and this way of counting years is used by all Christian nations. It’s interesting to note that a similar system was adopted by the branch of the house of Israel that was taken from Palestine to the western continent; for from the appearance of the promised sign indicating the birth of the one who had been so frequently foretold by their prophets, the Nephite calendar, which started with Lehi and his group leaving Jerusalem, was replaced by the records of this new era.[147]
The occasion of the Savior's advent was preappointed; and the time thereof was specifically revealed through authorized prophets on each of the hemispheres. The long history of the Israelitish nation had unfolded a succession of events that found a relative culmination in the earthly mission of the Messiah. That we may the better comprehend the true significance of the Lord's life and ministry while in the flesh, some consideration should be given to the political, social, and religious condition of the people amongst whom He appeared and with whom He lived and died. Such consideration involves at least a brief review of the antecedent history of the Hebrew nation. The posterity of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob had early come to be known by the title in which they took undying pride and found inspiring promise, Israelites, or the children of Israel.[148] Collectively they were so designated throughout the dark days of their bondage in Egypt;[149] so during the four decades of the exodus and the return to the land of promise,[150] and on through the period of their prosperity as a mighty people under the administration[Pg 59] of the judges, and as a united monarchy during the successive reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon.[151]
The event of the Savior's coming was planned in advance; the specific timing was revealed through authorized prophets in both hemispheres. The lengthy history of the Israelite nation led to a series of events that found a meaningful culmination in the earthly mission of the Messiah. To better understand the true significance of the Lord's life and ministry while He was on Earth, we should consider the political, social, and religious conditions of the people among whom He lived, died, and appeared. This consideration requires at least a brief look back at the prior history of the Hebrew nation. The descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob were known by a title that they took great pride in and found inspiring—Israelites, or the children of Israel.[148] They were collectively referred to as such throughout their dark days of slavery in Egypt;[149] during the four decades of the exodus and the return to the promised land,[150] and throughout their period of prosperity as a powerful people under the guidance[Pg 59] of the judges and as a united monarchy during the successive reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon.[151]
Immediately following the death of Solomon, about 975 B.C. according to the most generally accepted chronology, the nation was disrupted by revolt. The tribe of Judah, part of the tribe of Benjamin, and small remnants of a few other tribes remained true to the royal succession, and accepted Rehoboam, son of Solomon, as their king; while the rest, usually spoken of as the Ten Tribes, broke their allegiance to the house of David, and made Jeroboam, an Ephraimite, their king. The Ten Tribes retained the title Kingdom of Israel though also known as Ephraim.[152] Rehoboam and his adherents were distinctively called the Kingdom of Judah. For about two hundred and fifty years the two kingdoms maintained their separate autonomy; then, about 722 or 721 B.C., the independent status of the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed, and the captive people were transported to Assyria by Shalmanezer and others. Subsequently they disappeared so completely as to be called the Lost Tribes. The Kingdom of Judah was recognized as a nation for about one hundred and thirty years longer; then, about 588 B.C., it was brought into subjection by Nebuchadnezzar, through whom the Babylonian captivity was inaugurated. For three score years and ten Judah was kept in exile and virtual bondage, in consequence of their transgression as had been predicted through Jeremiah.[153] Then the Lord softened the hearts of their captors, and their restoration was begun under the decree of Cyrus the Persian, who had subdued the Babylonian kingdom. The Hebrew people were permitted to return to Judea, and to enter upon the work of rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem.[154]
Immediately after Solomon's death, around 975 B.C. according to the most widely accepted timeline, the nation faced a revolt. The tribe of Judah, part of the tribe of Benjamin, and a few remnants from other tribes remained loyal to the royal line and accepted Rehoboam, Solomon's son, as their king. Meanwhile, the rest, commonly referred to as the Ten Tribes, broke their allegiance to the house of David and made Jeroboam, an Ephraimite, their king. The Ten Tribes kept the title Kingdom of Israel but were also known as Ephraim.[152] Rehoboam and his supporters were known as the Kingdom of Judah. For about two hundred and fifty years, the two kingdoms kept their separate independence; then, around 722 or 721 B.C., the Kingdom of Israel lost its independence, and its people were taken captive to Assyria by Shalmaneser and others. They eventually disappeared so fully that they became known as the Lost Tribes. The Kingdom of Judah continued as a nation for about another one hundred and thirty years; then, around 588 B.C., it was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, which began the Babylonian captivity. For seventy years, Judah was kept in exile and virtual bondage due to their transgressions, as had been predicted by Jeremiah.[153] Then the Lord softened the hearts of their captors, and their restoration began under the decree of Cyrus the Persian, who had conquered the Babylonian kingdom. The Hebrew people were allowed to return to Judea and start rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.[154]
A great company of the exiled Hebrews availed themselves of this opportunity to return to the lands of their fathers, though many elected to remain in the country of their captivity, preferring Babylon to Israel. The "whole congregation" of the Jews who returned from the Babylonian exile were but "forty and two thousand three hundred and three score, beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven." The relatively small size of the migrating nation is further shown by the register of their beasts of burden.[155] While those who did return strove valiantly to reestablish themselves as the house of David, and to regain some measure of their former prestige and glory, the Jews were never again a truly independent people. In turn they were preyed upon by Greece, Egypt, and Syria; but about 164-163 B.C., the people threw off, in part at least, the alien yoke, as a result of the patriotic revolt led by the Maccabees, the most prominent of whom was Judas Maccabeus. The temple service, which had been practically abolished through the proscription of victorious foes, was reestablished.[156] In the year 163 B.C., the sacred structure was rededicated, and the joyful occasion was thereafter celebrated in annual festival as the Feast of Dedication.[157] During the reign of the Maccabees, however, the temple fell into an almost ruinous condition, more as a result of the inability of the reduced and impoverished people to maintain it than through any further decline of religious zeal. In the hope of insuring a greater measure of national protection, the Jews entered into an unequal alliance with the Romans and eventually became tributary to them, in which condition the Jewish nation continued throughout the period of our Lord's ministry. In the meridian of time Rome was virtually mistress of the world. When Christ was born Augustus Cæsar[158] was emperor of[Pg 61] Rome, and the Idumean, Herod,[159] surnamed the Great, was the vassal king of Judea.
A large group of exiled Hebrews took this chance to return to their ancestral lands, although many chose to stay in their place of captivity, preferring Babylon over Israel. The "whole congregation" of Jews who returned from the Babylonian exile numbered only "forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty-three, not counting their servants and maids, who totaled seven thousand three hundred thirty-seven." The relatively small size of the migrating nation is further highlighted by the list of their pack animals.[155] While those who returned worked hard to reestablish themselves as the house of David and regain some of their previous prestige and glory, the Jews were never truly independent again. They were subjected to the influence of Greece, Egypt, and Syria; however, around 164-163 B.C., the people partially shook off this foreign dominance due to the patriotic revolt led by the Maccabees, particularly Judas Maccabeus. The temple service, which had been nearly eliminated by their victorious enemies, was restored.[156] In 163 B.C., the holy structure was rededicated, and this joyful event was celebrated annually as the Feast of Dedication.[157] During the Maccabees' reign, though, the temple fell into a state of near ruin, primarily due to the diminished and struggling population's inability to maintain it, rather than a decline in religious fervor. Hoping for greater national security, the Jews formed an unequal alliance with the Romans and eventually became subject to them, a situation that persisted throughout the period of Christ's ministry. At that time, Rome was essentially the ruler of the world. When Christ was born, Augustus Caesar[158] was the emperor of[Pg 61] Rome, and Herod,[159] known as the Great, was the client king of Judea.
Some semblance of national autonomy was maintained by the Jews under Roman dominion, and their religious ceremonials were not seriously interfered with. The established orders in the priesthood were recognized, and the official acts of the national council, or Sanhedrin,[160] were held to be binding by Roman law; though the judicial powers of this body did not extend to the infliction of capital punishment without the sanction of the imperial executive. It was the established policy of Rome to allow to her tributary and vassal peoples freedom in worship so long as the mythological deities, dear to the Romans, were not maligned nor their altars desecrated.[161]
Some level of national autonomy was maintained by the Jews under Roman rule, and their religious ceremonies weren't seriously disrupted. The established orders within the priesthood were recognized, and the official actions of the national council, or Sanhedrin,[160] were considered binding by Roman law; however, this group's judicial powers did not include the ability to impose capital punishment without approval from the imperial authority. Rome's established policy permitted tributary and vassal peoples the freedom to worship as long as the mythological gods, important to the Romans, were not insulted or their altars desecrated.[161]
Needless to say, the Jews took not kindly to alien domination, though for many generations they had been trained in that experience, their reduced status having ranged from nominal vassalage to servile bondage. They were already largely a dispersed people. All the Jews in Palestine at the time of Christ's birth constituted but a small remnant of the great Davidic nation. The Ten Tribes, distinctively the aforetime kingdom of Israel, had then long been lost to history, and the people of Judah had been widely scattered among the nations.
Needless to say, the Jews were unhappy with foreign control, even though they had been dealing with it for many generations, having experienced a range from being nominal vassals to being in severe bondage. They were mostly a scattered people. At the time of Christ's birth, the Jews in Palestine were just a small remnant of the once-great Davidic nation. The Ten Tribes, which made up the former kingdom of Israel, had long since disappeared from history, and the people of Judah had been spread out among various nations.
In their relations with other peoples the Jews generally endeavored to maintain a haughty exclusiveness, which brought upon them Gentile ridicule. Under Mosaic law Israel had been required to keep apart from other nations; they attached supreme importance to their Abrahamic lineage as children of the covenant, "an holy people unto the Lord," whom He had chosen "to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth".[162] Judah had experienced the woful effects of dalliance with pagan[Pg 62] nations, and, at the time we are now considering, a Jew who permitted himself unnecessary association with a Gentile became an unclean being requiring ceremonial cleansing to free him from defilement. Only in strict isolation did the leaders find hope of insuring the perpetuity of the nation.
In their interactions with other cultures, the Jews typically tried to maintain a proud separation, which led to mockery from non-Jews. According to Mosaic law, Israel was instructed to remain separate from other nations; they placed great value on their lineage from Abraham as children of the covenant, "a holy people unto the Lord," whom He had chosen "to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." Judah had suffered the terrible consequences of mingling with pagan nations, and during the time we’re discussing, a Jew who engaged in unnecessary contact with a non-Jew was considered unclean and needed ceremonial cleansing to remove the defilement. Only through strict isolation did the leaders see hope for the survival of the nation.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Jews hated all other peoples and were reciprocally despized and contemned by all others. They manifested especial dislike for the Samaritans, perhaps because this people persisted in their efforts to establish some claim of racial relationship. These Samaritans were a mixed people, and were looked upon by the Jews as a mongrel lot, unworthy of decent respect. When the Ten Tribes were led into captivity by the king of Assyria, foreigners were sent to populate Samaria.[163] These intermarried with such Israelites as had escaped the captivity; and some modification of the religion of Israel, embodying at least the profession of Jehovah worship, survived in Samaria. The Samaritan rituals were regarded by the Jews as unorthodox, and the people as reprobate. At the time of Christ the enmity between Jew and Samaritan was so intense that travelers between Judea and Galilee would make long detours rather than pass through the province of Samaria which lay between. The Jews would have no dealings with the Samaritans.[164]
It’s no exaggeration to say that the Jews hated all other people and were also looked down upon and scorned by everyone else. They especially disliked the Samaritans, maybe because this group kept insisting they had some claim to a shared ancestry. The Samaritans were a mixed group, and the Jews viewed them as a mongrel lot, unworthy of any respect. When the Assyrian king took the Ten Tribes into captivity, he sent in foreigners to settle in Samaria.[163] These foreigners intermarried with the Israelites who had managed to escape captivity, and some changes to the religion of Israel, at least incorporating the worship of Jehovah, continued in Samaria. The Jewish people saw Samaritan rituals as unorthodox and considered the Samaritans as reprobate. By the time of Christ, the animosity between Jews and Samaritans was so strong that travelers between Judea and Galilee would take long detours to avoid passing through Samaria, which was situated in between. The Jews refused to associate with the Samaritans.[164]
The proud feeling of self-sufficiency, the obsession for exclusiveness and separation—so distinctively a Jewish trait at that time—was inculcated at the maternal knee and emphasized in synagog and school. The Talmud,[165] which in codified form post-dates the time of Christ's ministry, enjoined all Jews against reading the books of alien nations, declaring that none who so offended could consistently hope for Jehovah's favor.[166] Josephus gives his endorsement to[Pg 63] similar injunction, and records that wisdom among the Jews meant only familiarity with the law and ability to discourse thereon.[167] A thorough acquaintanceship with the law was demanded as strongly as other studies were discountenanced. Thus the lines between learned and unlearned came to be rigidly drawn; and, as an inevitable consequence those who were accounted learned, or so considered themselves, looked down upon their unscholarly fellows as a class distinct and inferior.[168]
The proud sense of self-sufficiency, along with the focus on exclusivity and separation—characteristics that were distinctly Jewish at that time—was instilled from a young age and reinforced in synagogues and schools. The Talmud,[165] which was formally compiled after the time of Christ's ministry, instructed all Jews not to read the writings of other nations, stating that anyone who did so could not reasonably expect Jehovah's favor.[166] Josephus supports[Pg 63] this similar instruction and notes that wisdom among the Jews was defined solely as knowledge of the law and the ability to discuss it.[167] A comprehensive understanding of the law was demanded as strongly as other studies were discouraged. This led to a strict division between the educated and the uneducated; as a result, those regarded as learned, or who viewed themselves that way, looked down on their less scholarly peers as a separate and inferior group.[168]
Long before the birth of Christ, the Jews had ceased to be a united people even in matters of the law, though the law was their chief reliance as a means of maintaining national solidarity. As early as four score years after the return from the Babylonian exile, and we know not with accuracy how much earlier, there had come to be recognized, as men having authority, certain scholars afterward known as scribes, and honored as rabbis[169] or teachers. In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah these specialists in the law constituted a titled class, to whom deference and honor were paid. Ezra is designated "the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel".[170] The scribes of those days did valuable service under Ezra, and later under Nehemiah, in compiling the sacred writings then extant; and in Jewish usage those appointed as guardians and expounders of the law came to be known as members of the Great Synagog, or Great Assembly, concerning which we have little information through canonical channels. According to Talmudic record, the organization consisted of one hundred and twenty eminent scholars. The scope of their labors, according to the admonition traditionally perpetuated by themselves, is thus expressed: Be careful in judgment; set up many scholars, and[Pg 64] make a hedge about the law. They followed this behest by much study and careful consideration of all traditional details in administration; by multiplying scribes and rabbis unto themselves; and, as some of them interpreted the requirement of setting up many scholars, by writing many books and tractates; moreover, they made a fence or hedge about the law by adding numerous rules, which prescribed with great exactness the officially established proprieties for every occasion.
Long before the birth of Christ, the Jews had stopped being a united people, even regarding the law, although the law was their main way of maintaining national unity. By the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, which was around eighty years after the return from the Babylonian exile, and possibly even earlier, certain scholars, known later as scribes and respected as rabbis or teachers, had gained recognized authority. During Ezra and Nehemiah's time, these legal specialists formed a respected class to whom people showed deference and respect. Ezra is referred to as "the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel." The scribes of that period provided significant assistance under Ezra and later under Nehemiah in compiling the sacred writings available at the time. In Jewish tradition, those designated as guardians and interpreters of the law became known as members of the Great Synagogue, or Great Assembly, about which we have limited information from canonical sources. According to Talmudic records, this organization comprised one hundred and twenty distinguished scholars. Their work, as they traditionally recalled, is summed up in the phrase: Be careful in judgment; set up many scholars, and make a hedge about the law. They adhered to this instruction through extensive study and careful attention to all traditional aspects of administration; by increasing the number of scribes and rabbis among themselves; and, as some interpreted the call to establish many scholars, by writing additional books and treatises. Furthermore, they created boundaries around the law by establishing numerous rules that precisely defined the officially recognized appropriateness for every situation.
Scribes and rabbis were exalted to the highest rank in the estimation of the people, higher than that of the Levitical or priestly orders; and rabbinical sayings were given precedence over the utterances of the prophets, since the latter were regarded as but messengers or spokesmen, whereas the living scholars were of themselves sources of wisdom and authority. Such secular powers as Roman suzerainty permitted the Jews to retain were vested in the hierarchy, whose members were able thus to gather unto themselves practically all official and professional honors. As a natural result of this condition, there was practically no distinction between Jewish civil and ecclesiastical law, either as to the code or its administration. Rabbinism comprized as an essential element the doctrine of the equal authority of oral rabbinical tradition with the written word of the law. The aggrandizement implied in the application of the title "Rabbi" and the self-pride manifest in welcoming such adulation were especially forbidden by the Lord, who proclaimed Himself the one Master; and, as touching the interpretation of the title held by some as "father", Jesus proclaimed but one Father and He in heaven: "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."[171]
Scribes and rabbis were held in the highest regard by the people, even more than the Levitical or priestly orders. Rabbinical teachings took priority over the words of the prophets, who were seen merely as messengers, while living scholars were viewed as direct sources of wisdom and authority. The secular powers that the Roman Empire allowed the Jews to keep were managed by this hierarchy, enabling its members to accumulate nearly all official and professional honors. As a result, there was almost no difference between Jewish civil law and religious law, both in terms of the legal code and its enforcement. Rabbinism inherently included the belief that oral rabbinical tradition held equal authority with the written law. The elevation implied by the title "Rabbi" and the pride shown in receiving such praise were explicitly forbidden by the Lord, who identified Himself as the one Master. Regarding the title "father," which some held, Jesus stated that there is only one Father, and He is in heaven: "But do not be called Rabbi; for you have one Master, Christ, and all of you are brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters; for you have one Master, Christ." [171]
The scribes, whether so named or designated by the more distinguishing appellation, rabbis, were repeatedly denounced by Jesus, because of the dead literalism of their teachings, and the absence of the spirit of righteousness and virile morality therefrom; and in such denunciations the Pharisees are often coupled with the scribes. The judgment of the Christ upon them is sufficiently expressed by His withering imprecation: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"[172]
The scribes, whether called that or referred to by the more specific title of rabbis, were frequently criticized by Jesus for their rigid literalism in teachings and the lack of genuine righteousness and strong morality in their beliefs. In these criticisms, he often grouped the Pharisees with the scribes. Christ's judgment on them is clearly shown in his stern condemnation: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"[172]
The origin of the Pharisees is not fixed by undisputed authority as to either time or circumstance; though it is probable that the sect or party had a beginning in connection with the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. New ideas and added conceptions of the meaning of the law were promulgated by Jews who had imbibed of the spirit of Babylon; and the resulting innovations were accepted by some and rejected by others. The name "Pharisee" does not occur in the Old Testament, nor in the Apocrypha, though it is probable that the Assideans mentioned in the books of the Maccabees[173] were the original Pharisees. By derivation the name expresses the thought of separatism; the Pharisee, in the estimation of his class, was distinctively set apart from the common people, to whom he considered himself as truly superior as the Jews regarded themselves in contrast with other nations. Pharisees and scribes were one in all essentials of profession, and rabbinism was specifically their doctrine.
The origin of the Pharisees isn't clearly established in terms of time or circumstances; however, it's likely that the group began when the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity. New ideas and interpretations of the law were introduced by Jews who were influenced by Babylonian culture, leading to innovations that some accepted while others rejected. The term "Pharisee" doesn’t appear in the Old Testament or the Apocrypha, although it's likely that the Assideans mentioned in the books of the Maccabees[173] were the original Pharisees. The name itself implies a sense of separation; a Pharisee, in his group's view, was distinctly set apart from the common people and considered himself as superior as Jews saw themselves in comparison to other nations. Pharisees and scribes were united in all key aspects of their beliefs, with rabbinism being their specific doctrine.
In the New Testament the Pharisees are often mentioned as in opposition to the Sadducees; and such were the relations of the two parties that it becomes a simpler matter to contrast one with the other than to consider each separately. The Sadducees came into existence as a reactionary organization[Pg 66] during the second century B.C., in connection with an insurgent movement against the Maccabean party. Their platform was that of opposition to the ever-increasing mass of traditional lore, with which the law was not merely being fenced or hedged about for safety, but under which it was being buried. The Sadducees stood for the sanctity of the law as written and preserved, while they rejected the whole mass of rabbinical precept both as orally transmitted and as collated and codified in the records of the scribes. The Pharisees formed the more popular party; the Sadducees figured as the aristocratic minority. At the time of Christ's birth the Pharisees existed as an organized body numbering over six thousand men, with Jewish women very generally on their side in sympathy and effort;[174] while the Sadducees were so small a faction and of such limited power that, when they were placed in official positions, they generally followed the policy of the Pharisees as a matter of incumbent expediency. The Pharisees were the Puritans of the time, unflinching in their demand for compliance with the traditional rules as well as the original law of Moses. In this connection note Paul's confession of faith and practise when arraigned before Agrippa—"That after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee."[175] The Sadducees prided themselves on strict compliance with the law, as they construed it, irrespective of all scribes or rabbis. The Sadducees stood for the temple and its prescribed ordinances, the Pharisees for the synagog and its rabbinical teachings. It is difficult to decide which were the more technical if we judge each party by the standard of its own profession. By way of illustration: the Sadducees held to the literal and full exaction of the Mosaic penalty—an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth[176]—while the Pharisees contended on the authority of rabbinical dictum, that the wording was figurative, and[Pg 67] that therefore the penalty could be met by a fine in money or goods.
In the New Testament, the Pharisees are frequently described as being in opposition to the Sadducees; the relationship between these two groups makes it easier to compare them than to examine each one on its own. The Sadducees emerged as a reactionary group in the second century B.C. in response to an insurrection against the Maccabean party. Their stance was against the growing body of traditional teachings, which they believed were not just safeguarding the law but suffocating it. The Sadducees advocated for the sanctity of the law as it was written and preserved, rejecting the entire set of rabbinical teachings both in oral tradition and as compiled in the scribes’ records. The Pharisees were the more popular group, while the Sadducees represented the aristocratic minority. By the time of Christ’s birth, the Pharisees were an organized group of over six thousand men, with many Jewish women supporting them; in contrast, the Sadducees were so small and weak that those holding official positions usually adhered to the Pharisees' policies for convenience. The Pharisees were the Puritans of that era, unwavering in their insistence on following traditional rules and the original law of Moses. As a reflection of this, consider Paul’s declaration of faith when he appeared before Agrippa: "That after the most strict sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee." The Sadducees prided themselves on strictly following the law as they understood it, regardless of any scribes or rabbis. The Sadducees supported the temple and its prescribed practices, while the Pharisees were aligned with the synagogue and its rabbinical teachings. It’s hard to determine which group was more technical if we evaluate each by its own standards. For example, the Sadducees adhered to a strict interpretation of the Mosaic law—an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth—while the Pharisees argued, based on rabbinical interpretation, that this phrasing was figurative, allowing for penalties to be paid in money or goods.
Pharisees and Sadducees differed on many important if not fundamental matters of belief and practise, including the preexistence of spirits, the reality of a future state involving reward and punishment, the necessity for individual self-denial, the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection from the dead; in each of which the Pharisees stood for the affirmative while the Sadducees denied.[177] Josephus avers—the doctrine of the Sadducees is that the soul and body perish together; the law is all that they are concerned to observe.[178] They were "a skeptical school of aristocratic traditionalists; adhering only to the Mosaic law."[179]
Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed on many important, if not fundamental, beliefs and practices, such as the preexistence of spirits, the reality of an afterlife involving reward and punishment, the need for personal self-denial, the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection from the dead. In each of these areas, the Pharisees affirmed these beliefs while the Sadducees rejected them. Josephus states that the Sadducees believe that the soul and body perish together; they are only focused on following the law. They were "a skeptical group of aristocratic traditionalists, adhering solely to the Mosaic law."
Among the many other sects and parties established on the ground of religious or political differences, or both, are the Essenes, the Nazarites, the Herodians and the Galileans. The Essenes were characterized by professions of ultra-piety; they considered even the strictness of Pharisaic profession as weak and insufficient; they guarded membership in their order by severe exactions extending through a first and a second novitiate; they were forbidden even to touch food prepared by strangers; they practised strict temperance and rigid self-denial, indulged in hard labor—preferably that of agriculture, and were forbidden to trade as merchants, to take part in war, or to own or employ slaves.[180] Nazarites are not named in the New Testament, though of specific record in the earlier scriptures;[181] and from sources other than scriptural we learn of their existence at and after the time of Christ. The Nazarite was one of either sex who was bound to abstinence and sacrifice by a voluntary vow for special service to God; the period of the vow might be limited or[Pg 68] for life. While the Essenes cultivated an ascetic brotherhood, the Nazarites were devoted to solitary discipline.
Among the many other groups and factions formed due to religious or political differences, or both, are the Essenes, the Nazarites, the Herodians, and the Galileans. The Essenes were known for their extreme piety; they viewed even the strictness of the Pharisees as weak and insufficient. They enforced membership in their community with rigorous requirements that included a first and second period of initiation; they were not even allowed to touch food prepared by outsiders. They practiced strict abstinence and self-denial, engaged in hard physical work—preferably in agriculture—and were prohibited from trading as merchants, participating in warfare, or owning or employing slaves.[180] Nazarites are not mentioned in the New Testament, even though they are specifically referenced in earlier scriptures;[181] and from non-scriptural sources, we learn of their existence during and after the time of Christ. A Nazarite was anyone, male or female, who committed to abstinence and sacrifice through a voluntary vow for special service to God; the vow could be for a limited time or for life. While the Essenes formed an ascetic community, the Nazarites focused on solitary discipline.
The Herodians constituted a politico-religious party who favored the plans of the Herods under the professed belief that through that dynasty alone could the status of the Jewish people be maintained and a reestablishment of the nation be secured. We find mention of the Herodians laying aside their partisan antipathies and acting in concert with the Pharisees in the effort to convict the Lord Jesus and bring Him to death.[182] The Galileans or people of Galilee were distinguished from their fellow Israelites of Judea by greater simplicity and less ostentatious devotion in matters pertaining to the law. They were opposed to innovations, yet were generally more liberal or less bigoted than some of the professedly devout Judeans. They were prominent as able defenders in the wars of the people, and won for themselves a reputation for bravery and patriotism. They are mentioned in connection with certain tragical occurrences during our Lord's lifetime.[183]
The Herodians were a political and religious group that supported the Herods, believing that only through this dynasty could the Jewish people's status be preserved and the nation reestablished. They are noted for setting aside their party differences to work with the Pharisees in their attempt to convict Jesus and have Him executed.[182] The Galileans, or people from Galilee, were seen as simpler and less showy in their religious practices compared to their fellow Israelites from Judea. They opposed changes to tradition but were generally more open-minded than some of the strictly devout Judeans. They were known for being strong defenders in their people's battles and earned a reputation for courage and patriotism. They are mentioned in relation to certain tragic events during Jesus' life.[183]
The authority of the priesthood was outwardly acknowledged by the Jews at the time of Christ; and the appointed order of service for priest and Levite was duly observed. During the reign of David, the descendants of Aaron, who were the hereditary priests in Israel, had been divided into twenty-four courses,[184] and to each course the labors of the sanctuary were alloted in turn. Representatives of but four of these courses returned from the captivity, but from these the orders were reconstructed on the original plan. In the days of Herod the Great the temple ceremonies were conducted with great display and outward elaborateness, as an essential matter of consistency with the splendor of the structure, which surpassed in magnificence all earlier sanctuaries.[185] Priests and Levites, therefore, were in demand for[Pg 69] continuous service, though the individuals were changed at short intervals according to the established system. In the regard of the people the priests were inferior to the rabbis, and the scholarly attainments of a scribe transcended in honor that pertaining to ordination in the priesthood. The religion of the time was a matter of ceremony and formality, of ritual and performance; it had lost the very spirit of worship, and the true conception of the relationship between Israel and Israel's God was but a dream of the past.
The authority of the priesthood was visibly recognized by the Jews during the time of Christ, and the set order of service for priests and Levites was properly followed. Under King David, the descendants of Aaron, who were the hereditary priests in Israel, had been divided into twenty-four groups,[184] and each group took turns handling the duties of the sanctuary. Only representatives from four of these groups returned from captivity, but they managed to rebuild the orders based on the original structure. During Herod the Great's reign, the temple ceremonies were carried out with great display and elaboration, in line with the splendor of the temple, which was more magnificent than all previous sanctuaries.[185] Therefore, priests and Levites were needed for[Pg 69] continuous service, although the individuals serving changed frequently, as per the established system. In the eyes of the people, priests were seen as lower in status than rabbis, and the scholarly achievements of a scribe were held in higher regard than those associated with being ordained as a priest. The religion of that time was focused on ceremony and formality, ritual and performance; it had lost the true spirit of worship, and the genuine understanding of the relationship between Israel and its God was nothing but a distant memory.
Such in brief were the principal features of the world's condition, and particularly as concerns the Jewish people, when Jesus the Christ was born in the meridian of time.
Such were the main characteristics of the world's situation, especially regarding the Jewish people, when Jesus Christ was born at the peak of time.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6.
1. The Sanhedrin.—This, the chief court or high council of the Jews, derives its name from the Greek sunedrion, signifying "a council." In English it is sometimes though inaccurately, written "Sanhedrim." The Talmud traces the origin of this body to the calling of the seventy elders whom Moses associated with himself, making seventy-one in all, to administer as judges in Israel (Numb. 11:16, 17). The Sanhedrin in the time of Christ, as also long before, comprized seventy-one members, including the high-priest who presided in the assembly. It appears to have been known in its earlier period as the Senate, and was occasionally so designated even after Christ's death (Josephus, Antiquities xii, 3:3; compare Acts 5:21); the name "Sanhedrin" came into general use during the reign of Herod the Great; but the term is not of Biblical usage; its equivalent in the New Testament is "council" (Matt. 5:22; 10:17; 26:59) though it must be remembered that the same term is applied to courts of lesser jurisdiction than that of the Sanhedrin, and to local tribunals. (Matt 5:22; 10:17; 26:59; Mark 13:9; see also Acts 25:12.)
1. The Sanhedrin.—This was the main court or high council of the Jews, named after the Greek sunedrion, meaning "a council." In English, it is sometimes mistakenly spelled "Sanhedrim." The Talmud traces the origins of this group to the selection of seventy elders by Moses, making a total of seventy-one, to act as judges in Israel (Numb. 11:16, 17). During the time of Christ, as well as long before, the Sanhedrin had seventy-one members, including the high priest who led the assembly. It seems to have been referred to as the Senate in earlier times, and this name was occasionally used even after Christ's death (Josephus, Antiquities xii, 3:3; see Acts 5:21); the term "Sanhedrin" became common during the reign of Herod the Great; however, it doesn't appear in the Bible; its New Testament equivalent is "council" (Matt. 5:22; 10:17; 26:59), though it should be noted that this same term is also used for courts with lesser authority than the Sanhedrin and for local tribunals. (Matt 5:22; 10:17; 26:59; Mark 13:9; see also Acts 25:12.)
The following, from the Standard Bible Dictionary, is instructive: "Those qualified to be members were in general of the priestly house and especially of the Sadducean nobility. But from the days of Queen Alexandra (69-68 B.C.) onward, there were with these chief priests also many Pharisees in it under the name of scribes and elders. These three classes are found combined in Matt. 27:41; Mark 11:27; 14:43, 53; 15:1. How such members were appointed is not entirely clear. The aristocratic character of the body and the history of its origin forbid the belief that it was by election. Its nucleus probably consisted of the members of certain ancient families, to which, however, from time to time others were added by the secular rulers. The presiding officer was the high priest, who at first exercized in it[Pg 70] more than the authority of a member, claiming a voice equal to that of the rest of the body. But after the reduction of the high priesthood from a hereditary office to one bestowed by the political ruler according to his pleasure, and the frequent changes in the office introduced by the new system, the high priest naturally lost his prestige. Instead of holding in his hands the 'government of the nation,' he came to be but one of many to share this power; those who had served as high priests being still in esteem among their nation, and having lost their office not for any reason that could be considered valid by the religious sense of the community, exerted a large influence over the decisions of the assembly. In the New Testament they are regarded as the rulers (Matt. 26:59; 27:41; Acts 4:5, 8; Luke 23:13, 35; John 7:26), and Josephus' testimony supports this view. The functions of the Sanhedrin were religious and moral, and also political. In the latter capacity they further exercized administrative as well as judicial functions. As a religious tribunal, the Sanhedrin wielded a potent influence over the whole of the Jewish world (Acts 9:2); but as a court of justice, after the division of the country upon the death of Herod, its jurisdiction was limited to Judea. Here, however, its power was absolute even to the passing of sentence of death (Josephus, Ant. xiv, 9:3, 4; Matt. 26:3; Acts 4:5; 6:12; 22:30), although it had no authority to carry the sentence into execution except as approved and ordered by the representative of the Roman government. The law by which the Sanhedrin governed was naturally the Jewish, and in the execution of it this tribunal had a police of its own, and made arrests at its discretion (Matt 26:47).... While the general authority of the Sanhedrin extended over the whole of Judea, the towns in the country had local councils of their own (Matt. 5:22; 10:17; Mark 13:9; Josephus, B. J. ii, 14:1), for the administration of local affairs. These were constituted of elders (Luke 7:3), at least seven in number, (Josephus, Ant. iv, 8:14; B. J. ii, 20:5), and in some of the largest towns as many as twenty-three. What the relation of these to the central council in Jerusalem was does not appear clearly.... Some sort of mutual recognition existed among them; for whenever the judges of the local court could not agree it seems that they were in the habit of referring their cases to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. (Josephus, Ant. iv, 8:14; Mishna, Sanh. 11:2)."
The following, from the Standard Bible Dictionary, is instructive: "Those eligible to be members were generally from the priestly families and especially from the Sadducean elite. However, starting from the days of Queen Alexandra (69-68 B.C.) onward, there were also many Pharisees among these chief priests, referred to as scribes and elders. These three groups are combined in Matt. 27:41; Mark 11:27; 14:43, 53; 15:1. How these members were chosen is not completely clear. The aristocratic nature of the group and its historical origins prevent the belief that it was through election. Its core probably consisted of members from certain ancient families, with others being added by the secular rulers from time to time. The presiding officer was the high priest, who initially held more authority than just being a member, claiming an equal voice to the rest of the group. But after the high priesthood was changed from a hereditary position to one granted by the political ruler at will, and with the frequent changes in leadership introduced by this new system, the high priest naturally lost his influence. Instead of overseeing the ‘government of the nation,’ he became just one of many sharing this power; those who had previously served as high priests were still respected by their community and had not lost their position for any reasons considered valid by the religious standards of the community, allowing them to exert significant influence over assembly decisions. In the New Testament, they are viewed as the leaders (Matt. 26:59; 27:41; Acts 4:5, 8; Luke 23:13, 35; John 7:26), and Josephus's testimony backs this perspective. The functions of the Sanhedrin were religious and moral, as well as political. In the latter capacity, they also exercised administrative and judicial roles. As a religious tribunal, the Sanhedrin had a powerful influence over the entire Jewish world (Acts 9:2); however, as a court of law, after the country was divided following Herod's death, its authority was limited to Judea. Here, though, its power was absolute, even to the point of passing death sentences (Josephus, Ant. xiv, 9:3, 4; Matt. 26:3; Acts 4:5; 6:12; 22:30), although it did not have the power to carry out the sentence without the approval and order of the Roman government representative. The law by which the Sanhedrin governed was naturally Jewish, and in enforcing it, this tribunal had its own police force and made arrests at its discretion (Matt. 26:47).... While the overall authority of the Sanhedrin extended over all of Judea, the towns in the region had their own local councils (Matt. 5:22; 10:17; Mark 13:9; Josephus, B. J. ii, 14:1) for managing local matters. These were made up of elders (Luke 7:3), with at least seven members (Josephus, Ant. iv, 8:14; B. J. ii, 20:5), and in some of the largest towns, as many as twenty-three. The exact relationship between these local councils and the central council in Jerusalem is not entirely clear.... Some form of mutual recognition existed between them; for when the judges of the local court could not reach an agreement, they usually referred their cases to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. (Josephus, Ant. iv, 8:14; Mishna, Sanh. 11:2)."
2. Talmud.—"The body of Jewish civil and religious law (and discussion directly or remotely relating thereto) not comprized in the Pentateuch, commonly including the Mishna and the Gemara, but sometimes limited to the latter; written in Aramaic. It exists in two great collections, the Palestinian Talmud, or Talmud of the Land of Israel, or Talmud of the West, or, more popularly, Jerusalem Talmud, embodying the discussions on the Mishna of the Palestinian doctors from the 2d to the middle of the 5th century; and the Babylonian, embodying those of the Jewish doctors in Babylonia, from about 190 to the 7th century."—New Standard Dict. The Mishna comprizes the earlier portions of the Talmud; the Gemara is made up of later writings and is[Pg 71] largely an exposition of the Mishna. An edition of the Babylonian Talmud alone (issued at Vienna in 1682) comprized twenty-four tomes. (Geikie.)
2. Talmud.—"The collection of Jewish civil and religious law (and discussions related to it) not found in the Pentateuch, usually including the Mishna and the Gemara, but sometimes referring only to the latter; written in Aramaic. It exists in two major collections: the Palestinian Talmud, or Talmud of the Land of Israel, or Talmud of the West, commonly known as the Jerusalem Talmud, which contains discussions on the Mishna by Palestinian scholars from the 2nd to the middle of the 5th century; and the Babylonian, which includes those from Jewish scholars in Babylonia, spanning roughly from 190 to the 7th century."—New Standard Dict. The Mishna covers the earlier sections of the Talmud; the Gemara consists of later writings and is[Pg 71] largely an explanation of the Mishna. An edition of the Babylonian Talmud alone (published in Vienna in 1682) included twenty-four volumes. (Geikie.)
3. Rabbis.—The title Rabbi is equivalent to our distinctive appellations Doctor, Master, or Teacher. By derivation it means Master or my Master, thus connoting dignity and rank associated with politeness of address. A definite explanation of the term is given by John (1:38), and the same meaning attaches by implication to its use as recorded by Matthew (23:8). It was applied as a title of respect to Jesus on several occasions (Matt. 23:7, 8; 26:25, 49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8). The title was of comparatively recent usage in the time of Christ, as it appears to have first come into general use during the reign of Herod the Great, though the earlier teachers, of the class without the name of Rabbis, were generally reverenced, and the title was carried back to them by later usage. Rab was an inferior title and Rabban a superior one to Rabbi. Rabboni was expressive of most profound respect, love and honor (see John 20:16). At the time of our Lord's ministry the Rabbis were held in high esteem, and rejoiced in the afflations of precedence and honor among men. They were almost exclusively of the powerful Pharisaic party.
3. Rabbis.—The title Rabbi is similar to our titles Doctor, Master, or Teacher. It means Master or my Master, suggesting a level of dignity and respect in how someone is addressed. John (1:38) provides a clear explanation of the term, and Matthew (23:8) implies the same meaning. Jesus was referred to with this title on several occasions (Matt. 23:7, 8; 26:25, 49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8). The title was relatively new during Christ's time, as it seems to have become common during Herod the Great's reign, although earlier teachers were still greatly respected even without the title, and later usage retroactively assigned it to them. Rab was a lower title, while Rabban was a higher one than Rabbi. Rabboni conveyed the deepest respect, love, and honor (see John 20:16). During our Lord's ministry, Rabbis were highly esteemed and enjoyed social status and honor among people. They were mostly part of the influential Pharisaic party.
The following is from Geikie's Life and Words of Christ, vol. I, chap. 6: "If the most important figures in the society of Christ's day were the Pharisees, it was because they were the Rabbis or teachers of the Law. As such they received superstitious honor, which was, indeed, the great motive, with many, to court the title or join the party. The Rabbis were classed with Moses, the patriarchs, and the prophets, and claimed equal reverence. Jacob and Joseph were both said to have been Rabbis. The Targum of Jonathan substitutes Rabbis, or Scribes, for the word 'prophets' where it occurs. Josephus speaks of the prophets of Saul's day as Rabbis. In the Jerusalem Targum all the patriarchs are learned Rabbis.... They were to be dearer to Israel than father or mother—because parents avail only in this world [as was then taught] but the Rabbi forever. They were set above kings, for is it not written 'Through me kings reign'? Their entrance into a house brought a blessing; to live or to eat with them was the highest good fortune.... The Rabbis went even further than this in exalting their order. The Mishna declares that it is a greater crime to speak anything to their discredit, than to speak against the words of the Law.... Yet in form, the Law received boundless honor. Every saying of the Rabbis had to be based on some words of it, which were, however, explained in their own way. The spirit of the times, the wild fanaticism of the people, and their own bias, tended alike to make them set value only on ceremonies and worthless externalisms, to the utter neglect of the spirit of the sacred writings. Still it was held that the Law needed no confirmation, while the words of the Rabbis did. So far as the Roman authority under which they lived left them free, the Jews willingly put all power in the hands of the Rabbis. They or their nominees filled every office, from the[Pg 72] highest in the priesthood to the lowest in the community. They were the casuists, the teachers, the priests, the judges, the magistrates, and the physicians of the nation.... The central and dominant characteristic of the teaching of the Rabbis was the certain advent of a great national Deliverer—the Messiah or Anointed of God or in the Greek translation of the title, the Christ. In no other nation than the Jews has such a conception ever taken such root or shown such vitality.... It was agreed among the Rabbis that His birthplace must be Bethlehem, and that He must rise from the tribe of Judah."
The following is from Geikie's Life and Words of Christ, vol. I, chap. 6: "If the most important figures in the society of Christ's time were the Pharisees, it was because they were the Rabbis or teachers of the Law. They received superstitious honor, which was, in fact, the main reason for many to seek the title or join the group. The Rabbis were grouped with Moses, the patriarchs, and the prophets, and claimed equal respect. Jacob and Joseph were both considered Rabbis. The Targum of Jonathan uses Rabbis, or Scribes, instead of the word 'prophets' where it appears. Josephus refers to the prophets of Saul's era as Rabbis. In the Jerusalem Targum, all the patriarchs are portrayed as learned Rabbis.... They were regarded as more precious to Israel than parents—because parents only benefit this world [as was taught back then], but the Rabbi is eternal. They were seen as above kings, for isn't it written 'Through me kings reign'? Their arrival in a house was seen as a blessing; to live or eat with them was the highest form of good fortune.... The Rabbis went even further in elevating their status. The Mishna states that it is a worse sin to speak against them than to criticize the words of the Law.... However, in principle, the Law received extensive honor. Every saying of the Rabbis had to be grounded in some of its words, which were, however, interpreted in their own way. The spirit of the times, the intense fanaticism of the people, and their own biases led them to focus solely on rituals and trivial external practices, neglecting the essence of the sacred texts. Still, it was believed that the Law didn’t need validation, whereas the words of the Rabbis did. As much as the Roman authority allowed, the Jews willingly entrusted all power to the Rabbis. They or their appointees occupied every position, from the[Pg 72] highest in the priesthood to the lowest in the community. They were the legal experts, the educators, the priests, the judges, the officials, and the doctors of the nation.... The central and defining feature of the Rabbis' teaching was the certain arrival of a great national Deliverer—the Messiah or Anointed One of God, or in the Greek translation, the Christ. No other nation besides the Jews has ever embraced such a concept so deeply or demonstrated such vitality.... It was widely accepted among the Rabbis that His birthplace would be Bethlehem and that He must come from the tribe of Judah."
Individual rabbis gathered disciples about them, and, inevitably, rivalry became manifest. Rabbinical schools and academies were established, each depending for its popularity on the greatness of some rabbi. The most famous of these institutions in the time of Herod I. were the school of Hillel and that of his rival Shammai. Later, tradition invested these with the title "the fathers of old." It appears from the trifling matters over which the followers of these two disagreed, that only by opposition could either maintain a distinguishing status. Hillel is reputed as the grandfather of Gamaliel, the rabbi and doctor of the law at whose feet Saul of Tarsus, afterward Paul the apostle, received his early instruction (Acts 22:3). So far as we have historic record of the views, principles or beliefs advocated by the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai, it appears that the former stood for a greater degree of liberality and tolerance, while the later emphasized a strict and possibly narrow interpretation of the law and its associated traditions. The dependence of the rabbinical schools on the authority of tradition is illustrated by an incident of record to the effect that even the prestige of the great Hillel did not insure him against uproar when once he spoke without citing precedent; only when he added that so had his masters Abtalion and Shemajah spoken did the tumult subside.
Individual rabbis attracted followers, which naturally led to rivalry. Rabbinical schools and academies were created, each gaining popularity based on the reputation of a particular rabbi. The most notable of these institutions during the time of Herod I were the school of Hillel and that of his rival Shammai. Later, they were referred to as "the fathers of old." It’s clear from the trivial disagreements between their followers that they could only maintain a distinct identity through opposition. Hillel is considered the grandfather of Gamaliel, the rabbi and legal scholar under whom Saul of Tarsus, later known as Paul the apostle, received his early education (Acts 22:3). Based on historical records of the philosophies and beliefs espoused by the schools of Hillel and Shammai, it seems that Hillel's approach favored greater liberalism and tolerance, while Shammai emphasized a stricter and possibly narrower interpretation of the law and its traditions. The reliance of the rabbinical schools on traditional authority is highlighted by an incident where even the esteemed Hillel faced chaos when he spoke without citing a precedent; only after he mentioned that his teachers Abtalion and Shemajah had said the same did the commotion calm down.
4. Sadducean Denial of the Resurrection.—As set forth in the text, the Sadducees formed an association numerically small as compared with the more popular and influential Pharisees. In the Gospels the Pharisees are of frequent mention, and very commonly in connection with the scribes, while the Sadducees are less frequently named. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Sadducees appear frequently as opponents of the Church. This condition was doubtless due to the prominence given the resurrection from the dead among the themes of the apostolic preaching, the Twelve continually bearing testimony to the actual resurrection of Christ. Sadducean doctrine denied the actuality and possibility of a bodily resurrection, the contention resting mainly on the ground that Moses, who was regarded as the supreme mortal lawgiver in Israel, and the chief mouthpiece of Jehovah, had written nothing concerning life after death. The following is taken from Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, article "Sadducees," as touching this matter: "The denial of man's resurrection after death followed in the conception of the Sadducees as a logical conclusion from their denial that Moses had revealed to the Israelites the Oral Law. For on a point so[Pg 73] momentous as a second life beyond the grave, no religious party among the Jews would have deemed themselves bound to accept any doctrine as an article of faith, unless it had been proclaimed by Moses, their great legislator; and it is certain that in the written Law of the Pentateuch there is a total absence of any assertion by Moses of the resurrection of the dead. This fact is presented to Christians in a striking manner by the well-known words of the Pentateuch which are quoted by Christ in argument with the Sadducees on this subject (Exo. 3:6, 16; Mark 12:26, 27; Matt. 22:31, 32; Luke 20:37). It cannot be doubted that in such a case Christ would quote to His powerful adversaries the most cogent text in the Law; and yet the text actually quoted does not do more than suggest an inference on this great doctrine. It is true that passages in other parts of the Old Testament express a belief in the resurrection (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; Job 19:26; and in some of the Psalms); and it may at first sight be a subject of surprize that the Sadducees were not convinced by the authority of those passages. But although the Sadducees regarded the books which contained these passages as sacred, it is more than doubtful whether any of the Jews regarded them as sacred in precisely the same sense as the written Law. To the Jews Moses was and is a colossal form, preeminent in authority above all subsequent prophets."
4. Sadducean Denial of the Resurrection.—As mentioned in the text, the Sadducees were a small group compared to the more popular and influential Pharisees. The Gospels often mention the Pharisees, usually alongside the scribes, while the Sadducees are mentioned less frequently. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Sadducees frequently oppose the Church. This was likely due to the emphasis on resurrection in the preaching of the apostles, with the Twelve consistently testifying to the real resurrection of Christ. The Sadducean belief denied the reality and possibility of a bodily resurrection, primarily arguing that Moses, the supreme lawgiver in Israel and the chief spokesperson for Jehovah, wrote nothing about life after death. The following is from Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, article "Sadducees," regarding this issue: "The denial of man's resurrection after death followed for the Sadducees as a logical outcome of their belief that Moses did not reveal the Oral Law to the Israelites. For such a crucial point as life after death, no Jewish religious group would consider any doctrine as a matter of faith unless it was proclaimed by Moses, their great legislator; and it is clear that there is no claim made by Moses in the written Law of the Pentateuch about the resurrection of the dead. This fact is highlighted for Christians by the well-known passages from the Pentateuch that Christ quotes in His argument with the Sadducees on this topic (Exo. 3:6, 16; Mark 12:26, 27; Matt. 22:31, 32; Luke 20:37). It’s undeniable that in this situation, Christ would use the strongest text from the Law against His formidable opponents; yet the text He cites merely suggests an inference regarding this significant doctrine. While other parts of the Old Testament express a belief in the resurrection (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; Job 19:26; and in some Psalms), it may seem surprising at first that the Sadducees were not persuaded by those passages. However, although the Sadducees viewed the texts containing these passages as sacred, it’s questionable whether any Jews saw them as sacred in exactly the same way they viewed the written Law. For the Jews, Moses was, and still is, a towering figure, holding greater authority than any later prophets."
5. The Temple of Herod.—"Herod's purpose in the great undertaking [that of restoring the temple, and of enlarging it on a plan of unprecedented magnificence] was that of aggrandizing himself and the nation, rather than the rendering of homage to Jehovah. His proposition to rebuild or restore the temple on a scale of increased magnificence was regarded with suspicion and received with disfavor by the Jews, who feared that were the ancient edifice demolished, the arbitrary monarch might abandon his plan and the people would be left without a temple. To allay these fears the king proceeded to reconstruct and restore the old edifice, part by part, directing the work so that at no time was the temple service seriously interrupted. So little of the ancient structure was allowed to stand, however, that the temple of Herod must be regarded as a new creation. The work was begun about sixteen years before the birth of Christ; and while the Holy House itself was practically completed within a year and a half, this part of the labor having been performed by a body of one thousand priests specially trained for the purpose, the temple area was a scene of uninterrupted building operations down to the year 63 A.D. We read that in the time of Christ's ministry the temple had been forty-six years in building; and at that time it was unfinished.
5. The Temple of Herod.—"Herod’s goal with his massive project [to restore and enlarge the temple in a way that had never been seen before] was to enhance his own power and that of the nation, rather than to pay tribute to Jehovah. His plan to rebuild or restore the temple on a grand scale was met with skepticism and disapproval by the Jews, who worried that if the ancient structure was torn down, the king might abandon the project, leaving the people without a temple. To ease these concerns, the king began reconstructing and restoring the old structure piece by piece, ensuring that the temple service was not seriously disrupted. However, so little of the original building remained that Herod’s temple is considered a completely new creation. Construction started about sixteen years before the birth of Christ; while the Holy House itself was mostly finished within a year and a half, with that portion of the work done by a thousand specially trained priests, the temple complex continued to see ongoing construction until 63 A.D. It is noted that during Christ's ministry, the temple had been under construction for forty-six years and was still incomplete at that time."
"The Biblical record gives us little information regarding this the last and the greatest of ancient temples; for what we know concerning it we are indebted, mainly to Josephus, with some corroborative testimony found in the Talmud. In all essentials the Holy House, or Temple proper, was similar to the two earlier houses of sanctuary, though externally far more elaborate and imposing than either; but in the matter of surrounding courts and associated buildings, the Temple of Herod[Pg 74] preeminently excelled.... Yet its beauty and grandeur lay in architectural excellence rather than in the sanctity of its worship or in the manifestation of the Divine Presence within its walls. Its ritual and service were largely man-prescribed; for while the letter of the Mosaic Law was professedly observed, the law had been supplemented and in many features supplanted by rule and priestly prescription. The Jews professed to consider it holy, and by them it was proclaimed as the House of the Lord. Devoid though it was of the divine accompaniments of earlier shrines accepted of God, and defiled as it was by priestly arrogance and usurpation, as also by the selfish interest of traffic and trade, it was nevertheless recognized even by our Lord the Christ as His Father's House. (Matt. 21:12; compare Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.).... For thirty or more years after the death of Christ, the Jews continued the work of adding to and embellishing the temple buildings. The elaborate design conceived and projected by Herod had been practically completed; the temple was well-nigh finished, and, as soon afterward appeared, was ready for destruction. Its fate had been definitely foretold by the Savior Himself."—From the author's House of the Lord, pp. 54-61.
The Biblical records provide limited information about the last and greatest of ancient temples. What we know mainly comes from Josephus, with some additional insights from the Talmud. In most important aspects, the Holy House, or the Temple itself, resembled the two earlier sanctuaries, although it was far more elaborate and impressive on the outside. In terms of surrounding courts and associated buildings, Herod's Temple stood out significantly. However, its beauty and grandeur stemmed more from architectural excellence than from the sanctity of its worship or the presence of the Divine within its walls. Its rituals and services were largely defined by humans; although the Mosaic Law was officially followed, it had been supplemented and, in many ways, replaced by human rules and priestly regulations. The Jews claimed it was holy and referred to it as the House of the Lord. Even though it lacked the divine attributes of earlier temples recognized by God and was tainted by the arrogance and usurpation of priests, as well as the self-serving interests of commerce, it was still acknowledged by our Lord Christ as His Father's House. (Matt. 21:12; compare Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.) For over thirty years after Christ's death, the Jews continued to enhance and decorate the temple buildings. Herod's grand design had nearly been completed; the temple was almost finished and was soon ready for destruction. Its fate had been clearly predicted by the Savior Himself.
6. State of the World at the Time of the Savior's Birth.—At the beginning of the Christian era, the Jews, in common with most other nations, were subjects of the Roman empire. They were allowed a considerable degree of liberty in maintaining their religious observances and national customs generally, but their status was far from that of a free and independent people. The period was one of comparative peace—a time marked by fewer wars and less dissension than the empire had known for many years. These conditions were favorable for the mission of the Christ, and for the founding of His Church on earth. The religious systems extant at the time of Christ's earthly ministry may be classified in a general way as Jewish and Pagan, with a minor system—the Samaritan—which was essentially a mixture of the other two. The children of Israel alone proclaimed the existence of the true and living God; they alone looked forward to the advent of the Messiah, whom mistakenly they awaited as a prospective conqueror coming to crush the enemies of their nation. All other nations, tongues, and peoples, bowed to pagan deities, and their worship comprized nought but the sensual rites of heathen idolatry. Paganism was a religion of form and ceremony, based on polytheism—a belief in the existence of a multitude of gods, which deities were subject to all the vices and passions of humanity, while distinguished by immunity from death. Morality and virtue were unknown as elements of heathen service; and the dominant idea in pagan worship was that of propitiating the gods, in the hope of averting their anger and purchasing their favor.—See the author's The Great Apostasy, 1:2-4, and notes following the chapter cited.[Pg 75]
6. State of the World at the Time of the Savior's Birth.—At the start of the Christian era, the Jews, like most other nations, were subjects of the Roman Empire. They had significant freedom to practice their religious rituals and national customs, but they were far from being a free and independent people. This period was relatively peaceful, with fewer wars and less conflict than the empire had experienced for many years. These conditions were favorable for the mission of Christ and for establishing His Church on earth. The religious systems present during Christ's earthly ministry can generally be divided into two categories: Jewish and Pagan, with a smaller group—the Samaritans—essentially a blend of the other two. The Israelites uniquely proclaimed the existence of the true and living God; they alone anticipated the arrival of the Messiah, whom they mistakenly awaited as a potential conqueror set to defeat their nation's enemies. All other nations, languages, and peoples worshiped pagan gods, and their rituals included nothing but the sensual practices of idol worship. Paganism was a religion focused on form and ceremony, rooted in polytheism—a belief in many gods who embodied all the flaws and desires of humanity, yet were immune to death. Morality and virtue were absent from heathen worship; the main idea behind pagan rituals was to appease the gods, hoping to avoid their wrath and gain their favor.—See the author's The Great Apostasy, 1:2-4, and notes following the chapter cited.[Pg 75]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[148] Gen. 32:28; 35:10.
[155] Ezra 2:64-67.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ezra 2:64-67.
[158] Luke 2:1.
Luke 2:1.
[163] 2 Kings 17:24.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 2 Kings 17:24.
[166] Bab. Talmud, Sanhedrin, 90.
[167] Josephus, Ant. xx, 11:2.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Josephus, Ant. xx, 11:2.
[172] Matt. 23:13, 14, 15, 23. etc., read the entire chapter; compare Mark 12:38-40; Luke 20:46; see also as instances of special denunciation of the Pharisees Luke 11:37-44. Note also that the lawyers, who were professionally associated with the scribes, are included in the sweeping criticism: verses 45-54. See pages 552-560 herein.
[172] Matt. 23:13, 14, 15, 23. etc., read the entire chapter; compare Mark 12:38-40; Luke 20:46; also see examples of specific condemnation of the Pharisees in Luke 11:37-44. Note that the lawyers, who worked closely with the scribes, are also included in the broad criticism: verses 45-54. See pages 552-560 herein.
[174] Josephus, Antiquities, xvii, 2:4.
[178] Josephus, Antiquities xviii, 1:4.
[179] "New Stand. Dict.," under "Sadducees."
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ "New Stand. Dict.," under "Sadducees."
[180] Josephus, Antiquities xviii, 1:5.
[182] Matt. 22:15, 16; Mark 12:13.
[184] 1 Chron. 24:1-18.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Chron. 24:1-18.
CHAPTER 7.
GABRIEL'S ANNUNCIATION OF JOHN AND OF JESUS.
JOHN THE FORERUNNER.
Associated with the prophecies of the birth of Christ are predictions concerning one who should precede Him, going before to prepare the way. It is not surprizing that the annunciation of the immediate advent of the forerunner was speedily followed by that of the Messiah; nor that the proclamations were made by the same heavenly embassador—Gabriel, sent from the presence of God.[186]
Associated with the prophecies about Christ's birth are predictions about someone who would come before Him, preparing the way. It’s not surprising that the announcement of the forerunner’s immediate arrival was quickly followed by that of the Messiah, or that both proclamations were made by the same heavenly messenger—Gabriel, sent from the presence of God.[186]
About fifteen months prior to the Savior's birth, Zacharias, a priest of the Aaronic order, was officiating in the functions of his office in the temple at Jerusalem. His wife, Elisabeth, was also of a priestly family, being numbered among the descendants of Aaron. The couple had never been blessed with children; and at the time of which we speak they were both well stricken in years and had sorrowfully given up hope of posterity. Zacharias belonged to the course of priests named after Abijah, and known in later time as the course of Abia. This was the eighth in the order of the twenty-four courses established by David the king, each course being appointed to serve in turn a week at the sanctuary.[187] It will be remembered that on the return of the people from Babylon only four of the courses were represented; but of these four each averaged over fourteen hundred men.[188]
About fifteen months before the birth of the Savior, Zacharias, a priest from the Aaronic line, was carrying out his duties in the temple in Jerusalem. His wife, Elisabeth, also came from a priestly family, being a descendant of Aaron. The couple had never been blessed with children; and at this point in time, they were both quite old and had sadly lost hope of having a family. Zacharias was part of the priestly division known as the course of Abijah, later referred to as the course of Abia. This was the eighth of the twenty-four divisions established by King David, with each division serving for a week at the temple.[187] It’s important to note that when the people returned from Babylon, only four of the divisions were represented; however, each of those four divisions had over fourteen hundred members.[188]
During his week of service each priest was required to maintain scrupulously a state of ceremonial cleanliness of[Pg 76] person; he had to abstain from wine, and from food except that specifically prescribed; he had to bathe frequently; he lived within the temple precincts and thus was cut off from family association; he was not allowed to come near the dead, nor to mourn in the formal manner if death should rob him of even his nearest and dearest of kin. We learn that the daily selection of the priest who should enter the Holy Place, and there burn incense on the golden altar, was determined by lot;[189] and furthermore we gather, from non-scriptural history, that because of the great number of priests the honor of so officiating seldom fell twice to the same person.
During his week of service, each priest had to strictly maintain a state of ceremonial cleanliness. He had to avoid wine and eat only the food that was specifically allowed. He needed to bathe frequently, lived within the temple grounds, and was cut off from family interactions. He couldn't go near the dead or mourn in the usual way, even if death took his closest relatives. We learn that the daily selection of the priest who would enter the Holy Place to burn incense on the golden altar was made by drawing lots; and we also gather from non-scriptural history that, due to the large number of priests, the honor of performing this duty rarely repeated for the same person.
On this day the lot had fallen to Zacharias. It was a very solemn occasion in the life of the humble Judean priest—this one day in his life on which the special and particularly sacred service was required of him. Within the Holy Place he was separated by the veil of the temple only from the Oracle or Holy of Holies—the inner sanctuary into which none but the high priest might enter, and he only on the Day of Atonement, after long ceremonial preparation.[190] The place and the time were conducive to the highest and most reverential feelings. As Zacharias ministered within the Holy Place, the people without bowed themselves in prayer, watching for the clouds of incense smoke to appear above the great partition which formed the barrier between the place of general assembly and the Holy Place, and awaiting the reappearance of the priest and his pronouncement of the benediction.
On this day, the lot fell to Zacharias. It was a very solemn moment in the life of the humble Judean priest—this one day when he had to perform a special and particularly sacred service. Inside the Holy Place, he was separated by the veil of the temple from the Oracle or Holy of Holies—the inner sanctuary that only the high priest could enter, and only on the Day of Atonement, after extensive ceremonial preparations.[190] The place and the time encouraged the highest and most reverent feelings. As Zacharias ministered in the Holy Place, the people outside bowed in prayer, watching for the incense smoke to rise above the great partition that separated the area for the general assembly from the Holy Place, and waiting for the priest to come out and pronounce the blessing.
Before the astonished gaze of Zacharias, at this supreme moment of his priestly service, there appeared, standing on the right of the golden altar of incense, an angel of the Lord. Many generations had passed in Jewry since any visible presence other than mortal had been manifest within the[Pg 77] temple, either in the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies; the people regarded personal visitations of heavenly beings as occurrences of the past; they had come almost to believe that there were no longer prophets in Israel. Nevertheless, there was always a feeling of anxiety, akin to that of troubled expectancy, whenever a priest approached the inner sanctuary, which was regarded as the particular abode of Jehovah should He ever again condescend to visit His people. In view of these conditions we read without surprize that this angelic presence troubled Zacharias and caused fear to fall upon him. The words of the heavenly visitant, however, were comforting though of startling import, embodying as they did the unqualified assurance that the man's prayers had been heard, and that his wife should bear him a son, who must be named John.[191] The promise went even further, specifying that the child to be born of Elisabeth would be a blessing to the people; many would rejoice at his birth; he would be great in the sight of the Lord, and must be guarded against wine and strong drink;[192] he would be filled with the Holy Ghost, would be the means of turning many souls to God, and would go before to make ready a people prepared to receive the Messiah.
Before the astonished gaze of Zacharias, at this crucial moment of his priestly service, an angel of the Lord appeared, standing on the right side of the golden altar of incense. Many generations had passed in Jewish history since any visible presence other than human had been seen in the temple, either in the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies; people thought that personal visitations from heavenly beings were things of the past, and they had almost come to believe that there were no longer prophets in Israel. Still, there was always a sense of anxiety, similar to a feeling of nervous anticipation, whenever a priest entered the inner sanctuary, considered the special dwelling place of Jehovah should He ever again choose to visit His people. Given these circumstances, it’s no surprise that this angelic presence disturbed Zacharias and caused him to feel fear. However, the words of the heavenly visitor were comforting, albeit startling, as they carried the clear assurance that the man’s prayers had been answered, and that his wife would give birth to a son, who must be named John. The promise continued, specifying that the child born to Elisabeth would be a blessing to the people; many would rejoice at his birth; he would be great in the sight of the Lord and should be kept away from wine and strong drink; he would be filled with the Holy Spirit, would lead many souls to God, and would prepare a people to receive the Messiah.
Doubtless Zacharias recognised in the predicted future of the yet unborn child the great forerunner, of whom the prophets had told and the psalmist had sung; but that such a one should be offspring of himself and his aged wife seemed impossible despite the angel's promise. The man doubted, and asked whereby he should know that what his visitant had spoken was true: "And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to show thee these glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able[Pg 78] to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season."[193] When the highly blessed though sorely smitten priest at length came from within and appeared before the expectant congregation, already made anxious by his delayed return, he could but mutely dismiss the assembly and by signs indicate that he had seen a vision. The penalty for doubt was already operative; Zacharias was dumb.
Without a doubt, Zacharias recognized that the predicted future of the unborn child pointed to the great forerunner that the prophets had spoken about and the psalmist had sung of; however, the idea that such a child would be the offspring of him and his elderly wife seemed impossible, despite the angel's promise. The man doubted and asked how he could know that what the visitor had said was true: "And the angel answered him, I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God; and I have been sent to speak to you and give you this good news. And look, you will be mute and unable to speak until the day these things happen, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled at the proper time." When the highly favored yet troubled priest finally came out and appeared before the anxious congregation, who were worried about his delayed return, he could only silently dismiss the assembly and gesture that he had seen a vision. The consequence for his doubt had already taken effect; Zacharias was mute.
In due time the child was born, there in the hill country of Judea[194] where Zacharias and Elisabeth had their home; and, on the eighth day following the birth the family assembled in accordance with custom and Mosaic requirement, to name the babe in connection with the rite of circumcision.[195] All suggestions that he be called after his father were overruled by Zacharias, who wrote with decisive finality: "His name is John." Thereupon the dumb[196] priest's tongue was loosed, and being filled with the Holy Ghost he burst forth in prophecy, praise and song; his inspired utterances have been set to music and are sung in worship by many Christian congregations as the Benedictus:
In due time, the baby was born in the hill country of Judea[194] where Zacharias and Elisabeth lived. On the eighth day after the birth, the family gathered according to custom and Mosaic law to name the baby during the circumcision ceremony.[195] All suggestions to name him after his father were dismissed by Zacharias, who firmly wrote, "His name is John." At that moment, the mute[196] priest was able to speak, and filled with the Holy Spirit, he broke into prophecy, praise, and song. His inspired words have been set to music and are sung in worship by many Christian congregations as the Benedictus:
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto his[Pg 79] people by the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."[197]
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he has come to visit and save his people, and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets, who have been around since the world began: that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hands of all who hate us; to carry out the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he swore to our father Abraham, that he would grant to us, that we being rescued from the hands of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our lives. And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation to his[Pg 79] people by the forgiveness of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dawn from on high has visited us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace."[197]
The last words Zacharias had uttered prior to the infliction of dumbness were words of doubt and unbelief, words in which he had called for a sign as proof of authority of one who came from the presence of the Almighty; the words with which he broke his long silence were words of praise unto God in whom he had all assurance, words that were as a sign to all who heard, and the fame whereof spread throughout the region.
The last words Zacharias spoke before he became mute were filled with doubt and disbelief; he had asked for a sign to confirm the authority of someone sent from God's presence. When he finally broke his long silence, he spoke words of praise to God, in whom he fully believed. His words served as a sign to everyone who heard them, and their reputation spread throughout the area.
The unusual circumstances attending the birth of John, notably the months of dumbness passed by the father and his sudden recovery of speech on the bestowal of the fore-appointed name, caused many to marvel and some to fear, as they asked: "What manner of child shall this be?" When, a man grown, John raised his voice in the wilderness, again in fulfillment of prophecy, the people questioned as to whether he was not the Messiah.[198] Of his life between infancy and the beginning of his public ministry, a period of approximately thirty years, we have of record but a single sentence: "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel."[199]
The unusual circumstances surrounding John's birth, especially his father's months of silence and his sudden ability to speak when the chosen name was given, caused many to wonder and some to be afraid, asking, "What kind of child will this be?" When John grew up and spoke out in the wilderness, in fulfillment of prophecy, people questioned if he was the Messiah.[198] We have only one record of his life between infancy and the start of his public ministry, a span of about thirty years: "And the child grew, became strong in spirit, and lived in the deserts until the day he was revealed to Israel."[199]
THE ANNUNCIATION TO THE VIRGIN.
Six months after the visitation of Gabriel to Zacharias, and three months prior to the birth of John, the same heavenly messenger was sent to a young woman named Mary, who lived at Nazareth, a town in Galilee. She was of the lineage of David; and though unmarried was betrothed[Pg 80] or espoused to a man named Joseph, who also was of royal descent through the Davidic line. The angel's salutation, while full of honor and blessing, caused Mary to wonder and to feel troubled. "Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women";[200] thus did Gabriel greet the virgin.
Six months after Gabriel visited Zacharias, and three months before John was born, the same heavenly messenger was sent to a young woman named Mary, who lived in Nazareth, a town in Galilee. She was from the lineage of David; and although she was unmarried, she was engaged to a man named Joseph, who also came from royal descent through the Davidic line. The angel's greeting, while full of honor and blessings, made Mary feel both curious and worried. "Greetings, you who are highly favored, the Lord is with you: you are blessed among women," Gabriel said to the virgin.
In common with other daughters of Israel, specifically those of the tribe of Judah and of known descent from David, Mary had doubtless contemplated, with holy joy and ecstasy, the coming of the Messiah through the royal line; she knew that some Jewish maiden was yet to become the mother of the Christ. Was it possible that the angel's words to her had reference to this supreme expectation and hope of the nation? She had little time to turn these things in her mind, for the angel continued: "Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."[201]
Like other daughters of Israel, especially those from the tribe of Judah and of known descent from David, Mary must have thought, with holy joy and excitement, about the arrival of the Messiah through the royal lineage; she understood that some Jewish girl was destined to be the mother of Christ. Could it be that the angel’s message to her was linked to this ultimate hope and expectation of the nation? She had little time to ponder these thoughts, for the angel went on: "Don’t be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And look, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you will name him JESUS. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and his kingdom will have no end."[201]
Even yet she comprehended but in part the import of this momentous visitation. Not in the spirit of doubt such as had prompted Zacharias to ask for a sign, but through an earnest desire for information and explanation, Mary, conscious of her unmarried status and sure of her virgin condition, asked: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The answer to her natural and simple inquiry was the announcement of a miracle such as the world had never known—not a miracle in the sense of a happening contrary to nature's law, nevertheless a miracle through the operation of higher law, such as the human mind ordinarily fails to comprehend or regard as possible. Mary was informed that[Pg 81] she would conceive and in time bring forth a Son, of whom no mortal man would be the father:—"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."[202]
Even so, she only partially understood the significance of this important visit. Not out of doubt, like Zacharias who asked for a sign, but out of a sincere desire for information and clarity, Mary, aware of her unmarried status and certain of her virginity, asked: "How will this happen, since I have not been with a man?" The response to her straightforward question was the announcement of a miracle unlike anything the world had ever seen—not a miracle in the sense of a violation of nature's laws, but a miracle through the operation of a higher law, which the human mind typically struggles to grasp or accept as possible. Mary was told that[Pg 81] she would conceive and eventually give birth to a Son, with no mortal man being the father:—"The angel answered and said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the holy one to be born of you will be called the Son of God."
Then the angel told her of the blessed condition of her cousin Elisabeth, who had been barren; and by way of sufficient and final explanation added: "For with God nothing shall be impossible." With gentle submissiveness and humble acceptance, the pure young virgin replied: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."
Then the angel informed her about her cousin Elisabeth, who had been unable to have children; and to provide a clear and final explanation, he added, "For nothing is impossible with God." With gentle acceptance and humble submission, the pure young virgin responded, "I am the Lord's servant; may it be done to me according to your word."
His message delivered, Gabriel departed, leaving the chosen Virgin of Nazareth to ponder over her wondrous experience. Mary's promised Son was to be "The Only Begotten" of the Father in the flesh; so it had been both positively and abundantly predicted. True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfilment of prophecy as that it should occur at all. That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the "Son of the Highest." In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman.[Pg 82]
His message delivered, Gabriel left, allowing the chosen Virgin of Nazareth to reflect on her extraordinary experience. Mary’s promised Son was to be “The Only Begotten” of the Father in human form; this had been predicted both clearly and extensively. True, the event was unprecedented; it has never happened before; but the fact that the virgin birth would be unique was as essential to fulfilling prophecy as the fact that it would occur at all. The Child to be born of Mary was conceived by Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in opposition to natural law but in line with a higher expression of it; and the offspring from that union of supreme sanctity, celestial parentage, and pure though mortal motherhood was rightly called the “Son of the Highest.” In His nature, the powers of divinity would be combined with the abilities and potential of humanity; and this through the usual process of heredity, as established by God, demonstrated by science, and accepted by philosophy, that living beings shall reproduce—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and abilities that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman.[Pg 82]
Jesus Christ was to be born of mortal woman, but was not directly the offspring of mortal man, except so far as His mother was the daughter of both man and woman. In our Lord alone has been fulfilled the word of God spoken in relation to the fall of Adam, that the seed of the woman should have power to overcome Satan by bruising the serpent's head.[203]
Jesus Christ was born to a human mother, but He wasn't directly the child of a human father, except in the sense that His mother was the child of both a man and a woman. Only in our Lord has the promise of God regarding Adam's fall been fulfilled, that the seed of the woman would have the power to defeat Satan by striking the serpent's head.[203]
In respect to place, condition, and general environment, Gabriel's annunciation to Zacharias offers strong contrast to the delivery of his message to Mary. The prospective forerunner of the Lord was announced to his father within the magnificent temple, and in a place the most exclusively sacred save one other in the Holy House, under the light shed from the golden candlestick, and further illumined by the glow of living coals on the altar of gold; the Messiah was announced to His mother in a small town far from the capital and the temple, most probably within the walls of a simple Galilean cottage.
In terms of location, situation, and overall setting, Gabriel's announcement to Zacharias is a stark contrast to the way he delivered his message to Mary. The future forerunner of the Lord was announced to his father in the grand temple, in the most sacred spot outside of one other in the Holy House, illuminated by the light from the golden candlestick and further brightened by the glow of live coals on the gold altar. In contrast, the Messiah was announced to His mother in a small town far from the capital and the temple, likely within the walls of a simple cottage in Galilee.
MARY'S VISIT TO HER COUSIN ELISABETH.
It was natural that Mary, left now to herself with a secret in her soul, holier, greater, and more thrilling than any ever borne before or since, should seek companionship, and that of some one of her own sex, in whom she could confide, from whom she might hope to derive comfort and support, and to whom it would be not wrong to tell what at that time was probably known to no mortal save herself. Her heavenly visitant had indeed suggested all this in his mention of Elisabeth, Mary's cousin, herself a subject of unusual blessing, and a woman through whom another miracle of God had been wrought. Mary set out with haste from Nazareth for the hill country of Judea, on a journey of about a hundred miles if the traditional account be true that the little town of Juttah was the home of Zacharias. There was[Pg 83] mutual joy in the meeting between Mary the youthful virgin, and Elisabeth, already well advanced in life. From what of Gabriel's words her husband had communicated, Elisabeth must have known that the approaching birth of her son would soon be followed by that of the Messiah, and that therefore the day for which Israel had waited and prayed through the long dark centuries was about to dawn. When Mary's salutation fell upon her ears, the Holy Ghost bore witness that the chosen mother of the Lord stood before her in the person of her cousin; and as she experienced the physical thrill incident to the quickening spirit of her own blessed conception, she returned the greeting of her visitor with reverence: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"[204] Mary responded with that glorious hymn of praise, since adopted in the musical ritual of churches as the Magnificat:
It was only natural for Mary, now on her own with a secret in her heart—one that was holier, greater, and more exciting than any she had ever carried before or would ever carry again—to seek companionship, especially from another woman she could trust. She wanted someone she could confide in, from whom she might find comfort and support, and with whom it wouldn’t be wrong to share what was likely known to no one else but her at that moment. Her heavenly visitor had indeed suggested this when he mentioned Elisabeth, Mary's cousin, who was also blessed in a unique way and a woman through whom another miracle of God had happened. Mary hurried from Nazareth to the hill country of Judea, a journey of about a hundred miles, based on the belief that the small town of Juttah was the home of Zacharias. There was a shared joy in the meeting between Mary, the young virgin, and Elisabeth, who was already well into life. From what her husband had shared of Gabriel's words, Elisabeth must have understood that the coming birth of her son would soon be followed by the birth of the Messiah, meaning the long-awaited day for which Israel had hoped and prayed was about to arrive. When Mary's greeting reached her ears, the Holy Spirit confirmed that the chosen mother of the Lord was standing before her in the form of her cousin; as she felt the physical exhilaration that came with the blessing of her own miraculous conception, she responded to her visitor’s greeting with reverence: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why should I be honored that the mother of my Lord comes to me?" Mary answered with that beautiful hymn of praise, which has since become part of the musical rituals in churches known as the Magnificat:
"My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever."[205]
"My soul glorifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. For he has looked at the humble state of his servant: for, from now on, all generations will call me blessed. For the Mighty One has done great things for me; holy is his name. His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their own imaginations. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, remembering his mercy, just as he promised our ancestors, to Abraham and his descendants forever." [205]
MARY AND JOSEPH.
The visit lasted about three months, after which time Mary returned to Nazareth. The real embarrassment of her position she had now to meet. At the home of her cousin[Pg 84] she had been understood; her condition had served to confirm the testimony of Zacharias and Elisabeth; but how would her word be received at her own home? And especially, how would she be regarded by her espoused husband?[206] Betrothal, or espousal, in that time was in some respects as binding as the marriage vow, and could only be set aside by a ceremonial separation akin to divorce; yet an espousal was but an engagement to marry, not a marriage. When Joseph greeted his promised bride after her three months' absence, he was greatly distressed over the indications of her prospective maternity. Now the Jewish law provided for the annulment of a betrothal in either of two ways—by public trial and judgment, or by private agreement attested by a written document signed in the presence of witnesses. Joseph was a just man, a strict observer of the law, yet no harsh extremist; moreover he loved Mary and would save her all unnecessary humiliation, whatever might be his own sorrow and suffering. For Mary's sake he dreaded the thought of publicity; and therefore determined to have the espousal annulled with such privacy the law allowed. He was troubled and thought much of his duty in the matter, when, "behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."[207]
The visit lasted about three months, after which Mary returned to Nazareth. Now she had to face the real embarrassment of her situation. At her cousin's home[Pg 84], she had been understood; her condition had helped confirm the testimonies of Zacharias and Elisabeth; but how would her story be received at home? And especially, how would her fiancé react?[206] Betrothal, or engagement, back then was in some ways as binding as marriage vows and could only be ended by a formal separation similar to divorce; however, an engagement was just a promise to marry, not an actual marriage. When Joseph saw his promised bride after her three months away, he was deeply troubled by the signs of her pregnancy. Jewish law allowed for the annulment of a betrothal in two ways—through a public trial and judgment, or through a private agreement documented in writing and signed in front of witnesses. Joseph was a good man, a strict follower of the law, but not an extreme one; moreover, he loved Mary and wanted to spare her any unnecessary humiliation, no matter his own sorrow and suffering. For Mary's sake, he dreaded the idea of publicity; so he decided to annul the engagement as discreetly as the law permitted. He was worried and thought a lot about his responsibilities in this situation when, "behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." [207]
Great was Joseph's relief of mind; and great his joy in the realization that the long predicted coming of the Messiah was at hand; the words of the prophets would be fulfilled; a virgin, and she the one in the world most dear to him, had conceived, and in due time would bring forth that blessed Son, Emmanuel, which name by interpretation means "God[Pg 85] with us."[208] The angel's salutation was significant; "Joseph, thou son of David," was the form of address; and the use of that royal title must have meant to Joseph that, though he was of kingly lineage, marriage with Mary would cast no shadow upon his family status. Joseph waited not; to insure Mary all possible protection and establish his full legal right as her lawful guardian he hastened the solemnization of the marriage, and "did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."[209]
Joseph felt a huge sense of relief and joy knowing that the long-expected arrival of the Messiah was finally happening; the words of the prophets would come true. A virgin, the one he cherished most in the world, had conceived and would soon give birth to that blessed Son, Emmanuel, which means "God with us." The angel's greeting was meaningful; "Joseph, son of David," was how he was addressed, and the use of that royal title must have reassured Joseph that, even though he came from a royal lineage, marrying Mary wouldn’t tarnish his family’s reputation. Without hesitation, Joseph acted quickly to provide Mary with all the protection possible and to secure his legal rights as her husband. He followed the angel of the Lord's instructions and took Mary as his wife, and he didn't consummate their marriage until she had given birth to her firstborn son, whom he named JESUS.
The national hope of a Messiah based on promise and prophecy had become confused in the Jewish mind, through the influence of rabbinism with its many vagaries, and its "private interpretation"[210] made to appear authoritative by the artificially sustained prestige of the expositors; yet certain conditions had been emphasized as essential, even by the rabbis, and by these essentials would be judged the claim of any Jew who might declare himself to be the long expected One. It was beyond question that the Messiah was to be born within the tribe of Judah and through the line of descent from David, and, being of David He must of necessity be of the lineage of Abraham, through whose posterity, according to the covenant, all nations of the earth were to be blessed.[211]
The national hope for a Messiah based on promise and prophecy had become muddled in the Jewish understanding, influenced by rabbinical teachings with their many complexities and their "private interpretation" [210] that appeared authoritative due to the maintained prestige of the interpreters. Still, certain conditions were highlighted as essential, even by the rabbis, and these essentials would be used to evaluate any Jew who claimed to be the long-awaited One. It was unquestionable that the Messiah was to be born from the tribe of Judah and through the lineage of David, which meant that, as a descendant of David, He had to be from the lineage of Abraham, whose descendants, according to the covenant, were meant to bless all nations on earth. [211]
Two genealogical records, purporting to give the lineage of Jesus are found in the New Testament, one in the first chapter of Matthew, the other in the third chapter of Luke. These records present several apparent discrepancies, but such have been satisfactorily reconciled by the research of specialists in Jewish genealogy. No detailed analysis of the matter will be attempted here; but it should be borne in mind[Pg 86] that the consensus of judgment on the part of investigators is that Matthew's account is that of the royal lineage, establishing the order of sequence among the legal successors to the throne of David, while the account given by Luke is a personal pedigree, demonstrating descent from David without adherence to the line of legal succession to the throne through primogeniture or nearness of kin.[212] Luke's record is regarded by many, however, as the pedigree of Mary, while Matthew's is accepted as that of Joseph. The all important fact to be remembered is that the Child promised by Gabriel to Mary, the virginal bride of Joseph, would be born in the royal line. A personal genealogy of Joseph was essentially that of Mary also, for they were cousins. Joseph is named as son of Jacob by Matthew, and as son of Heli by Luke; but Jacob and Heli were brothers, and it appears that one of the two was the father of Joseph and the other the father of Mary and therefore father-in-law to Joseph. That Mary was of Davidic descent is plainly set forth in many scriptures; for since Jesus was to be born of Mary, yet was not begotten by Joseph, who was the reputed, and, according to the law of the Jews, the legal, father, the blood of David's posterity was given to the body of Jesus through Mary alone. Our Lord, though repeatedly addressed as Son of David, never repudiated the title but accepted it as rightly applied to Himself.[213] Apostolic testimony stands in positive assertion of the royal heirship of Christ through earthly lineage, as witness the affirmation of Paul, the scholarly Pharisee: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" and again: "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead."[214]
Two family trees claiming to trace Jesus' lineage are found in the New Testament, one in the first chapter of Matthew and the other in the third chapter of Luke. These records show some obvious differences, but experts in Jewish genealogy have successfully resolved them. We won’t dive into a detailed analysis here; however, it’s important to note[Pg 86] that the general agreement among researchers is that Matthew’s account represents the royal lineage, outlining the sequence of legal successors to the throne of David, while Luke’s account is a personal genealogy, showing descent from David without following the line of legal succession through primogeniture or proximity of kin.[212] Many believe Luke’s record is actually Mary’s genealogy, while Matthew’s is considered Joseph’s. The key point to remember is that the Child promised by Gabriel to Mary, the virgin bride of Joseph, would be born into the royal line. Mary’s personal genealogy effectively aligns with Joseph's since they were cousins. Matthew identifies Joseph as the son of Jacob, while Luke identifies him as the son of Heli; but Jacob and Heli were brothers, meaning one was Joseph’s father and the other was Mary’s father, thus Joseph's father-in-law. It’s clearly stated in many scriptures that Mary had Davidic ancestry; since Jesus was to be born of Mary but not fathered by Joseph, who was the recognized and, according to Jewish law, the legal father, the bloodline of David’s descendants came to Jesus through Mary alone. Our Lord, although often called Son of David, never rejected this title but accepted it as correct.[213] Apostolic testimony strongly affirms Christ's royal heritage through earthly lineage, as illustrated by Paul, the learned Pharisee: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" and again: "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead."[214]
In all the persecutions waged by His implacable haters,[Pg 87] in all the false accusations brought against Him, in the specific charges of sacrilege and blasphemy based on His acknowledgment of the Messiahship as His own, no mention is found of even an insinuation that He could not be the Christ through any ineligibility based on lineage. Genealogy was assiduously cared for by the Jews before, during, and after the time of Christ; indeed their national history was largely genealogical record; and any possibility of denying the Christ because of unattested descent would have been used to the fullest extent by insistent Pharisee, learned scribe, haughty rabbi, and aristocratic Sadducee.
In all the persecutions launched by His relentless enemies,[Pg 87] in all the false accusations made against Him, and in the specific charges of sacrilege and blasphemy based on His claim of the Messiahship as His own, there’s no mention of even a hint that He couldn’t be the Christ due to any ineligibility stemming from His lineage. The Jews meticulously tracked their genealogy before, during, and after Christ's time; in fact, their national history was largely a genealogical record. Any chance to deny the Christ based on unverified descent would have been exploited to the fullest by the persistent Pharisees, knowledgeable scribes, arrogant rabbis, and elite Sadducees.
At the time of the Savior's birth, Israel was ruled by alien monarchs. The rights of the royal Davidic family were unrecognized; and the ruler of the Jews was an appointee of Rome. Had Judah been a free and independent nation, ruled by her rightful sovereign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her crowned king; and his lawful successor to the throne would have been Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.
At the time of the Savior's birth, Israel was governed by foreign rulers. The rights of the royal Davidic family went unacknowledged, and the leader of the Jews was a Roman appointee. If Judah had been a free and independent nation, led by its rightful sovereign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her king, and his legitimate successor to the throne would have been Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.
Gabriel's annunciation to Mary was that of the Son of David, on whose coming the hope of Israel rested as on a sure foundation. The One, thus announced, was Emmanuel, even God who was to dwell in flesh with His people,[215] the Redeemer of the world, Jesus the Christ.
Gabriel's announcement to Mary was about the Son of David, the one on whom the hope of Israel relied as if it were a solid foundation. The person announced was Emmanuel, God who was to live among His people in the flesh, the Redeemer of the world, Jesus the Christ.[215]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 7.
1. John the Baptist Regarded as a Nazarite.—The instruction of the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, that the promised son, John, was to "drink neither wine nor strong drink," and the adult life of John as a dweller in the desert, together with his habit of wearing rough garb, have led commentators and Biblical specialists to assume that he was a "Nazarite for life." It is to be remembered, however, that nowhere in scripture extant is John the Baptist definitely called a Nazarite. A Nazarite, the name signifying consecrated or separated, was one, who by personal vow or by that made for him by his parents, was set apart to some special labor or course of life involving self denial. (See page 67). Smith's Comp. Dict, of the Bible says: "There is no[Pg 88] notice in the Pentateuch of Nazarites for life; but the regulations for the vow of a Nazarite of days are given (Numb. 6:1-2). The Nazarite, during the term of his consecration, was bound to abstain from wine, grapes, and every production of the vine, and from every kind of intoxicating drink. He was forbidden to cut the hair of his head, or to approach any dead body, even that of his nearest relation." The sole instance of a Nazarite for life named in the scriptures is that of Samson, whose mother was required to put herself under Nazarite observances prior to his birth, and the child was to be a Nazarite to God from his birth (Judges 13:3-7, 14). In the strictness of his life, John the Baptist is to be credited with all the personal discipline required of Nazarites whether he was under voluntary or parental vows or was not so bound.
1. John the Baptist Regarded as a Nazarite.—The message from the angel Gabriel to Zacharias indicated that John, the promised son, was to "drink neither wine nor strong drink." His adult life in the desert and his choice of rough clothing have led scholars and Bible experts to believe he was a "Nazarite for life." However, it should be noted that John the Baptist is never explicitly referred to as a Nazarite in any existing scripture. A Nazarite, meaning consecrated or separated, was someone who, through a personal vow or one made by their parents, was dedicated to a specific path of life that involved self-denial. (See page 67). Smith's Comp. Dict, of the Bible states: "There is no[Pg 88] mention in the Pentateuch of Nazarites for life; but the guidelines for a temporary Nazarite vow are provided (Numb. 6:1-2). During their period of consecration, a Nazarite had to avoid wine, grapes, and all products of the vine, along with any intoxicating drinks. They were also forbidden to cut their hair or come into contact with any dead body, even that of a close family member." The only instance of a Nazarite for life mentioned in the scriptures is Samson, whose mother was required to observe Nazarite customs before his birth, and he was meant to be a Nazarite for God from birth (Judges 13:3-7, 14). Regardless of whether John the Baptist was under voluntary or parental vows, he exemplified all the personal discipline associated with Nazarites.
2. Circumcision, while not exclusively a Hebrew or an Israelitish practise, was made a definite requirement through the revelations of God to Abraham, as the sign of the covenant between Jehovah and the patriarch. (Gen. 17:9-14.) This covenant was made to include the establishment of Abraham's posterity as a great nation, and provided that through his descendants should all nations of the earth be blessed (Gen. 22:18)—a promise which has been proved to mean that through that lineage should the Messiah be born. Circumcision was a binding condition; and its practise therefore became a national characteristic. Every male was to be circumcized eight days after birth (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). This requirement as to age came to be so rigidly enforced, that even if the eighth day fell on a Sabbath the rite had to be performed on that day (John 7:22, 23). All male slaves had to be circumcized (Gen. 17:12, 13) and even strangers who sojourned with the Hebrews and desired to partake of the Passover with them had to submit to the requirement (Exo. 12:48). From the Standard Bible Dictionary we take the following: "The ceremony indicated the casting off of uncleanness as a preparation for entrance into the privileges of membership in Israel. In the New Testament, with its transfer of emphasis from the external and formal to the inner and spiritual side of things, it was first declared unnecessary for Gentile converts to the gospel to be circumcized (Acts 15:28), and afterward the rite was set aside even by Jewish Christians." It became customary to name a child at the time it was circumcized, as is instanced in the case of John, son of Zacharias (Luke 1:59).
2. Circumcision, though not solely a Hebrew or Israelite practice, became a specific requirement through God's revelations to Abraham, serving as the sign of the covenant between Jehovah and the patriarch. (Gen. 17:9-14.) This covenant included the promise of establishing Abraham's descendants as a great nation, with the assurance that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through his lineage (Gen. 22:18)—a promise that has been understood to signify the birth of the Messiah from that line. Circumcision was a necessary condition, and its practice subsequently became a national trait. Every male was required to be circumcised eight days after birth (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). This age requirement was enforced so strictly that if the eighth day fell on a Sabbath, the procedure still had to be performed that day (John 7:22, 23). All male slaves had to be circumcised (Gen. 17:12, 13), and even foreigners who lived among the Hebrews and wanted to take part in the Passover had to comply with this requirement (Exo. 12:48). From the Standard Bible Dictionary, we read: "The ceremony signified the removal of uncleanness as preparation for entering into the privileges of membership in Israel. In the New Testament, which emphasizes the inner and spiritual aspects over the external and formal ones, it was first announced that Gentile converts to the gospel did not need to be circumcised (Acts 15:28), and later the rite was even abandoned by Jewish Christians." It became common practice to name a child during the circumcision, as seen in the case of John, the son of Zacharias (Luke 1:59).
3. Zacharias' Affliction.—The sign for which Zacharias asked was thus given by the angel: "Behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season." (Luke 1:20.) From the account of the circumcision and naming of the boy, John, it is held by some that the afflicted father was also deaf, as the company "made signs" to him as to how he would have his son named (verse 62).
3. Zacharias' Affliction.—The sign that Zacharias asked for was given by the angel: "Look, you will be mute and unable to speak until the day these things happen, because you do not believe my words, which will be fulfilled at the right time." (Luke 1:20.) From the account of the circumcision and naming of the boy, John, some believe that the affected father was also deaf, as the group "made signs" to him about how he wanted his son named (verse 62).
4. Jewish Betrothal.—The vow of espousal, or betrothal, has always been regarded as sacred and binding in Jewish law. In a manner it was as binding as a marriage ceremony, though[Pg 89] it carried none of the particular rights of marriage. The following succinct statements are taken from Geikie's Life and Words of Christ, vol. I. p. 99: "Among the Jews of Mary's day it was even more of an actual engagement [than it later came to be]. The betrothal was formally made with rejoicings in the house of the bride under a tent or slight canopy raised for the purpose. It was called the 'making sacred' as the bride thenceforth was sacred to her husband in the strictest sense. To make it legal, the bridegroom gave his betrothed a piece of money, or the worth of it, before witnesses, with the words, 'Lo, thou art betrothed unto me,' or by a formal writing in which similar words and the maiden's name were given, and this in the same way was handed to her before witnesses."
4. Jewish Betrothal.—The promise of engagement, or betrothal, has always been seen as sacred and binding in Jewish law. In a way, it was as binding as a wedding ceremony, although[Pg 89] it didn’t include any of the specific rights of marriage. The following brief statements are taken from Geikie's Life and Words of Christ, vol. I. p. 99: "Among the Jews of Mary's time, it was even more of a real engagement [than it later became]. The betrothal was formally celebrated with joy in the bride's home under a tent or light canopy set up for the occasion. It was called the 'making sacred,' as the bride was then sacred to her husband in the strictest sense. To make it official, the groom gave his fiancée a piece of money, or its equivalent, before witnesses, along with the words, 'Lo, thou art betrothed unto me,' or by a written document that included similar words and the maiden's name, which was also presented to her before witnesses."
5. Genealogies of Joseph and Mary.—"It is now almost certain that the genealogies in both Gospels are genealogies of Joseph, which if we may rely on early traditions of their consanguinity involve genealogies of Mary also. The Davidic descent of Mary is implied in Acts 2:30; 13:23; Rom. 1:3; Luke 1:32, etc. St. Matthew gives the legal descent of Joseph through the elder and regal line, as heir to the throne of David; St. Luke gives the natural descent. Thus, the real father of Salathiel was heir of the house of Nathan, but the childless Jeconiah (Jer. 22:30) was the last lineal representative of the elder kingly line. The omission of some obscure names and the symmetrical arrangement, into tesseradecads were common Jewish customs. It is not too much to say that after the labors of Mill (On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, pp. 147-217) and Lord A. C. Hervey (On the Genealogies of Our Lord, 1853) scarcely a single difficulty remains in reconciling the apparent divergencies. And thus in this as in so many other instances, the very discrepancies which appear to be most irreconcilable, and most fatal to the historic accuracy of the four evangelists, turn out, on closer and more patient investigation, to be fresh proofs that they are not only entirely independent, but also entirely trustworthy."—Farrar, Life of Christ, p. 27, note.
5. Genealogies of Joseph and Mary.—"It is now almost certain that the genealogies in both Gospels refer to Joseph, which, if we trust early traditions about their family ties, also involve Mary’s genealogies. The Davidic ancestry of Mary is suggested in Acts 2:30; 13:23; Rom. 1:3; Luke 1:32, etc. St. Matthew outlines Joseph's legal lineage through the elder and royal line, making him heir to the throne of David; St. Luke presents the natural lineage. Therefore, the actual father of Salathiel was heir to Nathan's house, but the childless Jeconiah (Jer. 22:30) was the last direct representative of the elder royal line. The omission of some lesser-known names and the organized structure into groups of fourteen were common Jewish practices. It isn't an overstatement to say that after the work of Mill (On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, pp. 147-217) and Lord A. C. Hervey (On the Genealogies of Our Lord, 1853) there are hardly any unresolved issues in reconciling the apparent differences. Thus, in this case, as in many others, the very discrepancies that seem most difficult to reconcile and detrimental to the historical accuracy of the four evangelists actually turn out, upon closer and more thorough examination, to serve as new evidence that they are not only completely independent but also entirely reliable."—Farrar, Life of Christ, p. 27, note.
The writer of the article "Genealogy of Jesus Christ" in Smith's Bible Dict, says: "The New Testament gives us the genealogy of but one person, our Savior (Matt. 1; Luke 3).... The following propositions will explain the true construction of these genealogies (so Lord A. C. Hervey): 1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, i.e. of Jesus Christ, as the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary. 2. The genealogy of Matthew is, as Grotius asserted, Joseph's genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David. That of Luke is Joseph's private genealogy, exhibiting his real birth, as David's son, and thus showing why he was heir to Solomon's crown. The simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heirs to David's and Solomon's throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two at all. 3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably[Pg 90] the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph her husband."
The author of the article "Genealogy of Jesus Christ" in Smith's Bible Dict states: "The New Testament provides the genealogy of only one person, our Savior (Matt. 1; Luke 3).... The following points will clarify the true interpretation of these genealogies (according to Lord A. C. Hervey): 1. Both genealogies belong to Joseph, meaning they describe Jesus Christ as the adopted and legal son of Joseph and Mary. 2. The genealogy in Matthew represents Joseph's line as the legal heir to the throne of David. The genealogy in Luke reflects Joseph's personal lineage, showing his actual descent as David's son, and thus illustrating why he was in line for Solomon's crown. The basic idea that one Gospel writer presents the genealogy containing the successive heirs to David's and Solomon's throne, while the other shows the paternal lineage of the heir, clarifies all the inconsistencies in the two family trees, including both their similarities and differences, and the fact that there are two of them. 3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably[Pg 90] the daughter of Jacob and first cousin to her husband Joseph."
A valuable contribution to the literature of this subject appears in the Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, 1912, vol. 44, pp. 9-36, as an article, "The Genealogies of our Lord," by Mrs. A. S. Lewis, and discussion thereof by many scholars of acknowledged ability. The author, Mrs. Lewis, is an authority on Syriac manuscripts, and is one of the two women who, in 1892, discovered in the library of St. Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai, the Syriac palimpsest MS. of the four Gospels. The gifted author holds that Matthew's account attests the royal pedigree of Joseph, and that Luke's genealogical table proves the equally royal descent of Mary. Mrs. Lewis says: "The Sinai Palimpsest also tells us that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, to be enrolled there, because they were both of the house and lineage of David."
A valuable contribution to the literature on this topic appears in the Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, 1912, vol. 44, pp. 9-36, in an article titled "The Genealogies of our Lord," by Mrs. A. S. Lewis, along with discussions by many respected scholars. The author, Mrs. Lewis, is an expert on Syriac manuscripts and is one of the two women who, in 1892, discovered the Syriac palimpsest manuscript of the four Gospels in the library of St. Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai. The talented author believes that Matthew's account confirms the royal lineage of Joseph, while Luke's genealogical table verifies the equally royal descent of Mary. Mrs. Lewis states: "The Sinai Palimpsest also tells us that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be registered there because they were both from the house and lineage of David."
Canon Girdlestone, in discussing the article, says in pertinent emphasis of Mary's status as a princess of royal blood through descent from David: "When the angel was foretelling to Mary the birth of the Holy Child, he said, 'The Lord God shall give Him the throne of His father David.' Now if Joseph, her betrothed, had alone been descended from David, Mary would have answered, 'I am not yet married to Joseph,' whereas she did answer simply, 'I am an unmarried woman,' which plainly implies—if I were married, since I am descended from David, I could infuse my royal blood into a son, but how can I have a royal son while I am a virgin?'"
Canon Girdlestone, while discussing the article, highlights Mary’s status as a princess of royal blood through her descent from David: "When the angel told Mary about the birth of the Holy Child, he said, 'The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.' Now, if her betrothed, Joseph, was the only one descended from David, Mary would have said, 'I am not yet married to Joseph,' but instead, she simply replied, 'I am an unmarried woman,' which clearly implies—if I were married and I am descended from David, I could pass my royal blood to a son. But how can I have a royal son while I am still a virgin?"
After brief mention of the Jewish law relating to adoption, wherein it is provided (according to Hammurabi's Code, section 188), that if a man teach his adopted son a handicraft, the son is thereby confirmed in all the rights of heirship, Canon Girdlestone adds: "If the crown of David had been assigned to his successor in the days of Herod it would have been placed on the head of Joseph. And who would have been the legal successor to Joseph? Jesus of Nazareth would have been then the King of the Jews, and the title on the cross spoke the truth. God had raised Him up to the house of David."
After briefly discussing the Jewish law on adoption, which states (according to Hammurabi's Code, section 188) that if a man teaches his adopted son a trade, the son gains all the rights of an heir, Canon Girdlestone adds: "If the crown of David had been given to his successor during the days of Herod, it would have been placed on Joseph's head. And who would have been the legal successor to Joseph? Jesus of Nazareth would then have been the King of the Jews, and the title on the cross was true. God had raised Him up to the house of David."
6. The Inner Sanctuary of the Temple.—The Holy of Holies in the Temple of Herod retained the form and dimensions of the Oracle in the Temple of Solomon; it was therefore a cube, twenty cubits in each principal measurement. Between this and the Holy Place hung a double veil, of finest material, elaborately embroidered. The outer of the two veils was open at the north end, the inner at the south; so that the high priest who entered at the appointed time once a year could pass between the veils without exposing the Holy of Holies. The sacred chamber was empty save for a large stone upon which the high priest sprinkled the sacrificial blood on the Day of Atonement; this stone occupied the place of the Ark and its Mercy Seat. Outside the veil, in the Holy Place, stood the altar of incense, the seven-branched candlestick, and the table of shewbread.—The House of the Lord, p. 59.[Pg 91]
6. The Inner Sanctuary of the Temple.—The Holy of Holies in Herod's Temple kept the same shape and size as the Oracle in Solomon's Temple; it was a cube, measuring twenty cubits in each direction. Between this area and the Holy Place was a double veil made of the finest material, intricately embroidered. The outer veil was open at the north end, while the inner veil was open at the south end, allowing the high priest, who entered at the designated time once a year, to pass between the veils without revealing the Holy of Holies. The sacred chamber was empty except for a large stone where the high priest sprinkled the sacrificial blood on the Day of Atonement; this stone took the place of the Ark and its Mercy Seat. Outside the veil, in the Holy Place, were the altar of incense, the seven-branched candlestick, and the table of shewbread.—The House of the Lord, p. 59.[Pg 91]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[188] Ezra 2:36-39.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ezra 2:36-39.
[193] Luke 1:19, 20.
[194] Luke 1:57; compare verse 39.
[197] Luke 1:68-79.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 1:68-79.
[199] Luke 1:80.
Luke 1:80.
[200] Luke 1:28.
[201] Luke 1:30-33.
[204] Luke 1:42; read verses 39-56.
[205] Luke 1:46-55.
[207] Matt. 1:20, 21; read 18-25.
[209] Matt. 1:24, 25.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 1:24, 25.
[210] 2 Peter 1:20.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 2 Peter 1:20.
[215] Matt. 1:23.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 1:23.
CHAPTER 8.
THE BABE OF BETHLEHEM.
THE BIRTH OF JESUS.
Equally definite with the prophecies declaring that the Messiah would be born in the lineage of David are the predictions that fix the place of His birth at Bethlehem, a small town in Judea. There seems to have been no difference of opinion among priests, scribes, or rabbis on the matter, either before or since the great event. Bethlehem, though small and of little importance in trade or commerce, was doubly endeared to the Jewish heart as the birthplace of David and as that of the prospective Messiah. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth of Galilee, far removed from Bethlehem of Judea; and, at the time of which we speak, the maternity of the Virgin was fast approaching.
Equally clear as the prophecies stating that the Messiah would be born from the line of David are the predictions that pinpoint His birthplace in Bethlehem, a small town in Judea. There doesn't seem to have been any disagreement among priests, scribes, or rabbis about this, both before and after the significant event. Bethlehem, though small and not particularly important in trade or commerce, was cherished by the Jewish people as the birthplace of David and as the future birthplace of the Messiah. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth of Galilee, quite far from Bethlehem of Judea; and at this time, the Virgin's delivery was approaching rapidly.
At that time a decree went out from Rome ordering a taxing of the people in all kingdoms and provinces tributary to the empire; the call was of general scope, it provided "that all the world should be taxed."[216] The taxing herein referred to may properly be understood as an enrolment,[217] or a registration, whereby a census of Roman subjects would be secured, upon which as a basis the taxation of the different peoples would be determined. This particular census was the second of three such general registrations recorded by historians as occurring at intervals of about twenty years. Had the census been taken by the usual Roman method, each person would have been enrolled at the town of his residence; but the Jewish custom, for which the Roman law had[Pg 92] respect, necessitated registration at the cities or towns claimed by the respective families as their ancestral homes. As to whether the requirement was strictly mandatory that every family should thus register at the city of its ancestors, we need not be specially concerned; certain it is that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, the city of David, to be inscribed under the imperial decree.[218]
At that time, a decree was issued from Rome requiring a tax on the people in all kingdoms and provinces under the empire; the announcement was widespread, stating "that everyone in the world should be taxed."[216] The taxing referred to here can be properly understood as an enrollment,[217] or registration, which aimed to secure a census of Roman subjects, serving as the basis for determining taxation for different populations. This specific census was the second of three general registrations documented by historians, occurring approximately every twenty years. If the census had been conducted by the usual Roman way, each person would have been registered in their town of residence; however, the Jewish custom, which Roman law respected,[Pg 92] required registration in the cities or towns designated by families as their ancestral homes. Whether it was strictly mandatory for every family to register in their ancestors' city isn't our main concern; it’s clear that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, the city of David, to register under the imperial decree.[218]
The little town was crowded at the time, most likely by the multitude that had come in obedience to the same summons; and, in consequence, Joseph and Mary failed to find the most desirable accommodations and had to be content with the conditions of an improvised camp, as travelers unnumbered had done before, and as uncounted others have done since, in that region and elsewhere. We cannot reasonably regard this circumstance as evidence of extreme destitution; doubtless it entailed inconvenience, but it gives us no assurance of great distress or suffering.[219] It was while she was in this situation that Mary the Virgin gave birth to her firstborn, the Son of the Highest, the Only Begotten of the Eternal Father, Jesus the Christ.
The little town was packed at that time, probably because of the crowd that had come in response to the same call; and as a result, Joseph and Mary couldn't find decent accommodations and had to settle for the makeshift setup, just as countless travelers had done before them and many others have since, in that area and beyond. We can't really see this situation as proof of extreme poverty; it likely involved some inconvenience, but it doesn’t guarantee great hardship or suffering.[219] It was while she was in this position that Mary the Virgin gave birth to her first child, the Son of the Highest, the Only Begotten of the Eternal Father, Jesus the Christ.
But few details of attendant circumstances are furnished us. We are not told how soon the birth occurred after the arrival of Mary and her husband at Bethlehem. It may have been the purpose of the evangelist who made the record to touch upon matters of purely human interest as lightly as was consistent with the narration of fact, in order that the central truth might neither be hidden nor overshadowed by unimportant incident. We read in Holy Writ this only of the actual birth: "And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them at the inn."[220]
But we don't get many details about the surrounding circumstances. We're not told how soon after Mary and her husband arrived in Bethlehem that the birth took place. The writer might have aimed to keep the focus on the main story, minimizing the less important human details, so that the central truth wouldn't be lost in trivial events. In the scriptures, we find this description of the actual birth: "And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she gave birth to her firstborn son, wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them at the inn."[220]
In vivid contrast with the simplicity and brevity of the scriptural account and of its paucity of incidental details, is the mass of circumstance supplied by the imagination of men, much of which is wholly unsupported by authoritative record and in many respects is plainly inconsistent and untrue. It is the part of prudence and wisdom to segregate and keep distinctly separate the authenticated statements of fact, in so momentous a matter, from the fanciful commentaries of historians, theologians, and writers of fiction, as also from the emotional rhapsodies of poets and artistic extravaganzas wrought by chisel or brush.
In sharp contrast to the straightforward and concise biblical account, with its few extra details, is the overwhelming amount of context created by people's imaginations. Much of this is entirely unsupported by credible records and is often clearly inconsistent and false. It’s wise and prudent to clearly separate the verified facts in such an important matter from the imaginative interpretations of historians, theologians, and fiction writers, as well as from the emotional outpourings of poets and the artistic innovations made with chisel or brush.
From the period of its beginning, Bethlehem had been the home of people engaged mostly in pastoral and agricultural pursuits. It is quite in line with what is known of the town and its environs to find at the season of Messiah's birth, which was in the springtime of the year, that flocks were in the field both night and day under the watchful care of their keepers. Unto certain of these humble shepherds came the first proclamation that the Savior had been born. Thus runs the simple record: "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you: Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."[221]
From the beginning, Bethlehem had been home to people primarily involved in farming and raising livestock. It's typical for the area to find that during the season of the Messiah's birth, which occurred in the spring, flocks were in the fields night and day under the careful watch of their shepherds. To some of these humble shepherds came the first announcement that the Savior had been born. The record goes like this: "And there were in the same country shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were very afraid. And the angel said to them, 'Do not be afraid; for, behold, I bring you good news of great joy, which will be for all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign to you: You will find the baby wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.' And suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.'"[221]
Tidings of such import had never before been delivered by angel or received by man—good tidings of great joy,[Pg 94] given to but few and those among the humblest of earth, but destined to spread to all people. There is sublime grandeur in the scene, as there is divine authorship in the message, and the climax is such as the mind of man could never have conceived—the sudden appearance of a multitude of the heavenly host, singing audibly to human ears the briefest, most consistent and most truly complete of all the songs of peace ever attuned by mortal or spirit choir. What a consummation to be wished—Peace on earth! But how can such come except through the maintenance of good will toward men? And through what means could glory to God in the highest be more effectively rendered?
News of such importance had never before been delivered by an angel or received by humans—good news that brings great joy,[Pg 94] shared with only a few, and those among the humblest on earth, but destined to reach all people. There is a stunning beauty in the scene, just as there is a divine source behind the message, and the climax is something that no human mind could have ever imagined—the sudden appearance of a multitude of the heavenly host, singing aloud for human ears the simplest, most consistent, and most truly complete of all the songs of peace ever sung by mortal or spiritual choirs. What a conclusion to be wished for—Peace on earth! But how can that happen except through the maintenance of goodwill toward one another? And through what means could glory to God in the highest be more effectively expressed?
The trustful and unsophisticated keepers of sheep had not asked for sign or confirmation; their faith was in unison with the heavenly communication; nevertheless the angel had given them what he called a sign, to guide them in their search. They waited not, but went in haste, for in their hearts they believed, yea, more than believed, they knew, and this was the tenor of their resolve: "Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us."[222] They found the Babe in the manger, with the mother and Joseph near by; and, having seen, they went out and testified to the truth concerning the Child. They returned to their flocks, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen.
The trusting and simple shepherds hadn’t asked for a sign or proof; their faith was in sync with the divine message. Still, the angel had given them what he referred to as a sign to help them in their search. Without hesitation, they rushed off, for in their hearts they believed, yes, more than just believed, they knew, and this was their determination: “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.”[222] They found the baby in the manger, with his mother and Joseph nearby; and after seeing him, they went out and shared the truth about the Child. They returned to their flocks, glorifying and praising God for everything they had heard and seen.
There is meaning as deep as the pathos that all must feel in the seemingly parenthetical remark by Luke. "But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart."[223] It is apparent that the great truth as to the personality and mission of her divine Son had not yet unfolded itself in its fulness to her mind. The whole course of events, from the salutation of Gabriel to the reverent testimony of the shepherds concerning the announcing angel and the heavenly[Pg 95] hosts, was largely a mystery to that stainless mother and wife.
There is meaning as profound as the emotions that everyone must feel in the seemingly aside comment by Luke. "But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart."[223] It's clear that the great truth about the personality and mission of her divine Son had not fully revealed itself to her understanding. The entire series of events, from Gabriel's greeting to the respectful testimony of the shepherds about the announcing angel and the heavenly[Pg 95] hosts, was mostly a mystery to that pure mother and wife.
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW STRICTLY OBSERVED.
The Child was born a Jew; the mother was a Jewess, and the reputed and legal father, Joseph, was a Jew. The true paternity of the Child was known to but few, perhaps at that time to none save Mary, Joseph, and possibly Elisabeth and Zacharias; as He grew He was regarded by the people as Joseph's son.[224] The requirements of the law were carried out with exactitude in all matters pertaining to the Child. When eight days old He was circumcized, as was required of every male born in Israel;[225] and at the same time He received as an earthly bestowal the name that had been prescribed at the annunciation. He was called JESUS, which, being interpreted is Savior; the name was rightfully His for He came to save the people from their sins.[226]
The Child was born a Jew; the mother was a Jewish woman, and the acknowledged and legal father, Joseph, was also a Jew. The true parentage of the Child was known to only a few, perhaps at that time to none except Mary, Joseph, and possibly Elisabeth and Zacharias; as He grew, people regarded Him as Joseph's son.[224] The legal requirements were meticulously followed in all matters related to the Child. When He was eight days old, He was circumcised, as was required for every male born in Israel;[225] and at the same time, He was given the name that had been assigned at the announcement. He was called JESUS, which means Savior; the name was rightfully His because He came to save the people from their sins.[226]
Part of the law given through Moses to the Israelites in the wilderness and continued in force down through the centuries, related to the procedure prescribed for women after childbirth.[227] In compliance therewith, Mary remained in retirement forty days following the birth of her Son; then she and her husband brought the Boy for presentation before the Lord as prescribed for the male firstborn of every family. It is manifestly impossible that all such presentations could have taken place in the temple, for many Jews lived at great distances from Jerusalem; it was the rule, however, that parents should present their children in the temple when possible. Jesus was born within five or six miles from Jerusalem; He was accordingly taken to the temple for the ceremonial of redemption from the requirement applying to the firstborn of all Israelites except Levites. It will be remembered that the children of Israel had been delivered from the[Pg 96] bondage of Egypt with the accompaniment of signs and wonders. Because of Pharaoh's repeated refusals to let the people go, plagues had been brought upon the Egyptians, one of which was the death of the firstborn throughout the land, excepting only the people of Israel. In remembrance of this manifestation of power, the Israelites were required to dedicate their firstborn sons to the service of the sanctuary.[228] Subsequently the Lord directed that all males belonging to the tribe of Levi should be devoted to this special labor instead of the firstborn in every tribe; nevertheless the eldest son was still claimed as particularly the Lord's own, and had to be formally exempted from the earlier requirement of service by the paying of a ransom.[229]
Part of the law given through Moses to the Israelites in the wilderness, which has been followed for centuries, relates to the procedures for women after giving birth.[227] In line with this, Mary stayed in seclusion for forty days after the birth of her Son; then, she and her husband brought the Boy to be presented before the Lord, as was required for every family's firstborn male. It’s clear that not all these presentations could happen at the temple, since many Jews lived far from Jerusalem; however, the rule was that parents should present their children at the temple if possible. Jesus was born about five or six miles from Jerusalem, so He was taken to the temple for the ceremony of redemption from the requirement for firstborns of all Israelites except for Levites. It should be noted that the Israelites had been freed from the[Pg 96] bondage of Egypt through signs and wonders. Because Pharaoh repeatedly refused to let the people go, plagues were inflicted on the Egyptians, one of which was the death of the firstborn throughout the land, excluding the Israelites. In remembrance of this display of power, the Israelites were required to dedicate their firstborn sons to the service of the sanctuary.[228] Later, the Lord directed that all males from the tribe of Levi should be dedicated to this special service instead of the firstborn from every tribe; nonetheless, the eldest son was still considered particularly the Lord's own and had to be formally exempted from the earlier requirement of service by paying a ransom.[229]
In connection with the ceremony of purification, every mother was required to furnish a yearling lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or dove for a sin offering; but in the case of any woman who was unable to provide a lamb, a pair of doves or pigeons might be offered. We learn of the humble circumstances of Joseph and Mary from the fact that they brought the less costly offering, two doves or pigeons, instead of one bird and a lamb.
In connection with the purification ceremony, every mother had to provide a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or dove for a sin offering. However, if a woman couldn’t afford a lamb, she could offer two doves or pigeons instead. We see that Joseph and Mary were in humble circumstances because they brought the less expensive offering of two doves or pigeons, rather than one bird and a lamb.
Among the righteous and devout Israelites were some who, in spite of traditionalism, rabbinism, and priestly corruption, still lived in righteous expectation of inspired confidence, awaiting patiently the consolation of Israel.[230] One of these was Simeon, then living in Jerusalem. Through the power of the Holy Ghost he had gained the promise that he should not see death until he had looked upon the Lord's Christ in the flesh. Prompted by the Spirit he repaired to the temple on the day of the presentation of Jesus, and recognized in the Babe the promised Messiah. In the moment of realization that the hope of his life had found glorious consummation, Simeon raised the Child reverently in his[Pg 97] arms, and, with the simple but undying eloquence that comes of God uttered this splendid supplication, in which thanksgiving, resignation and praise are so richly blended:
Among the righteous and devout Israelites were some who, despite traditionalism, rabbinism, and priestly corruption, still lived with a righteous hope, patiently waiting for the comfort of Israel.[230] One of these was Simeon, who lived in Jerusalem. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, he had received the promise that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Christ in the flesh. Guided by the Spirit, he went to the temple on the day Jesus was presented and recognized the Babe as the promised Messiah. In that moment of realization that the hope of his life had been gloriously fulfilled, Simeon reverently lifted the Child in his[Pg 97] arms and, with the simple but everlasting eloquence that comes from God, uttered this beautiful prayer, where thanksgiving, acceptance, and praise were beautifully intertwined:
"Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel."[231]
"Lord, now you can let your servant go in peace, according to your word: for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in front of all people; a light to shine on the Gentiles and the glory of your people Israel."[231]
Then under the spirit of prophecy, Simeon told of the greatness of the Child's mission, and of the anguish that the mother would be called to endure because of Him, which would be even like unto that of a sword piercing her soul. The Spirit's witness to the divinity of Jesus was not to be confined to a man. There was at that time in the temple a godly woman of great age, Anna, a prophetess who devoted herself exclusively to temple service; and she, being inspired of God, recognized her Redeemer, and testified of Him to all about her. Both Joseph and Mary marveled at the things that were spoken of the Child; seemingly they were not yet able to comprehend the majesty of Him who had come to them through so miraculous a conception and so marvelous a birth.
Then, inspired by prophecy, Simeon spoke about the significance of the Child's mission and the pain that the mother would have to endure because of Him, which would feel like a sword piercing her soul. The Spirit’s testimony to Jesus’ divinity wasn’t meant for just one person. At that time in the temple, there was a very old and devout woman named Anna, a prophetess who dedicated her life to serving in the temple. Inspired by God, she recognized her Redeemer and shared her testimony with everyone around her. Both Joseph and Mary were amazed by what was said about the Child; it seemed they couldn’t fully grasp the greatness of Him who had come to them through such a miraculous conception and incredible birth.
WISE MEN SEARCH FOR THE KING.
Some time after the presentation of Jesus in the temple, though how long we are not told, possibly but a few days, possibly weeks or even months, Herod, king of Judea, was greatly troubled, as were the people of Jerusalem in general, over the report that a Child of Prophecy—one destined to become King of the Jews—had been born. Herod was professedly an adherent of the religion of Judah, though by birth an Idumean, by descent an Edomite or one of the posterity[Pg 98] of Esau, all of whom the Jews hated; and of all Edomites not one was more bitterly detested than was Herod the king. He was tyrannical and merciless, sparing neither foe nor friend who came under suspicion of being a possible hindrance to his ambitious designs. He had his wife and several of his sons, as well as others of his blood kindred, cruelly murdered; and he put to death nearly all of the great national council, the Sanhedrin. His reign was one of revolting cruelty and unbridled oppression. Only when in danger of inciting a national revolt or in fear of incurring the displeasure of his imperial master, the Roman emperor, did he stay his hand in any undertaking.[232]
Some time after Jesus was presented in the temple, though we're not told exactly how long—possibly just a few days, maybe weeks or even months—Herod, the king of Judea, was really upset, and so were the people of Jerusalem, about the news that a Child of Prophecy—one destined to become the King of the Jews—had been born. Herod claimed to follow the religion of Judah, but he was actually Idumean by birth, an Edomite, or a descendant of Esau, all of whom the Jews despised. Of all Edomites, none was more reviled than Herod the king. He was tyrannical and ruthless, showing no mercy to anyone, whether foe or friend, who he suspected might obstruct his ambitions. He had his wife and several of his sons, along with other relatives, brutally murdered, and he slaughtered nearly all of the members of the great national council, the Sanhedrin. His rule was marked by horrific cruelty and unchecked oppression. He would only hold back on his actions if he feared sparking a national uprising or upsetting his boss, the Roman emperor.
Rumors of the birth of Jesus reached Herod's ears in this way. There came to Jerusalem certain men from afar, wise men they were called, and they asked, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."[233] Herod summoned "all the chief priests and scribes of the people," and demanded of them where, according to the prophets, Christ should be born. They answered him: "In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel."[234]
Rumors of Jesus' birth made their way to Herod. Wise men from far away arrived in Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews? We've seen his star in the east and have come to worship him."[233] Herod called together "all the chief priests and teachers of the law" and asked them where, according to the prophets, the Messiah should be born. They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for this is what the prophet has written: 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.'"[234]
Herod sent secretly for the wise men, and inquired of them as to the source of their information, and particularly as to the time at which the star, to which they attached such significance, had appeared. Then he directed them to Bethlehem, saying: "Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also." As the men set out from Jerusalem on the last stage of their journey of inquiry and search, they rejoiced exceedingly, for the new[Pg 99] star they had seen in the east was again visible. They found the house wherein Mary was living with her husband and the Babe, and as they recognized the royal Child they "fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh."[235] Having thus gloriously accomplished the purpose of their pilgrimage, these devout and learned travelers prepared to return home, and would have stopped at Jerusalem to report to the king as he had requested, but "being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way."[236]
Herod secretly called for the wise men and asked them about the source of their information, especially regarding when the star they valued so highly had appeared. He then told them to go to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search carefully for the young child; and when you find him, let me know so that I can come and worship him too." As the men set out from Jerusalem on the final leg of their journey, they were filled with joy because the new star they had seen in the east was visible once again. They found the house where Mary was living with her husband and the baby, and when they recognized the royal child, they "fell down and worshiped him; and when they opened their treasures, they offered him gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh." Having successfully fulfilled the purpose of their pilgrimage, these devoted and knowledgeable travelers were ready to return home. They would have stopped in Jerusalem to report to the king as he had asked, but "being warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back to their own country another way."
Much has been written, beyond all possible warrant of scriptural authority, concerning the visit of the magi, or wise men, who thus sought and found the infant Christ. As a matter of fact, we are left without information as to their country, nation, or tribal relationship; we are not even told how many they were, though unauthenticated tradition has designated them as "the three wise men," and has even given them names; whereas they are left unnamed in the scriptures, the only true record of them extant, and may have numbered but two or many. Attempts have been made to identify the star whose appearance in their eastern sky had assured the magi that the King was born; but astronomy furnishes no satisfactory confirmation. The recorded appearance of the star has been associated by both ancient and modern interpreters with the prophecy of Balaam, who, though not an Israelite had blessed Israel, and under divine inspiration had predicted: "there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel."[237] Moreover, as already shown, the appearance of a new star was a predicted sign recognized and acknowledged among the people of the western world as witness of Messiah's birth.[238]
A lot has been written, beyond what can be backed up by scripture, about the visit of the magi, or wise men, who came to seek and found the infant Christ. In reality, we don’t have any information about their country, nation, or tribal background; we aren’t even told how many there were, although unverified tradition refers to them as "the three wise men" and has even given them names. However, they are left unnamed in the scriptures, which are the only true record we have, and there may have been just two or many more. People have tried to identify the star that appeared in their eastern sky and signaled to the magi that the King had been born, but astronomy does not provide any satisfactory evidence. The recorded sighting of the star has been linked by both ancient and modern interpreters to the prophecy of Balaam, who, though not an Israelite, blessed Israel and, through divine inspiration, predicted: "there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel."[237] Additionally, as already mentioned, the appearance of a new star was a predicted sign that was recognized and accepted among the people of the western world as evidence of the Messiah's birth.[238]
THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT.
Herod's perfidy in directing the magi to return and report to him where the royal Infant was to be found, falsely professing that he wished to worship Him also, while in his heart he purposed taking the Child's life, was thwarted by the divine warning given to the wise men as already noted. Following their departure, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, saying: "Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him."[239] In obedience to this command, Joseph took Mary and her Child, and set out by night on the journey to Egypt; and there the family remained until divinely directed to return. When it was apparent to the king that the wise men had ignored his instructions, he was exceedingly angry; and, estimating the earliest time at which the birth could have occurred according to the magis' statement of the star's appearing, he ruthlessly ordered the slaughter of "all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under."[240] In this massacre of the innocents, the evangelist found a fulfilment of Jeremiah's fateful voicing of the word of the Lord, spoken six centuries earlier and expressed in the forceful past tense as though then already accomplished: "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."[241]
Herod's betrayal in telling the magi to come back and report to him where the royal Infant could be found, while pretending that he wanted to worship Him too, all the while planning to kill the Child, was disrupted by the divine warning given to the wise men as mentioned earlier. After they left, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, saying: "Get up, take the young child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you to return: for Herod will seek the young child to kill him."[239] Joseph obeyed this command, taking Mary and her Child, and set out at night on the journey to Egypt; they stayed there until they were divinely instructed to come back. When the king realized that the wise men had disobeyed his orders, he was extremely angry; and calculating the earliest time the birth could have happened based on the magi's report of the star's appearance, he cruelly ordered the massacre of "all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the surrounding areas, from two years old and under."[240] In this slaughter of the innocents, the evangelist saw a fulfillment of Jeremiah's ominous word from the Lord, spoken six centuries earlier and expressed in the past tense as if it had already happened: "In Rama a voice was heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and she refused to be comforted because they are no more."[241]
BIRTH OF JESUS MADE KNOWN TO THE NEPHITES.
As heretofore shown, the prophets of the western hemisphere had foretold in great plainness the earthly advent of the Lord, and had specifically set forth the time, place, and circumstances of His birth.[242] As the time drew near the[Pg 101] people were divided by conflicting opinions concerning the reliability of these prophecies; and intolerant unbelievers cruelly persecuted those, who, like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and other righteous ones in Palestine, had maintained in faith and trust their unwavering expectation of the coming of the Lord. Samuel, a righteous Lamanite, who, because of his faithfulness and sacrificing devotion had been blessed with the spirit and power of prophecy, fearlessly proclaimed the birth of Christ as near: "And behold, he said unto them, Behold I give unto you a sign; for five years more cometh, and behold, then cometh the Son of God to redeem all those who shall believe on his name."[243] The prophet told of many signs and wonders, which were to mark the great event. As the five years ran their course, the believers grew more steadfast, the unbelievers more violent, until the last day of the specified period dawned; and this was the "day set apart by the unbelievers, that all those who believed in those traditions should be put to death, except the sign should come to pass which had been given by Samuel the prophet."[244]
As previously shown, the prophets of the western hemisphere had clearly predicted the earthly arrival of the Lord, detailing the time, place, and circumstances of His birth.[242] As the time approached, the people were divided by differing opinions about the reliability of these prophecies; and intolerant skeptics harshly persecuted those who, like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and other righteous individuals in Palestine, held onto their unwavering faith and trust in the coming of the Lord. Samuel, a righteous Lamanite who, due to his faithfulness and dedication, had been blessed with the spirit and power of prophecy, boldly declared that Christ's birth was near: "And behold, he said unto them, Behold I give unto you a sign; for five years more cometh, and behold, then cometh the Son of God to redeem all those who shall believe on his name."[243] The prophet spoke of many signs and wonders that would accompany this significant event. As the five years passed, believers became more steadfast, while unbelievers grew more aggressive, until the last day of the specified period arrived; and this was the "day set apart by the unbelievers, that all those who believed in those traditions should be put to death, except the sign should come to pass which had been given by Samuel the prophet."[244]
Nephi, a prophet of the time, cried unto the Lord in anguish of soul because of the persecution of which his people were the victims; "and behold, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying, Lift up your head and be of good cheer, for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to shew unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets. Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men, from the foundation of the world, and do the will, both of the Father, and of the Son; of the Father, because of me, and of the Son, because of my flesh. And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given."[245]
Nephi, a prophet of the time, cried out to the Lord in deep anguish because his people were being persecuted; "and behold, the voice of the Lord came to him, saying, Lift up your head and be cheerful, for the time is near, and on this night the sign will be given, and tomorrow I will come into the world to show everyone that I will fulfill everything I have had my holy prophets speak. Look, I am coming to my own to fulfill all the things I have made known to the children of men since the foundation of the world, and to do the will of both the Father and the Son; the Father's will because of me, and the Son's will because of my flesh. And behold, the time is near, and tonight the sign will be given."[245]
The words of the prophet were fulfilled that night; for though the sun set in its usual course there was no darkness; and on the morrow the sun rose on a land already illumined; a day and a night and another day had been as one day; and this was but one of the signs. A new star appeared in the firmament of the west, even as was seen by the magi in the east; and there were many other marvelous manifestations as the prophets had predicted. All these things occurred on what is now known as the American continent, six hundred years after Lehi and his little company had left Jerusalem to come hither.
The words of the prophet came true that night; even though the sun set like it normally does, there was no darkness; and the next day, the sun rose over a land that was already lit up; a day and a night and another day felt like just one day; and this was just one of the signs. A new star appeared in the western sky, just like the magi saw in the east; and there were many other amazing signs as the prophets had foretold. All these events happened on what we now call the American continent, six hundred years after Lehi and his small group had left Jerusalem to come here.
THE TIME OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS.
The time of Messiah's birth is a subject upon which specialists in theology and history, and those who are designated in literature "the learned," fail to agree. Numerous lines of investigation have been followed, only to reach divergent conclusions, both as to the year and as to the month and day within the year at which the "Christian era" in reality began. The establishment of the birth of Christ as an event marking a time from which chronological data should be calculated, was first effected about 532 A.D. by Dionysius Exiguus; and as a basis for the reckoning of time this method has come to be known as the Dionysian system, and takes for its fundamental datum A.U.C. 753, that is to say 753 years after the founding of Rome, as the year of our Lord's birth. So far as there exists any consensus of opinion among later scholars who have investigated the subject, it is to the effect that the Dionysian calculation is wrong, in that it places the birth of Christ between three and four years too late; and that therefore our Lord was born in the third or fourth year before the beginning of what is designated by the scholars of Oxford and Cambridge, "the Common Account called Anno Domini."[246]
The timing of the Messiah's birth is a topic where theologians, historians, and those considered "the learned" in literature often disagree. Many different lines of investigation have been pursued, but they lead to conflicting conclusions regarding the year, month, and day when the "Christian era" actually began. The identification of Christ's birth as a significant event from which to calculate time was first established around 532 A.D. by Dionysius Exiguus. This method of marking time has come to be known as the Dionysian system, which uses A.U.C. 753—753 years after the founding of Rome—as the year of our Lord's birth. According to a general consensus among later scholars who have studied this topic, the Dionysian calculation is incorrect because it places Christ's birth three to four years too late. Therefore, it is believed that our Lord was born in the third or fourth year before the start of what scholars at Oxford and Cambridge refer to as "the Common Account called Anno Domini."[246]
Without attempting to analyze the mass of calculation data relating to this subject, we accept the Dionysian basis as correct with respect to the year, which is to say that we believe Christ to have been born in the year known to us as B.C. 1, and, as shall be shown, in an early month of that year. In support of this belief we cite the inspired record known as the "Revelation on Church Government, given through Joseph the Prophet, in April, 1830," which opens with these words: "The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the flesh."[247]
Without trying to analyze the large amount of calculation data related to this topic, we accept the Dionysian basis as accurate regarding the year, which means we believe Christ was born in the year we refer to as B.C. 1, and, as will be shown, in an early month of that year. To support this belief, we refer to the inspired record known as the "Revelation on Church Government, given through Joseph the Prophet, in April, 1830," which starts with these words: "The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh."[247]
Another evidence of the correctness of our commonly accepted chronology is furnished by the Book of Mormon record. Therein we read that "in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah," the word of the Lord came to Lehi at Jerusalem, directing him to take his family and depart into the wilderness.[248] In the early stages of their journey toward the sea, Lehi prophesied, as had been shown him of the Lord, concerning the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of the Jews. Furthermore, he predicted the eventual return of the people of Judah from their exile in Babylon, and the birth of the Messiah, which latter event he definitely declared would take place six hundred years from the time he and his people had left Jerusalem.[249] This specification of time was repeated by later prophecy;[250] and the signs of the actual fulfilment are recorded as having been realized "six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem."[251] These scriptures fix the time of the beginning of Zedekiah's reign as six hundred years before the birth of Christ. According to the commonly accepted reckoning, Zedekiah was made king in the[Pg 104] year 597 B.C.[252] This shows a discrepancy of about three years between the commonly accepted date of Zedekiah's inauguration as king and that given in the Book of Mormon statement; and, as already seen, there is a difference of between three and four years between the Dionysian reckoning and the nearest approach to an agreement among scholars concerning the beginning of the current era. Book of Mormon chronology therefore sustains in general the correctness of the common or Dionysian system.
Another piece of evidence supporting our widely accepted timeline comes from the Book of Mormon record. There, we read that "in the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah," the word of the Lord came to Lehi in Jerusalem, telling him to take his family and leave for the wilderness.[248] In the early stages of their journey toward the sea, Lehi prophesied, as shown to him by the Lord, about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of the Jews. Additionally, he predicted the eventual return of the people of Judah from their exile in Babylon and the birth of the Messiah, which he specifically stated would happen six hundred years after he and his family left Jerusalem.[249] This time frame was reiterated by later prophecy;[250] and the signs of its actual fulfillment are recorded as occurring "six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem."[251] These scriptures pinpoint the start of Zedekiah's reign as six hundred years before Christ's birth. According to the widely accepted timeline, Zedekiah became king in the[Pg 104] year 597 B.C.[252] This shows a discrepancy of about three years between the commonly accepted date of Zedekiah's ascension to the throne and the date given in the Book of Mormon; furthermore, as already noted, there is a difference of three to four years between the Dionysian reckoning and the closest consensus among scholars regarding the start of the current era. Thus, the Book of Mormon chronology generally supports the accuracy of the common or Dionysian system.
As to the season of the year in which Christ was born, there is among the learned as great a diversity of opinion as that relating to the year itself. It is claimed by many Biblical scholars that December 25th, the day celebrated in Christendom as Christmas, cannot be the correct date. We believe April 6th to be the birthday of Jesus Christ as indicated in a revelation of the present dispensation already cited,[253] in which that day is made without qualification the completion of the one thousand eight hundred and thirtieth year since the coming of the Lord in the flesh. This acceptance is admittedly based on faith in modern revelation, and in no wise is set forth as the result of chronological research or analysis. We believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, April 6, B.C. 1.
As for the time of year when Christ was born, there’s a lot of disagreement among scholars, just like there is about the actual year. Many Biblical scholars argue that December 25th, the date celebrated in Christianity as Christmas, can’t be the correct one. We believe that April 6th is Jesus Christ's birthday, based on a revelation from the current dispensation that has already been mentioned,[253] which explicitly marks that day as the completion of the one thousand eight hundred and thirtieth year since the Lord came to Earth. This belief is clearly rooted in faith in modern revelation and isn’t presented as the outcome of chronological studies or research. We believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, Judea, on April 6, B.C. 1.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 8.
1. The "Taxing."—Regarding the presence of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem, far from their Galilean home, and the imperial decree by compliance with which they were led there, the following notes are worthy of consideration. Farrar (Life of Christ, p. 24, note), says: "It appears to be uncertain whether the journey of Mary with her husband was obligatory or voluntary.... Women were liable to a capitation tax, if this enrolment also involved taxation. But, apart from any legal necessity, it may easily be imagined that at such a moment Mary would desire not to be left alone. The cruel suspicion of which she had been the subject, and which had almost led to the breaking off of her betrothal (Matt. 1:19) would make her cling all the more to the protection of her husband." The following[Pg 105] excerpt is from Geikie's Life and Words of Christ, vol. 1, chap. 9; p. 108: "The Jewish nation had paid tribute to Rome through their rulers, since the days of Pompey; and the methodical Augustus, who now reigned, and had to restore order and soundness to the finances of the empire, after the confusion and exhaustion of the civil wars, took good care that this obligation should neither be forgotten nor evaded. He was accustomed to require a census to be taken periodically in every province of his vast dominions, that he might know the number of soldiers he could levy in each, and the amount of taxes due to the treasury.... In an empire embracing the then known world, such a census could hardly have been made simultaneously, or in any short or fixed time; more probably it was the work of years, in successive provinces or kingdoms. Sooner or later, however, even the dominions of vassal kings like Herod had to furnish the statistics demanded by their master. He had received his kingdom on the footing of a subject, and grew more entirely dependent on Augustus as years passed, asking his sanction at every turn for steps he proposed to take. He would, thus, be only too ready to meet his wish, by obtaining the statistics he sought, as may be judged from the fact that in one of the last years of his life, just before Christ's birth, he made the whole Jewish nation take a solemn oath of allegiance to the emperor as well as to himself.
1. The "Taxing."—Concerning the presence of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem, far from their home in Galilee, and the imperial decree that brought them there, the following points are worth considering. Farrar (Life of Christ, p. 24, note) states: "It seems unclear whether Mary’s journey with her husband was required or voluntary.... Women had to pay a head tax if this registration also involved taxation. However, aside from any legal obligation, it's easy to imagine that at such a time, Mary wouldn't want to be left alone. The harsh suspicion directed at her, which nearly ended her engagement (Matt. 1:19), would make her cling even more to her husband's support." The following[Pg 105] excerpt is from Geikie's Life and Words of Christ, vol. 1, chap. 9; p. 108: "The Jewish nation had been paying tribute to Rome through their leaders since the time of Pompey; and the organized Augustus, who was now in charge, had to restore order and stability to the empire's finances after the turmoil and exhaustion of the civil wars. He made sure that this obligation was neither forgotten nor avoided. He regularly required a census to be taken in each province of his vast dominions so he would know how many soldiers he could recruit there and how much tax was owed to the treasury.... In an empire covering the known world at that time, such a census could hardly have been conducted all at once or in a short time frame; it was likely a task spanning years across different provinces or kingdoms. Nevertheless, sooner or later, even the territories ruled by vassal kings like Herod had to provide the statistics requested by their master. Herod had received his kingdom as a subordinate and became increasingly dependent on Augustus over the years, seeking his approval for every step he wanted to take. As a result, he would have been eager to comply with Augustus's wishes by gathering the requested statistics, as indicated by the fact that in one of the last years of his life, just before Christ was born, he made the entire Jewish nation swear allegiance to the emperor as well as to himself."
"It is quite probable that the mode of taking the required statistics was left very much to Herod, at once to show respect to him before his people, and from the known opposition of the Jews to anything like a general numeration, even apart from the taxation to which it was designed to lead. At the time to which the narrative refers, a simple registration seems to have been made, on the old Hebrew plan of enrolling by families in their ancestral districts, of course for future use; and thus it passed over quietly.... The proclamation having been made through the land, Joseph had no choice but to go to Bethlehem, the city of David, the place in which his family descent, from the house and lineage of David, required him to be inscribed."
"It’s very likely that how the necessary statistics were collected was largely up to Herod, both to show him respect in front of his people and because the Jews generally opposed any kind of wide-scale counting, especially when it involved taxation. During the time this story takes place, it seems a simple registration was done, following the old Hebrew method of enrolling families in their ancestral areas, obviously for future reference; and so it went by without much fuss... Once the announcement was made throughout the land, Joseph had no choice but to go to Bethlehem, the city of David, where his family line from the house and lineage of David required him to be registered."
2. Jesus Born Amidst Poor Surroundings.—Undoubtedly the accommodations for physical comfort amidst which Jesus was born were few and poor. But the environment, considered in the light of the customs of the country and time, was far from the state of abject deprivation which modern and western ways would make it appear. "Camping out" was no unusual exigency among travelers in Palestine at the time of our Lord's birth; nor is it considered such to-day. It is, however, beyond question that Jesus was born into a comparatively poor family, amidst humble surroundings associated with the inconveniences incident to travel. Cunningham Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, chap. 9, pp. 112, 113, says: "It was to Bethlehem that Joseph and Mary were coming, the town of Ruth and Boaz, and the early home of their own great forefather David. As they approached it from Jerusalem they would pass, at the last mile, a spot sacred to Jewish memory, where the light of Jacob's life[Pg 106] went out, when his first love, Rachel, died, and was buried, as her tomb still shows, 'in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.' ... Traveling in the East has always been very different from Western ideas. As in all thinly-settled countries, private hospitality, in early times, supplied the want of inns, but it was the peculiarity of the East that this friendly custom continued through a long series of ages. On the great roads through barren or uninhabited parts, the need of shelter led, very early, to the erection of rude and simple buildings, of varying size, known as khans, which offered the wayfarer the protection of walls and a roof, and water, but little more. The smaller structures consisted of sometimes only a single empty room, on the floor of which the traveler might spread his carpet for sleep; the larger ones, always built in a hollow square, enclosing a court for the beasts, with water in it for them and their masters. From immemorial antiquity it has been a favorite mode of benevolence to raise such places of shelter, as we see so far back as the times of David, when Chimham built a great khan near Bethlehem, on the caravan road to Egypt."
2. Jesus Born in Humble Conditions.—Without a doubt, the living conditions where Jesus was born were minimal and basic. However, considering the customs of the time and region, it was not the extreme poverty that modern, Western perspectives might suggest. "Camping out" was a common experience for travelers in Palestine during our Lord's birth, just as it is today. Nonetheless, it is clear that Jesus was born into a relatively poor family, in humble surroundings that came with the challenges of travel. Cunningham Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, chap. 9, pp. 112, 113, states: "Joseph and Mary were heading to Bethlehem, the town of Ruth and Boaz, and the early home of their great ancestor David. As they approached it from Jerusalem, they would pass, in the last mile, a place significant to Jewish history, where Jacob’s life faded when his first love, Rachel, died and was buried, as her tomb still shows, 'in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.' ... Traveling in the East has always been quite different from Western concepts. In all sparsely populated areas, private hospitality historically filled the gap of inns, and this tradition of hospitality persisted for many ages in the East. On the main roads through barren or uninhabited areas, the need for shelter led to the early construction of simple buildings called khans, which provided travelers with walls and a roof, along with some water, but not much more. The smaller structures often had just one empty room where a traveler could lay down a carpet to sleep; the larger ones were always arranged in a hollow square, enclosing a courtyard for animals, with water available for them and their owners. For ages, it has been a cherished act of kindness to create such shelters, as seen back in the time of David, when Chimham built a large khan near Bethlehem, along the caravan route to Egypt."
Canon Farrar (Life of Christ, chap, 1) accepts the traditional belief that the shelter within which Jesus was born was that of one of the numerous limestone caves which abound in the region, and which are still used by travelers as resting places. He says: "In Palestine it not infrequently happens that the entire khan, or at any rate the portion of it in which the animals are housed, is one of those innumerable caves which abound in the limestone rocks of its central hills. Such seems to have been in the case at the little town of Bethlehem-Ephratah, in the land of Judah. Justin Martyr, the Apologist, who, from his birth at Shechem, was familiar with Palestine, and who lived less than a century after the time of our Lord, places the scene of the nativity in a cave. This is, indeed, the ancient and constant tradition both of the Eastern and the Western Churches, and it is one of the few to which, though unrecorded in the Gospel history, we may attach a reasonable probability."
Canon Farrar (Life of Christ, chap, 1) embraces the common belief that the place where Jesus was born was one of the many limestone caves found in the area, which travelers still use for resting. He states: "In Palestine, it often happens that the entire khan, or at least the part where the animals are kept, is one of those countless caves nestled in the limestone hills of its central region. This seems to have been the case in the small town of Bethlehem-Ephratah, in the land of Judah. Justin Martyr, the Apologist, who was born in Shechem and was well-acquainted with Palestine and who lived less than a century after our Lord, places the nativity scene in a cave. This is indeed the long-standing and consistent tradition of both the Eastern and Western Churches, and it is one of the few beliefs to which we can reasonably attach probability, even though it is not recorded in the Gospel history."
3. Herod the Great.—The history of Herod I, otherwise known as Herod the Great, must be sought in special works, in which the subject is treated at length. Some of the principal facts should be considered in our present study, and for the assistance of the student a few extracts from works regarded as reliable are presented herewith.
3. Herod the Great.—To understand the history of Herod I, also called Herod the Great, one must look into specific texts that explore the topic in detail. However, some key facts should be included in our current study, and for the benefit of students, a few excerpts from credible works are provided here.
Condensed from part of article in the Standard Bible Dictionary, edited by Jacobus, Nourse, and Zenos; published by Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1909:—Herod I, the son of Antipater, was early given office by his father, who had been made procurator of Judea. The first office which Herod held was that of governor of Galilee. He was then a young man of about twenty-five, energetic and athletic. Immediately he set about the eradication of the robber bands that infested his district, and soon was able to execute the robber chief Hezekiah and several of his followers. For this he was summoned to Jerusalem by the Sanhedrin, tried and condemned, but with the connivance of[Pg 107] Hyrcanus II [the high priest and ethnarch] he escaped by night.—He went to Rome where he was appointed King of Judea by Antony and Octavius.—For the next two years he was engaged in fighting the forces of Antigonus, whom he finally defeated, and in 37 B.C. gained possession of Jerusalem.—As king, Herod confronted serious difficulties. The Jews objected to him because of his birth and reputation. The Asmonean family regarded him as a usurper, notwithstanding the fact that he had married Mariamne. The Pharisees were shocked at his Hellenistic sympathies, as well as at his severe methods of government. On the other hand the Romans held him responsible for the order of his kingdom, and the protection of the eastern frontier of the Republic. Herod met these various difficulties with characteristic energy and even cruelty, and generally with cold sagacity. Although he taxed the people severely, in times of famine he remitted their dues and even sold his plate to get means to buy them food. While he never became actually friendly with the Pharisees, they profited by his hostility to the party of the Asmoneans, which led at the beginning of his reign to the execution of a number of Sadducees who were members of the Sanhedrin.
Condensed from part of an article in the Standard Bible Dictionary, edited by Jacobus, Nourse, and Zenos; published by Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1909:—Herod I, the son of Antipater, was given a position by his father, who had been appointed procurator of Judea. The first position Herod held was governor of Galilee. He was a young man, around twenty-five years old, energetic and athletic. He immediately set out to eliminate the bandits that plagued his region and soon managed to execute the bandit leader Hezekiah and several of his followers. For this, he was called to Jerusalem by the Sanhedrin, tried, and condemned, but with the help of[Pg 107] Hyrcanus II [the high priest and ethnarch], he escaped at night. He went to Rome, where Antony and Octavius appointed him King of Judea. For the next two years, he fought against the forces of Antigonus, whom he eventually defeated, and in 37 B.C. he took control of Jerusalem. As king, Herod faced serious challenges. The Jews opposed him because of his background and reputation. The Asmonean family considered him a usurper, even though he married Mariamne. The Pharisees were appalled by his Hellenistic leanings and his harsh governing methods. On the flip side, the Romans held him accountable for maintaining order in his kingdom and protecting the eastern border of the Republic. Herod tackled these challenges with his usual energy and even cruelty, often with a cold, practical mindset. Although he heavily taxed the people, during famines he would reduce their dues and even sell his silverware to buy them food. While he never truly befriended the Pharisees, they benefited from his rivalry with the Asmoneans, which led to the execution of several Sadducees who were part of the Sanhedrin at the start of his reign.
From Smith's Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible: The latter part "of the reign of Herod was undisturbed by external troubles, but his domestic life was embittered by an almost uninterrupted series of injuries and cruel acts of vengeance. The terrible acts of bloodshed which Herod perpetrated in his own family were accompanied by others among his subjects equally terrible, from the number who fell victims to them. According to the well-known story, he ordered the nobles whom he had called to him in his last moments to be executed immediately after his decease, that so at least his death might be attended by universal mourning. It was at the time of his fatal illness that he must have caused the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem" (Matt. 2:16-18).
From Smith's Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible: The later part "of Herod's reign was free from outside problems, but his personal life was filled with a nearly constant stream of injuries and acts of revenge. The horrific violence that Herod inflicted on his own family was matched by the equally terrible acts against his subjects, many of whom were victims. According to the well-known story, he ordered the execution of the nobles he had summoned to him in his final moments, hoping that his death would at least bring about widespread mourning. During his fatal illness, he must have been responsible for the massacre of the infants in Bethlehem" (Matt. 2:16-18).
The mortal end of the tyrant and multi-murderer is thus treated by Farrar in his Life of Christ, pp. 54, 55:—"It must have been very shortly after the murder of the innocents that Herod died. Only five days before his death he had made a frantic attempt at suicide, and had ordered the execution of his eldest son Antipater. His death-bed, which once more reminds us of Henry VIII., was accompanied by circumstances of peculiar horror; and it has been asserted that he died of a loathsome disease, which is hardly mentioned in history, except in the case of men who have been rendered infamous by an atrocity of persecuting zeal. On his bed of intolerable anguish, in that splendid and luxurious palace which he had built for himself, under the palms of Jericho, swollen with disease and scorched by thirst, ulcerated externally and glowing inwardly with a 'soft slow fire,' surrounded by plotting sons and plundering slaves, detesting all and detested by all, longing for death as a release from his tortures yet dreading it as the beginning of worse terrors, stung by remorse yet still unslaked with murder, a horror to all around[Pg 108] him yet in his guilty conscience a worse terror to himself, devoured by the premature corruption of an anticipated grave, eaten of worms as though visibly smitten by the finger of God's wrath after seventy years of successful villainy, the wretched old man, whom men had called the Great, lay in savage frenzy awaiting his last hour. As he knew that none would shed one tear for him, he determined that they should shed many for themselves, and issued an order that, under pain of death, the principal families of the kingdom and the chiefs of the tribes should come to Jericho. They came, and then, shutting them in the hippodrome, he secretly commanded his sister Salome that at the moment of his death they should all be massacred. And so, choking as it were with blood, devising massacres in its very delirium, the soul of Herod passed forth into the night."
The mortal end of the tyrant and multi-murderer is discussed by Farrar in his Life of Christ, pp. 54, 55:—"It must have been very shortly after the murder of the innocents that Herod died. Only five days before his death, he made a desperate attempt to take his own life and ordered the execution of his eldest son Antipater. His deathbed, reminiscent of Henry VIII., was marked by particularly horrific circumstances; and it has been claimed that he died from a loathsome disease, mentioned in history only in cases of men who have become infamous for their cruel persecution. On his bed of unbearable pain, in that grand and luxurious palace he had built for himself, beneath the palms of Jericho, swollen with illness and parched with thirst, covered in sores externally and burning internally with a 'soft slow fire,' surrounded by scheming sons and thieving slaves, despising everyone and being despised by all, wanting death as a release from his torments yet fearing it as the start of even worse horrors, stung by guilt yet still unquenched by murder, a terror to those around him yet in his guilty conscience a greater terror to himself, consumed by the early decay of an anticipated grave, eaten by worms as if visibly struck by the wrath of God after seventy years of successful villainy, the miserable old man, whom people called the Great, lay in desperate frenzy awaiting his last moments. Knowing that no one would shed a tear for him, he resolved that they would shed many for themselves, and he ordered that, under threat of death, the leading families of the kingdom and the chiefs of the tribes should come to Jericho. They arrived, and then, locking them in the hippodrome, he secretly instructed his sister Salome that, at the moment of his death, they should all be slaughtered. Thus, choking with blood, plotting mass murders in his delirium, the soul of Herod slipped away into the night."
4. Gifts from the Wise Men to the Child Jesus.—The scriptural account of the visit of the wise men to Jesus and His mother states that they "fell down and worshipped him," and furthermore that "when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh." The offering of gifts to a superior in rank, either as to worldly status or recognized spiritual endowment, was a custom of early days and still prevails in many oriental lands. It is worthy of note that we have no record of these men from the east offering gifts to Herod in his palace; they did, however, impart of their treasure to the lowly Infant, in whom they recognized the King they had come to seek. The tendency to ascribe occult significance to even trifling details mentioned in scripture, and particularly as regards the life of Christ, has led to many fanciful suggestions concerning the gold and frankincense and myrrh specified in this incident. Some have supposed a half-hidden symbolism therein—gold a tribute to His royal estate, frankincense an offering in recognition of His priesthood, and myrrh for His burial. The sacred record offers no basis for such conjecture. Myrrh and frankincense are aromatic resins derived from plants indigenous to eastern lands, and they have been used from very early times in medicine and in the preparation of perfumes and incense mixtures. They were presumably among the natural productions of the lands from which the magi came, though probably even there they were costly and highly esteemed. Such, together with gold, which is of value among all nations, were most appropriate as gifts for a king. Any mystical significance one may choose to attach to the presents must be remembered as his own supposition or fancy, and not as based on scriptural warrant.
4. Gifts from the Wise Men to the Child Jesus.—The biblical account of the wise men's visit to Jesus and His mother tells us that they "fell down and worshipped him," and that "when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh." Giving gifts to someone of higher status, whether in terms of social position or recognized spiritual importance, was a common practice in ancient times and is still observed in many Eastern cultures today. It's interesting to note that we have no record of these men from the East giving gifts to Herod in his palace; instead, they shared their treasures with the humble Infant, recognizing Him as the King they had sought. The tendency to assign hidden meanings to even minor details in scripture, especially regarding the life of Christ, has sparked many imaginative theories about the gold, frankincense, and myrrh mentioned in this story. Some have suggested a hidden symbolism—gold representing His royal status, frankincense acknowledging His priesthood, and myrrh foreshadowing His burial. However, the sacred text provides no foundation for such interpretations. Myrrh and frankincense are aromatic resins from plants native to Eastern regions and have been used since ancient times for medicinal purposes and in the creation of perfumes and incense. They likely came from the lands where the magi originated, though even there they were probably valuable and highly regarded. Along with gold, which is valuable in all countries, these gifts were fitting for a king. Any mystical meaning that someone may wish to associate with the gifts should be considered their own opinion or imagination, rather than something supported by scripture.
5. Testimonies from Shepherds and Magi.—The following instructive note on the testimonies relating to Messiah's birth, is taken from the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association Manual for 1897-8: "It will be observed that the testimonies concerning the birth of the Messiah are from two extremes, the lowly shepherds in the Judean field, and the learned magi from[Pg 109] the far east. We cannot think this is the result of mere chance, but that in it may be discerned the purpose and wisdom of God. All Israel was looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, and in the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, the hope of Israel—though unknown to Israel—is fulfilled. Messiah, of whom the prophet spake, is born. But there must be those who can testify of that truth, and hence to the shepherds who watched their flocks by night an angel was sent to say: 'Fear not, behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people; for unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ, the Lord.' And for a sign of the truth of the message, they were to find the child wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger in Bethlehem. And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger; and when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. God had raised up to Himself witnesses among the people to testify that Messiah was born, that the hope of Israel was fulfilled. But there were classes of people among the Jews whom these lowly shepherd witnesses could not reach, and had they been able to reach them, the story of the angel's visit, and the concourse of angels singing the magnificent song of 'Peace on earth, good will to men,' would doubtless have been accounted an idle tale of superstitious folk, deceived by their own over-wrought imaginations or idle dreams. Hence God raised up another class of witnesses—the 'wise men from the east'—witnesses that could enter the royal palace of proud King Herod and boldly ask: 'Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him'; a testimony that startled Herod and troubled all Jerusalem. So that indeed God raised up witnesses for Himself to meet all classes and conditions of men—the testimony of angels for the poor and the lowly; the testimony of wise men for the haughty king and proud priests of Judea. So that of the things concerning the birth of Messiah, no less than of the things of His death and resurrection from the dead, His disciples could say, 'these things were not done in a corner.'"
5. Testimonies from Shepherds and Magi.—The following informative note on the testimonies related to the Messiah's birth is taken from the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association Manual for 1897-8: "It's noticeable that the testimonies regarding the birth of the Messiah come from two different ends of the spectrum—the humble shepherds in the Judean fields and the educated magi from[Pg 109] the far east. We can't believe this is just a coincidence; instead, it reflects God's purpose and wisdom. All of Israel was anticipating the arrival of the Messiah, and in the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, the hope of Israel—although not recognized by Israel—is fulfilled. The Messiah, about whom the prophet spoke, is born. But there must be witnesses to confirm this truth, which is why an angel was sent to the shepherds watching their flocks at night to say: 'Don't be afraid, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all people; for today in the city of David, a Savior has been born to you; He is Christ the Lord.' As a sign of the truth of this message, they would find the child wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger in Bethlehem. They hurried and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger; and after seeing it, they spread the word about what they were told concerning this child. God raised up witnesses among the people to testify that the Messiah was born, and that the hope of Israel was fulfilled. However, there were groups among the Jews that these humble shepherd witnesses couldn’t reach, and if they had, the story of the angel's visit, and the multitude of angels singing the beautiful song of 'Peace on earth, good will to men,' would likely have been dismissed as a silly tale from superstitious people, misled by their own vivid imaginations or fanciful dreams. Therefore, God appointed another group of witnesses—the 'wise men from the east'—who could enter the royal palace of proud King Herod and confidently ask: 'Where is he who is born king of the Jews? We have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him'; a testimony that shocked Herod and disturbed all of Jerusalem. Indeed, God raised up witnesses for Himself to address all classes and conditions of people—the testimony of angels for the poor and humble; the testimony of wise men for the arrogant king and proud priests of Judea. So, for both the events surrounding the birth of the Messiah and those concerning His death and resurrection, His disciples could affirm, 'these things were not done in secret.'"
6. The Year of Christ's Birth.—In treating this topic Dr. Charles F. Deems (The Light of the Nations, p. 28), after giving careful consideration of the estimates, calculations, and assumptions of men who have employed many means in their investigation and reach only discordant results says: "It is annoying to see learned men use the same apparatus of calculation and reach the most diverse results. It is bewildering to attempt a reconciliation of these varying calculations." In an appended note the same author states: "For example: the birth of our Lord is placed in B.C. 1 by Pearson and Hug; B.C. 2 by Scalinger; B.C. 3 by Baronius and Paulus; B.C. 4 by Bengel, Wieseler, and Greswell; B.C. 5 by Usher and Petavius; B.C. 6 by Strong, Luvin, and Clark; B.C. 7 by Ideler and Sanclemente."[Pg 110]
6. The Year of Christ's Birth.—In discussing this topic, Dr. Charles F. Deems (The Light of the Nations, p. 28) carefully reviews the estimates, calculations, and assumptions made by various scholars who have used different methods in their research but ended up with conflicting results. He remarks, "It's frustrating to see knowledgeable people use the same calculation tools and arrive at such different conclusions. It's perplexing to try to reconcile these differing calculations." In a supplementary note, the same author mentions, "For instance: the birth of our Lord is assigned to B.C. 1 by Pearson and Hug; B.C. 2 by Scaliger; B.C. 3 by Baronius and Paulus; B.C. 4 by Bengel, Wieseler, and Greswell; B.C. 5 by Usher and Petavius; B.C. 6 by Strong, Luvin, and Clark; B.C. 7 by Ideler and Sanclemente."[Pg 110]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[220] Luke 2:6, 7.
Luke 2:6, 7.
[221] Luke 2:8-14.
[222] Luke 2:15.
Luke 2:15.
[223] Luke 2:19.
[227] Lev. chap. 12.
[229] Numb. 8:15-18; 18:15, 16.
[231] Luke 2:29-32. These verses are known in Christian hymnology as the Nunc Dimittis; the name has reference to the first two words of the Latin version.
[231] Luke 2:29-32. These verses are known in Christian hymnody as the Nunc Dimittis; the name refers to the first two words of the Latin version.
[233] Matt. 2:2; read 1-10.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 2:2; read 1-10.
[237] Numb. 24:17.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Num. 24:17.
[239] Matt. 2:13.
[240] Matt. 2:16.
[252] "Standard Bible Dictionary," edited by Jacobus, Nourse, and Zenos, pub. by Funk & Wagnalls Co., New York and London, 1909, p. 915, article "Zedekiah."
[252] "Standard Bible Dictionary," edited by Jacobus, Nourse, and Zenos, published by Funk & Wagnalls Co., New York and London, 1909, p. 915, article "Zedekiah."
CHAPTER 9.
THE BOY OF NAZARETH.
Joseph, Mary, and her Son remained in Egypt until after the death of Herod the Great, which event was made known by another angelic visitation. Their stay in the foreign land was probably brief, for Herod did not long survive the babes he had slain in Bethlehem. In the return of the family from Egypt the evangelist finds a fulfilment of Hosea's prophetic vision of what should be: "Out of Egypt have I called my son."[254]
Joseph, Mary, and her Son stayed in Egypt until after Herod the Great died, which was revealed by another angel. They likely didn't stay long in the foreign land, as Herod didn't live much longer after he killed the infants in Bethlehem. The evangelist sees the family's return from Egypt as a fulfillment of Hosea's prophecy: "Out of Egypt have I called my son."[254]
It appears to have been Joseph's intention to make a home for the family in Judea, possibly at Bethlehem—the city of his ancestors and a place now even more endeared to him as the birthplace of Mary's Child—but, learning on the way that Herod's son Archelaus ruled in the place of his wicked father, Joseph modified his purpose; and, "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: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."[255]
It seems that Joseph planned to settle his family in Judea, likely in Bethlehem—the city of his ancestors and a place that held even more significance for him as the birthplace of Mary's Child. However, upon discovering that Herod's son Archelaus was ruling in place of his cruel father, Joseph changed his plans. After being warned by God in a dream, he went to the regions of Galilee and settled in a city called Nazareth, fulfilling what the prophets had said: He shall be called a Nazarene.[255]
While Archelaus, who appears to have been a natural heir to his infamous father's wickedness and cruelty, ruled in Judea,[256] for a short time as king, then with the less exalted title of ethnarch, which had been decreed to him by the emperor, his brother Antipas governed as tetrarch in Galilee. Herod Antipas was well nigh as vicious and reprobate as others of his unprincipled family, but he was less aggressive in vindictiveness, and in that period of his reign was comparatively tolerant.[257]
While Archelaus, who seemed to inherit his infamous father's wickedness and cruelty, ruled in Judea,[256] for a short time as king, then with the less lofty title of ethnarch, which had been given to him by the emperor, his brother Antipas governed as tetrarch in Galilee. Herod Antipas was nearly as vicious and immoral as others in his unprincipled family, but he was less aggressive in his vindictiveness and during that period of his reign was relatively tolerant.[257]
Concerning the home life of Joseph and his family in Nazareth, the scriptural record makes but brief mention. The silence with which the early period of the life of Jesus is treated by the inspired historians is impressive; while the fanciful accounts written in later years by unauthorized hands are full of fictitious detail, much of which is positively revolting in its puerile inconsistency. None but Joseph, Mary, and the other members of the immediate family or close associates of the household could have furnished the facts of daily life in the humble home at Nazareth; and from these qualified informants Matthew and Luke probably derived the knowledge of which they wrote. The record made by those who knew is marked by impressive brevity. In this absence of detail we may see evidence of the genuineness of the scriptural account. Inventive writers would have supplied, as, later, such did supply, what we seek in vain within the chapters of the Gospels. With hallowed silence do the inspired scribes honor the boyhood of their Lord; he who seeks to invent circumstances and to invest the life of Christ with fictitious additions, dishonors Him. Read thoughtfully the attested truth concerning the childhood of the Christ: "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him."[258]
Regarding the home life of Joseph and his family in Nazareth, the scriptural records only briefly mention it. The silence about the early years of Jesus's life noted by inspired historians is striking; while later fanciful accounts from unauthorized sources are filled with made-up details, much of which is quite repulsive in its childish inconsistencies. Only Joseph, Mary, and other close family members and associates could have provided the facts about daily life in their modest home in Nazareth; from these credible sources, Matthew and Luke likely gained the insights they wrote about. The accounts by those who knew are notably concise. This lack of detail could indicate the authenticity of the scriptural narrative. Imaginative writers would have filled in what we look for in vain within the chapters of the Gospels, as later writers did. The inspired scribes honor the childhood of their Lord with sacred silence; anyone attempting to invent circumstances or embellish Christ's life with fictional additions disrespects Him. Read thoughtfully the confirmed truth about the childhood of Christ: "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him."[258]
In such simplicity is the normal, natural development of the Boy Jesus made clear. He came among men to experience all the natural conditions of mortality; He was born as truly a dependent, helpless babe as is any other child; His infancy was in all common features as the infancy of others; His boyhood was actual boyhood, His development was as necessary and as real as that of all children. Over His mind had fallen the veil of forgetfulness common to all who are born to earth, by which the remembrance of primeval existence is shut off. The Child grew, and with growth there came to Him expansion of mind, development of faculties,[Pg 112] and progression in power and understanding. His advancement was from one grace to another, not from gracelessness to grace; from good to greater good, not from evil to good; from favor with God to greater favor, not from estrangement because of sin to reconciliation through repentance and propitiation.[259]
In this simplicity, the normal, natural growth of the Boy Jesus becomes clear. He came to experience all the ordinary conditions of being human; He was born as genuinely dependent and helpless as any other child. His infancy was just like that of others; His boyhood was real boyhood, and His development was as necessary and genuine as that of all children. He experienced the veil of forgetfulness that comes with being born on Earth, which blocks the memory of previous existence. The Child grew, and with that growth came a broadening of mind, development of abilities,[Pg 112] and increased power and understanding. His progress was from one grace to another, not from lack of grace to grace; from good to greater good, not from evil to good; from favor with God to even greater favor, not from estrangement because of sin to reconciliation through repentance and atonement.[259]
Our knowledge of Jewish life in that age justifies the inference that the Boy was well taught in the law and the scriptures, for such was the rule. He garnered knowledge by study, and gained wisdom by prayer, thought, and effort. Beyond question He was trained to labor, for idleness was abhorred then as it is now; and every Jewish boy, whether carpenter's son, peasant's child, or rabbi's heir, was required to learn and follow a practical and productive vocation. Jesus was all that a boy should be, for His development was unretarded by the dragging weight of sin; He loved and obeyed the truth and therefore was free.[260]
Our understanding of Jewish life at that time suggests that the Boy was well-educated in the law and the scriptures, as that was the norm. He gained knowledge through study and acquired wisdom through prayer, reflection, and hard work. There’s no doubt He was taught to work, because laziness was despised then just as it is today; every Jewish boy, whether a carpenter's son, a peasant's child, or a rabbi's heir, had to learn and commit to a practical and productive trade. Jesus was everything a boy should be, as His growth was not hindered by the burdens of sin; He loved and obeyed the truth and was therefore free.[260]
Joseph and Mary, devout and faithful in all observances of the law, went up to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. This religious festival, it should be remembered, was one of the most solemn and sacred among the many ceremonial commemorations of the Jews; it had been established at the time of the peoples' exodus from Egypt, in remembrance of the outstretched arm of power by which God had delivered Israel after the angel of destruction had slain the firstborn in every Egyptian home and had mercifully passed over the houses of the children of Jacob.[261] It was of such importance that its annual recurrence was made the beginning of the new year. The law required all males to present themselves before the Lord at the feast. The rule was that women should likewise attend if not lawfully detained; and Mary appears to have followed both the spirit of the law and the letter of the rule, for she habitually accompanied[Pg 113] her husband to the annual gathering at Jerusalem.
Joseph and Mary, devoted and faithful in all their observances of the law, traveled to Jerusalem every year for the Passover festival. This religious celebration was one of the most important and sacred among the many ceremonial observances of the Jews; it had been established during the people’s exodus from Egypt, to remember the powerful way God delivered Israel after the angel of death struck down the firstborn in every Egyptian home but mercifully passed over the houses of the children of Jacob.[261] It was so significant that its annual occurrence marked the beginning of the new year. The law required all males to present themselves before the Lord at the feast. The rule stated that women should also attend unless they were lawfully detained; and Mary seemed to follow both the spirit of the law and the letter of the rule, as she regularly accompanied[Pg 113] her husband to the annual gathering in Jerusalem.
When Jesus had attained the age of twelve years He was taken by His mother and Joseph to the feast as the law required; whether the Boy had ever before been present on such an occasion we are not told: At twelve years of age a Jewish boy was recognized as a member of his home community; he was required then to enter with definite purpose upon his chosen vocation; he attained an advanced status as an individual in that thereafter he could not be arbitrarily disposed of as a bond-servant by his parents; he was appointed to higher studies in school and home; and, when accepted by the priests, he became a "son of the law." It was the common and very natural desire of parents to have their sons attend the feast of the Passover and be present at the temple ceremonies as recognized members of the congregation when of the prescribed age. Thus came the Boy Jesus to the temple.
When Jesus turned twelve, His mother and Joseph took Him to the feast as the law required. We aren’t told if He had attended such an event before. At twelve, a Jewish boy was recognized as a member of his home community; he was expected to begin pursuing his chosen vocation. He reached a higher status as an individual, meaning he could no longer be treated like a servant by his parents. He was also set to pursue more advanced studies in school and at home. When accepted by the priests, he became a "son of the law." Parents naturally wanted their sons to attend the Passover feast and be part of the temple ceremonies as recognized members of the congregation at the appropriate age. So, the Boy Jesus went to the temple.
The feast proper lasted seven days, and in the time of Christ was annually attended by great concourses of Jews; Josephus speaks of such a Passover gathering as "an innumerable multitude."[262] The people came from distant provinces in large companies and caravans, as a matter of convenience and as a means of common protection against the marauding bands which are known to have infested the country. As members of such a company Joseph and his family traveled.
The feast itself lasted seven days, and during Christ's time, it attracted large crowds of Jews every year; Josephus described one such Passover gathering as "an countless multitude."[262] People came from faraway regions in big groups and caravans, both for convenience and to protect themselves from the bandits that were known to plague the area. Joseph and his family traveled as part of one of these groups.
When, following the conclusion of the Passover, the Galilean company had gone a day's journey toward home, Joseph and Mary discovered to their surprize and deep concern that Jesus was not with their company. After a fruitless search among their friends and acquaintances, they turned back toward Jerusalem seeking the Boy. Their inquiries brought little comfort or assistance until three days had passed; then "they, found him in the temple, sitting in[Pg 114] the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions."[263] It was no unusual thing for a twelve year old boy to be questioned by priests, scribes, or rabbis, nor to be permitted to ask questions of these professional expounders of the law, for such procedure was part of the educational training of Jewish youths; nor was there anything surprizing in such a meeting of students and teachers within the temple courts, for the rabbis of that time were accustomed to give instruction there; and people, young and old, gathered about them, sitting at their feet to learn; but there was much that was extraordinary in this interview as the demeanor of the learned doctors showed, for never before had such a student been found, inasmuch as "all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers." The incident furnishes evidence of a wellspent boyhood and proof of unusual attainments.[264]
When the Galilean group finished Passover and had traveled a day’s journey home, Joseph and Mary were shocked and worried to realize that Jesus was not with them. After an unsuccessful search among their friends and acquaintances, they headed back to Jerusalem looking for the Boy. Their inquiries provided little comfort or help until three days had passed; then they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. It was not unusual for a twelve-year-old boy to engage with priests, scribes, or rabbis, nor was it surprising for him to ask questions of these experts on the law, as this was part of the educational training for Jewish boys. Additionally, it was common for students and teachers to meet within the temple courts, where the rabbis of that time would often instruct, and people of all ages would gather around to learn. However, there was something remarkable about this interaction, as the teachers’ reactions made clear; never before had such a student been found, as “all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.” This incident indicates a well-spent childhood and evidence of exceptional knowledge.
The amazement of Mary and her husband on finding the Boy in such distinguished company, and so plainly the object of deference and respect, and the joy of seeing again the beloved One who to them had been lost, did not entirely banish the memory of the anguish His absence had caused them. In words of gentle yet unmistakable reproof the mother said: "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." The Boy's reply astonished them, in that it revealed, to an extent they had not before realized, His rapidly maturing powers of judgment and understanding. Said He: "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"
The amazement of Mary and her husband upon finding the Boy in such distinguished company, clearly the focus of respect and admiration, and the joy of seeing again the beloved One they thought they had lost, did not completely erase the memory of the pain His absence had caused them. With gentle yet clear reproach, the mother said: "Son, why have you treated us this way? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in sorrow." The Boy's response surprised them because it showed, more than they had realized before, His quickly developing judgment and understanding. He said: "Why were you looking for me? Didn't you know that I must be about my Father's business?"
Let us not say that there was unkind rebuke or unfilial reproof in the answer of this most dutiful of sons to His mother. His reply was to Mary a reminder of what she seems to have forgotten for the moment—the facts in the[Pg 115] matter of her Son's paternity. She had used the words "thy father and I;" and her Son's response had brought anew to her mind the truth that Joseph was not the Boy's father. She appears to have been astonished that One so young should so thoroughly understand His position with respect to herself. He had made plain to her the inadvertent inaccuracy of her words; His Father had not been seeking Him; for was He not even at that moment in His Father's house, and particularly engaged in His Father's business, the very work to which His Father had appointed Him?
Let’s not say there was any harsh criticism or disrespect in the reply of this most devoted son to His mother. His answer served as a reminder to Mary of something she seemed to have overlooked for a moment—the truth about her Son's parentage. She had said, "your father and I"; and her Son’s response highlighted anew that Joseph was not the Boy's father. She seemed surprised that someone so young could understand His relationship to her so well. He made it clear to her that her words were inadvertently inaccurate; His Father had not been looking for Him, because wasn’t He even at that moment in His Father's house, busy with His Father’s work, the very task His Father had given Him?
He had in no wise intimated a doubt as to Mary's maternal relationship to Himself; though He had indisputably shown that He recognized as His Father, not Joseph of Nazareth, but the God of Heaven. Both Mary and Joseph failed to comprehend the full import of His words. Though He understood the superior claim of duty based on His divine Sonship, and had shown to Mary that her authority as earthly mother was subordinate to that of His immortal and divine Father, nevertheless He obeyed her. Interested as were the doctors in this remarkable Boy, much as He had given them to ponder over through His searching questions and wise answers, they could not detain Him, for the very law they professed to uphold enjoined strict obedience to parental authority. "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart."
He never suggested any doubt about Mary being His mother; however, He clearly indicated that He recognized God in Heaven, not Joseph of Nazareth, as His Father. Both Mary and Joseph didn’t fully grasp the significance of what He was saying. While He understood that His duty as the divine Son took precedence and made it clear to Mary that her authority as His earthly mother was secondary to that of His eternal and divine Father, He still obeyed her. Even though the scholars were interested in this extraordinary Boy and were challenged by His probing questions and wise answers, they couldn't keep Him from going because their own laws demanded strict obedience to parental authority. "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart."
What marvelous and sacred secrets were treasured in that mother's heart; and what new surprizes and grave problems were added day after day in the manifestations of unfolding wisdom displayed by her more than mortal Son! Though she could never have wholly forgotten, at times she seemingly lost sight of her Son's exalted personality. That such conditions should exist was perhaps divinely appointed. There could scarcely have been a full measure of truly human[Pg 116] experience in the relationship between Jesus and His mother, or between Him and Joseph, had the fact of His divinity been always dominant or even prominently apparent. Mary appears never to have fully understood her Son; at every new evidence of His uniqueness she marveled and pondered anew. He was hers, and yet in a very real sense not wholly hers. There was about their relation to each other a mystery, awful yet sublime, a holy secret which that chosen and blessed mother hesitated even to tell over to herself. Fear must have contended with joy within her soul because of Him. The memory of Gabriel's glorious promises, the testimony of the rejoicing shepherds, and the adoration of the magi must have struggled with that of Simeon's portentous prophecy, directed to herself in person: "Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also."[265]
What amazing and sacred secrets were held in that mother’s heart, and what new surprises and serious challenges were added every day by the evolving wisdom shown by her more than mortal Son! While she could never completely forget, there were times when she seemed to overlook her Son's extraordinary nature. Perhaps it was divinely intended for such conditions to exist. There couldn’t have been a full experience of truly human relationships between Jesus and His mother, or between Him and Joseph, if His divinity had always been dominant or even obvious. Mary seemed never to have fully understood her Son; with each new revelation of His uniqueness, she was amazed and reflected deeply. He belonged to her, yet in a real sense, He was not entirely hers. There was a mystery in their relationship, both terrifying and beautiful, a sacred secret that she hesitated to acknowledge even to herself. Fear must have fought with joy within her because of Him. The memory of Gabriel's glorious promises, the testimony of the joyful shepherds, and the worship of the magi must have clashed with Simeon's significant prophecy directed personally at her: "Yes, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also."[265]
As to the events of the eighteen years following the return of Jesus from Jerusalem to Nazareth, the scriptures are silent save for one rich sentence of greatest import: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man."[266] Plainly this Son of the Highest was not endowed with a fulness of knowledge, nor with the complete investiture of wisdom, from the cradle.[267] Slowly the assurance of His appointed mission as the Messiah, of whose coming He read in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, developed within His soul; and in devoted preparation for the ministry that should find culmination on the cross He passed the years of youth and early manhood. From the chronicles of later years we learn that He was reputed without question to be the son of Joseph and Mary, and was regarded as the brother of other and younger children of the family. He was spoken of both as a carpenter and a carpenter's son; and, until the beginning of His public ministry[Pg 117] He appears to have been of little prominence even in the small home community.[268]
As for the events of the eighteen years after Jesus returned from Jerusalem to Nazareth, the scriptures say very little except for one important line: "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man."[266] Clearly, this Son of the Highest wasn’t born with complete knowledge or full wisdom.[267] Slowly, the realization of His role as the Messiah, which He saw in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, took shape in His heart; and in dedicated preparation for the ministry that would culminate on the cross, He spent His youth and early adulthood. From later accounts, we learn that He was generally accepted as the son of Joseph and Mary and seen as the brother of younger siblings in the family. He was referred to both as a carpenter and as Joseph's son; and until the start of His public ministry[Pg 117], He seems to have been relatively unknown, even in His small hometown.[268]
He lived the simple life, at peace with His fellows, in communion with His Father, thus increasing in favor with God and men. As shown by His public utterances after He had become a man, these years of seclusion were spent in active effort, both physical and mental. Jesus was a close observer of nature and men. He was able to draw illustrations with which to point His teachings from the varied occupations, trades and professions; the ways of the lawyer and the physician, the manners of the scribe, the Pharisee and the rabbi, the habits of the poor, the customs of the rich, the life of the shepherd, the farmer, the vinedresser and the fisherman—were all known to Him. He considered the lilies of the field, and the grass in meadow and upland, the birds which sowed not nor gathered into barns but lived on the bounty of their Maker, the foxes in their holes, the petted house dog and the vagrant cur, the hen sheltering her brood beneath protecting wings—all these had contributed to the wisdom in which He grew, as had also the moods of the weather, the recurrence of the seasons, and all the phenomena of natural change and order.
He lived a simple life, at peace with those around Him, in connection with His Father, thus gaining favor with both God and people. As shown by His public statements after He became a man, these years of solitude were spent in active physical and mental effort. Jesus was a keen observer of nature and people. He was able to draw examples for His teachings from the various jobs and professions; He knew the ways of lawyers and doctors, the behaviors of scribes, Pharisees, and rabbis, the lifestyles of the poor, the customs of the rich, and the lives of shepherds, farmers, vineyard workers, and fishermen. He paid attention to the lilies in the fields, the grass in meadows and hills, the birds that neither sow nor harvest but live off the generosity of their Creator, the foxes in their dens, the pampered pet dog and the stray mutt, and the hen protecting her chicks under her wings—all of these experiences contributed to the wisdom He gained, along with the moods of the weather, the changing seasons, and all the phenomena of nature's cycles and order.
Nazareth was the abode of Jesus until He was about thirty years of age; and, in accordance with the custom of designating individuals by the names of their home towns as additions to their personal names,[269] our Lord came to be generally known as Jesus of Nazareth.[270] He is also referred to as a Nazarene, or a native of Nazareth, and this fact is cited by Matthew as a fulfilment of earlier prediction, though our current compilation of scriptures constituting the Old Testament contains no record of such prophecy. It is practically certain that this prediction was contained in some one[Pg 118] of the many scriptures extant in earlier days but since lost.[271] That Nazareth was an obscure village, of little honor or renown, is evidenced by the almost contemptuous question of Nathanael, who, on being informed that the Messiah had been found in Jesus of Nazareth, asked: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"[272] The incredulous query has passed into a proverb current even today as expressive of any unpopular or unpromising source of good. Nathanael lived in Cana, but a few miles from Nazareth, and his surprize at the tidings brought by Philip concerning the Messiah incidentally affords evidence of the seclusion in which Jesus had lived.
Nazareth was where Jesus lived until He was about thirty years old. Following the common practice of identifying people by their hometowns as part of their names,[269] He became widely known as Jesus of Nazareth.[270] He is also called a Nazarene, meaning a native of Nazareth, and Matthew points this out as a fulfillment of an earlier prophecy, even though our current collection of Old Testament scriptures does not include any record of such a prophecy. It's almost certain that this prediction was part of some ancient texts that have since been lost.[271] The fact that Nazareth was a small, insignificant village is shown by Nathanael's almost dismissive question when he heard that the Messiah had been found in Jesus of Nazareth: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"[272] This skeptical question has become a saying still used today to refer to any unlikely or unpromising source of good. Nathanael lived in Cana, just a few miles from Nazareth, and his surprise at the news brought to him by Philip about the Messiah further highlights the isolation in which Jesus had lived.
So passed the boyhood, youth, and early manhood of the Savior of mankind.
So went through the boyhood, youth, and early adulthood of the Savior of humanity.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 9.
1. Archelaus Reigned in Herod's Stead.—"At his death Herod [the Great] left a will according to which his kingdom was to be divided among his three sons. Archelaus was to have Judea, Idumea, and Samaria, with the title of king (Matt 2:22). Herod Antipas was to receive Galilee and Perea, with the title of tetrarch; Philip was to come into possession of the trans-Jordan territory with the title of tetrarch (Luke 3:1). This will was ratified by Augustus with the exception of the title given to Archelaus. Archelaus, after the ratification of Herod's will by Augustus, succeeded to the rule of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, having the title of ethnarch, with the understanding that, if he ruled well, he was to become king. He was, however, highly unpopular with the people, and his reign was marked by disturbances and acts of oppression. The situation became finally so intolerable that the Jews appealed to Augustus, and Archelaus was removed and sent into exile. This accounts for the statement in Matt. 2:22, and possibly also suggested the point of the parable (Luke 19:12, etc.)."—Standard Bible Dictionary, Funk and Wagnalls Co., article "Herod." Early in his reign he wreaked summary vengeance on the people who ventured to protest against a continuation of his father's violence, by slaughtering three thousand or more; and the awful deed of carnage was perpetrated in part within the precincts of the temple. (Josephus, Antiquities xvii, 9:1-3.)
1. Archelaus Ruled in Herod's Place.—"When Herod [the Great] died, he left a will that divided his kingdom among his three sons. Archelaus was given Judea, Idumea, and Samaria, with the title of king (Matt 2:22). Herod Antipas received Galilee and Perea, with the title of tetrarch; Philip got the territories across the Jordan as tetrarch (Luke 3:1). Augustus confirmed this will but changed the title given to Archelaus. After Augustus approved Herod's will, Archelaus took over the leadership of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea as ethnarch, with the promise that if he ruled well, he would become king. However, he was very unpopular, and his reign was filled with unrest and oppression. The situation became so unbearable that the Jews appealed to Augustus, leading to Archelaus being removed and exiled. This explains the statement in Matt. 2:22 and may have also inspired the point of the parable (Luke 19:12, etc.)."—Standard Bible Dictionary, Funk and Wagnalls Co., article "Herod." Early in his rule, he took brutal revenge on the people who protested against his father's cruelty, killing over three thousand, and part of this massacre took place within the temple grounds. (Josephus, Antiquities xvii, 9:1-3.)
2. Herod Antipas.—Son of Herod I (the Great) by a Samaritan[Pg 119] woman, and full brother to Archelaus. By the will of his father he became tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:19; 9:7; Acts 13:1; compare Luke 3:1). He repudiated his wife, a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia Petrea, and entered into an unlawful union with Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip I (not the tetrarch Philip). John the Baptist was imprisoned and finally put to death, through the anger of Herodias over his denunciation of her union with Herod Antipas. Herodias urged Antipas to go to Rome and petition Cæsar for the title of king (compare Mark 6:14, etc.). Antipas is the Herod most frequently mentioned in the New Testament (Mark 6:17; 8:15; Luke 3:1; 9:7; 13:31; Acts 4:27; 13:1). He was the Herod to whom Pilate sent Jesus for examination, taking advantage of Christ being known as a Galilean, and of the coincident fact of Herod's presence in Jerusalem at the time in attendance at the Passover (Luke 23:6, etc.). For further details see Smith's, Cassell's, or the Standard Bible Dictionary.
2. Herod Antipas.—Son of Herod I (the Great) and a Samaritan[Pg 119] woman, and full brother to Archelaus. By his father's will, he became tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:19; 9:7; Acts 13:1; compare Luke 3:1). He rejected his wife, a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia Petrea, and entered into an illegal relationship with Herodias, who was the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip I (not the tetrarch Philip). John the Baptist was imprisoned and eventually killed because of Herodias's anger over his criticism of her relationship with Herod Antipas. Herodias pressured Antipas to go to Rome and ask Cæsar for the title of king (compare Mark 6:14, etc.). Antipas is the Herod mentioned most often in the New Testament (Mark 6:17; 8:15; Luke 3:1; 9:7; 13:31; Acts 4:27; 13:1). He was the Herod to whom Pilate sent Jesus for questioning since Jesus was known to be a Galilean, and coincidentally, Herod was in Jerusalem at the time for the Passover (Luke 23:6, etc.). For more details, see Smith's, Cassell's, or the Standard Bible Dictionary.
3. Testimony of John the Apostle Concerning Christ's Development in Knowledge and Grace.—In a modern revelation, Jesus the Christ has confirmed the record of John the apostle, which record appears but in part in our compilation of ancient scriptures. John thus attests the actuality of natural development in the growth of Jesus from childhood to maturity: "And I, John, saw that he received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness; and thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fullness at the first." (Doc. and Cov. 93:12-14). Notwithstanding this graded course of growth and development after His birth in the flesh, Jesus Christ had been associated with the Father from the beginning, as is set forth in the revelation cited. We read therein: "And he [John] bore record, saying, I saw his glory that he was in the beginning before the world was; therefore in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation, the light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men. The worlds were made by him: men were made by him: all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us" (verses 7-11).
3. Testimony of John the Apostle About Christ's Growth in Knowledge and Grace.—In a modern revelation, Jesus Christ has confirmed John the apostle's account, which is only partially included in our collection of ancient scriptures. John confirms the reality of natural development in Jesus's growth from childhood to adulthood: "And I, John, saw that he did not receive everything at once, but received grace upon grace; and he did not receive everything at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness; and thus he was called the Son of God, because he did not receive everything at the beginning." (Doc. and Cov. 93:12-14). Despite this gradual growth and development after His physical birth, Jesus Christ had been with the Father from the beginning, as shown in the quoted revelation. It states: "And he [John] bore record, saying, I saw his glory that he was in the beginning before the world existed; therefore in the beginning, the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation, the light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world because the world was created by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men. The worlds were made by him: men were made by him: all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. And I, John, bear witness that I saw his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and lived among us" (verses 7-11).
4. Missing Scripture.—Matthew's commentary on the abode of Joseph, Mary and Jesus at Nazareth, "and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene" (2:23), with the fact that no such saying of the prophets is found in any of the books contained in the Bible, suggests the certainty of lost scripture. Those who oppose the doctrine of continual revelation between God and His Church, on the ground that the Bible is complete as a collection of sacred scriptures, and that alleged revelation not found therein must therefore be spurious,[Pg 120] may profitably take note of the many books not included in the Bible, yet mentioned therein, generally in such a way as to leave no doubt that they were once regarded as authentic. Among these extra-Biblical scriptures, the following may be named; some of them are in existence to-day, and are classed with the Apocrypha; but the greater number are unknown. We read of the Book of the Covenant (Exo. 24:7); Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numb. 21:14); Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13); Book of the Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25); Book of Enoch (Jude 14); Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41); Book of Nathan the Prophet, and that of Gad the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29); Book of Ahijah the Shilonite, and visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chron. 9:29); Book of Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12:15); Story of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chron. 13:22); Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34); the Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chron. 26:22); Sayings of the Seers (2 Chron. 33:19); a missing epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); a missing epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); missing epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16); a missing epistle of Jude (Jude 3).
4. Missing Scripture.—Matthew's commentary on where Joseph, Mary, and Jesus lived in Nazareth states, "and he came and lived in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene" (2:23). The fact that no such saying from the prophets is found in any of the Bible's books suggests that some scripture is definitely lost. Those who argue against the idea of ongoing revelation between God and His Church, claiming that the Bible is a complete collection of sacred scriptures and that any supposed revelations not included must therefore be false,[Pg 120] should note the many books not included in the Bible that are mentioned in it, usually in a way that clearly indicates they were once seen as authentic. Among these non-Biblical scriptures are the following; some still exist today and are categorized with the Apocrypha, while most are unknown. We read of the Book of the Covenant (Exo. 24:7); Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numb. 21:14); Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13); Book of the Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25); Book of Enoch (Jude 14); Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41); Book of Nathan the Prophet and that of Gad the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29); Book of Ahijah the Shilonite and visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chron. 9:29); Book of Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12:15); Story of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chron. 13:22); Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34); the Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chron. 26:22); Sayings of the Seers (2 Chron. 33:19); a lost letter from Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); a lost letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); a missing letter to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16); a missing letter from Jude (Jude 3).
5. Nazareth.—A town or "city" in Galilee, of which Biblical mention is found in the New Testament only. Josephus says nothing concerning the place. The name of the existing village, or the Nazareth of to-day, is En-Nazirah. This occupies an upland site on the southerly ridge of Lebanon, and "commands a splendid view of the Plain of Esdraelon and Mount Carmel, and is very picturesque in general" (Zenos). The author of the article "Nazareth" in Smith's Bible Dict. identifies the modern En-Nazirah, with the Nazareth of old on the following grounds: "It is on the lower declivities of a hill or mountain (Luke 4:29); it is within the limits of the province of Galilee (Mark 1:9); it is near Cana (John 2:1, 2, 11); a precipice exists in the neighborhood (Luke 4:29); and a series of testimonials reaching back to Eusebius represent the place as having occupied the same position." The same writer adds: "Its population is 3000 or 4000; a few are Mohammedans, the rest Latin and Greek Christians. Most of the houses are well built of stone, and appear neat and comfortable. The streets or lanes are narrow and crooked, and after rain are so full of mud and mire as to be almost impassable." At the time of Christ's life the town was not only regarded as unimportant by the Judeans who professed but little respect for Galilee or the Galileans, but as without honor by the Galileans themselves, as appears from the fact that the seemingly contemptuous question, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" was uttered by Nathanael (John 1:46), who was a Galilean and a native of Cana, a neighboring town to Nazareth (John 21:2). Nazareth owes its celebrity to its association with events in the life of Jesus Christ (Matt. 2:23; 13:54; Mark 1:9; 6:1; Luke 1:26; 2:4; 4:23,34; John 1:45,46; 19:19; Acts 2:22).[Pg 121]
5. Nazareth.—A town or "city" in Galilee, mentioned only in the New Testament. Josephus doesn’t say anything about it. The name of the current village, or the Nazareth of today, is En-Nazirah. This is located on a high point on the southern ridge of Lebanon, offering a stunning view of the Plain of Esdraelon and Mount Carmel, and is generally very picturesque (Zenos). The author of the article "Nazareth" in Smith's Bible Dict. identifies modern En-Nazirah with the Nazareth of old based on the following reasons: "It is on the lower slopes of a hill or mountain (Luke 4:29); it is within the province of Galilee (Mark 1:9); it is close to Cana (John 2:1, 2, 11); there is a cliff nearby (Luke 4:29); and a series of references dating back to Eusebius show the location has remained the same." The same writer notes: "Its population is about 3,000 or 4,000; a few are Muslims, while the rest are Latin and Greek Christians. Most of the houses are well-constructed of stone, appearing neat and comfortable. The streets are narrow and winding, and after rainfall they become so muddy that they are nearly impossible to navigate." During Christ's lifetime, the town was viewed as unimportant by the Judeans, who had little respect for Galilee or its people, and it was considered dishonorable by the Galileans themselves, as evident from Nathanael’s seemingly contemptuous question, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46), who was a Galilean and from Cana, a neighboring town to Nazareth (John 21:2). Nazareth is famous because of its connection to events in the life of Jesus Christ (Matt. 2:23; 13:54; Mark 1:9; 6:1; Luke 1:26; 2:4; 4:23,34; John 1:45,46; 19:19; Acts 2:22).[Pg 121]
FOOTNOTES:
Footnotes:
[258] Luke 2:40.
Luke 2:40.
[261] Deut. 16:1-6; compare Exo. 12:2.
[263] Luke 2:46; read 41-52.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 2:46; read 41-52.
[265] Luke 2:35.
[266] Luke 2:52.
Luke 2:52.
[272] John 1:45, 46.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 1:45, 46.
CHAPTER 10.
IN THE WILDERNESS OF JUDEA.
THE VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS.
At a time definitely stated as the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, emperor of Rome, the people of Judea were greatly aroused over the strange preaching of a man theretofore unknown. He was of priestly descent, but untrained in the schools; and, without authorization of the rabbis or license from the chief priests, he proclaimed himself as one sent of God with a message to Israel. He appeared not in the synagogs nor within the temple courts, where scribes and doctors taught, but cried aloud in the wilderness. The people of Jerusalem and of adjacent rural parts went out in great multitudes to hear him. He disdained the soft garments and flowing robes of comfort, and preached in his rough desert garb, consisting of a garment of camel's hair held in place by a leathern girdle. The coarseness of his attire was regarded as significant. Elijah the Tishbite, that fearless prophet whose home had been the desert, was known in his day as "an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins;"[273] and rough garments had come to be thought of as a distinguishing characteristic of prophets.[274] Nor did this strange preacher eat the food of luxury and ease, but fed on what the desert supplied, locusts and wild honey.[275]
At a time clearly marked as the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar's reign, the emperor of Rome, the people of Judea were stirred up by the unusual preaching of a man who had been unknown until then. He came from a priestly background but was uneducated in formal teachings; without the approval of the rabbis or a license from the chief priests, he declared himself a messenger from God with a message for Israel. Instead of teaching in synagogues or temple courts where the scribes and scholars taught, he called out in the wilderness. Large crowds from Jerusalem and surrounding rural areas came out to hear him. He rejected the comfortable soft clothing and flowing robes, instead wearing rough desert clothing made of camel's hair secured with a leather belt. The coarseness of his attire was seen as significant. Elijah the Tishbite, the fearless prophet from the desert, had been known in his time as "a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins;"[273] and rough clothing was viewed as a telling sign of a prophet.[274] This unusual preacher also didn’t eat luxurious food, but survived on what the desert offered: locusts and wild honey.[275]
The man was John, son of Zacharias, soon to be known as the Baptist. He had spent many years in the desert, apart from the abodes of men, years of preparation for his[Pg 122] particular mission. He had been a student under the tutelage of divine teachers; and there in the wilderness of Judea the word of the Lord reached him;[276] as in similar environment it had reached Moses[277] and Elijah[278] of old. Then was heard "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."[279] It was the voice of the herald, the messenger who, as the prophets had said, should go before the Lord to prepare His way.[280] The burden of his message was "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And to such as had faith in his words and professed repentance, confessing their sins, he administered baptism by immersion in water—proclaiming the while, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."[281]
The man was John, the son of Zacharias, soon to be known as the Baptist. He had spent many years in the desert, away from the homes of people, preparing for his[Pg 122] specific mission. He had studied under divine teachers, and there in the wilderness of Judea, the word of the Lord came to him;[276] just as it had reached Moses[277] and Elijah[278] long ago. Then was heard "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way for the Lord, make his paths straight."[279] It was the voice of the herald, the messenger who, as the prophets had said, would go before the Lord to prepare His way.[280] His message was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." And to those who believed his words and showed repentance by confessing their sins, he baptized them by immersing them in water—while proclaiming, "I baptize you with water for repentance: but the one who comes after me is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry: he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."[281]
Neither the man nor his message could be ignored; his preaching was specific in promise to the repentant soul, and scathingly denunciatory to the hypocrite and the hardened sinner. When Pharisees and Sadducees came to his baptism, prating of the law, the spirit of which they ceased not to transgress, and of the prophets, whom they dishonored, he denounced them as a generation of vipers, and demanded of them: "Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" He brushed aside their oft-repeated boasts that they were the children of Abraham, saying, "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."[282] The ignoring of their claims to preferment as the children of Abraham was a strong rebuke,[Pg 123] and a cause of sore affront alike to aristocratic Sadducee and rule-bound Pharisee. Judaism held that the posterity of Abraham had an assured place in the kingdom of the expected Messiah, and that no proselyte from among the Gentiles could possibly attain the rank and distinction of which the "children" were sure. John's forceful assertion that God could raise up, from the stones on the river bank, children to Abraham, meant to those who heard that even the lowest of the human family might be preferred before themselves unless they repented and reformed.[283] Their time of wordy profession had passed; fruits were demanded, not barren though leafy profusion; the ax was ready, aye, at the very root of the tree; and every tree that produced not good fruit was to be hewn down and cast into the fire.
Neither the man nor his message could be ignored; his preaching was direct in its promise to those who repented, and sharply critical of the hypocrites and hardened sinners. When Pharisees and Sadducees showed up for his baptism, boasting about the law, which they continually broke, and the prophets, whom they disrespected, he called them a generation of vipers and asked, "Who warned you to escape from the coming wrath?" He dismissed their repeated claims of being children of Abraham, stating, "Produce fruit that is worthy of repentance, and don't think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you, God can raise up children for Abraham from these stones." The dismissal of their claims to privilege as Abraham's children was a strong rebuke, causing great offense to both the elite Sadducees and the strict Pharisees. Judaism taught that the descendants of Abraham held a guaranteed place in the expected Messiah's kingdom, and that no convert from the Gentiles could reach the status and honor that the "children" were assured of. John's bold statement that God could raise up children for Abraham from the stones by the riverbank signified to those listening that even the lowest in society could be chosen over them unless they repented and changed their ways. Their moment of empty claims was over; they were expected to show real results, not just a flashy exterior; the axe was ready, right at the root of the tree, and every tree that didn't bear good fruit would be cut down and thrown into the fire.
The people were astonished; and many, seeing themselves in their actual condition of dereliction and sin, as John, with burning words laid bare their faults, cried out: "What shall we do then?"[284] His reply was directed against ceremonialism, which had caused spirituality to wither almost to death in the hearts of the people. Unselfish charity was demanded—"He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise." The publicans or tax-farmers and collectors, under whose unjust and unlawful exactions the people had suffered so long, came asking: "Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you." To the soldiers who asked what to do he replied: "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."[285]
The people were shocked; and many, realizing their true state of neglect and sin, as John pointed out their faults with passionate words, shouted: "What should we do?"[284] His answer challenged the rituals that had nearly snuffed out spirituality in the hearts of the people. Genuine kindness was required—"If you have two coats, share with those who have none; and if you have food, do the same." The tax collectors, who had long been unfairly exploiting the people, came asking: "Teacher, what should we do?" He replied, "Don't collect more than what you’re supposed to." To the soldiers who asked what to do, he said: "Don't hurt anyone, don’t make false accusations, and be happy with your pay."[285]
The spirit of his demands was that of a practical religion, the only religion of any possible worth—the religion of right living. With all his vigor, in spite of his brusqueness, notwithstanding his forceful assaults on the degenerate customs[Pg 124] of the times, this John was no agitator against established institutions, no inciter of riot, no advocate of revolt, no promoter of rebellion. He did not assail the tax system but the extortions of the corrupt and avaricious publicans; he did not denounce the army, but the iniquities of the soldiers, many of whom had taken advantage of their position to bear false witness for the sake of gain and to enrich themselves by forcible seizure. He preached, what in the now current dispensation we call the first or fundamental principles of the gospel—"the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,"[286] comprizing faith, which is vitalized belief, in God; genuine repentance, which comprizes contrition for past offenses and a resolute determination to turn from sin; baptism by immersion in water at his hands as the hands of one having authority; and the higher baptism by fire or the bestowal of the Holy Ghost by an authority greater than that possessed by himself. His preaching was positive, and in many respects opposed to the conventions of the times; he made no appeal to the people through the medium of miraculous manifestations;[287] and though many of his hearers attached themselves to him as disciples,[288] he established no formal organization, nor did he attempt to form a cult. His demand for repentance was an individual call, as unto each acceptable applicant the rite of baptism was individually administered.
The essence of his demands was about a practical faith, the only type of faith that truly matters—the faith of living rightly. With all his energy, despite his roughness, and in spite of his powerful criticisms of the outdated practices[Pg 124] of the time, this John was not a rebel against established institutions, nor was he a stirrer of chaos, or an advocate for uprising, or a promoter of rebellion. He didn’t attack the tax system but criticized the greed and dishonesty of corrupt tax collectors; he didn’t denounce the military, but he spoke against the wrongdoings of soldiers, many of whom exploited their positions to lie for profit and enrich themselves through theft. He preached what we now refer to as the fundamental principles of the gospel—"the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,"[286] which included faith, a heartfelt belief in God; true repentance, which involves regret for past wrongs and a firm decision to turn away from sin; baptism by immersion in water performed by him, as someone with authority; and the higher baptism by fire or the giving of the Holy Spirit by someone with greater authority than himself. His preaching was straightforward and often went against the norms of the time; he didn’t appeal to people through miraculous signs;[287] and although many of his listeners became his followers,[288] he did not create any formal organization or attempt to establish a cult. His call for repentance was a personal invitation, as each person who sought it was baptized individually.
To the Jews, who were living in a state of expectancy, waiting for the long-predicted Messiah, the words of this strange prophet in the wilderness were fraught with deep portent. Could it be that he was the Christ? He spoke of One yet to come, mightier than himself, whose shoe-latchet he was not worthy to loosen,[289] One who would separate the people as the thresher, fan in hand, blew the chaff from the[Pg 125] wheat; and, he added, that mightier One "will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable."[290]
To the Jews, who were eagerly waiting for the long-expected Messiah, the words of this unusual prophet in the wilderness carried significant meaning. Could he be the Christ? He talked about someone yet to come, someone greater than himself, whose sandal strap he wasn't even worthy to untie,[289] someone who would sort the people just like a thresher, with a fan in hand, blowing away the chaff from the[Pg 125] wheat; and he added that this mightier One "will gather the wheat into his barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."[290]
In such wise did the predicted herald of the Lord deliver his message. Himself he would not exalt; his office, however, was sacred to him, and with its functions he brooked no interference from priest, Levite, or rabbi. He was no respecter of persons; sin he denounced, sinners he excoriated, whether in priestly vestments, peasant garb, or royal robes. All the claims the Baptist had made for himself and his mission were later confirmed and vindicated by the specific testimony of Christ.[291] John was the harbinger not alone of the kingdom but of the King; and to him the King in person came.
In this way, the predicted messenger of the Lord shared his message. He didn't elevate himself; however, he held his role in high regard and wouldn't allow any interference from priests, Levites, or rabbis. He treated everyone equally; he condemned sin and criticized sinners, whether they were dressed in priestly robes, simple clothing, or royal attire. All the claims the Baptist made about himself and his mission were later confirmed and validated by the specific testimony of Christ.[291] John was not only the forerunner of the kingdom but also of the King; and it was to him that the King came in person.
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS—TO FULFIL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS.
When Jesus "began to be about thirty years of age," He journeyed from His home in Galilee "to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."[292]
When Jesus was around thirty years old, He traveled from His home in Galilee to the Jordan River to be baptized by John. But John stopped Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?" Jesus replied, "Let it be this way now, because it’s necessary for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." So John agreed.[292]
John and Jesus were second cousins; as to whether there had existed any close companionship between the two as boys or men we are not told. It is certain, however, that when Jesus presented Himself for baptism, John recognized in Him a sinless Man who stood in no need of repentance; and, as the Baptist had been commissioned to baptize for the remission of sins, he saw no necessity of administering the ordinance to Jesus. He who had received the confessions[Pg 126] of multitudes now reverently confessed to One whom he knew was more righteous than himself. In the light of later events it appears that at this time John did not know that Jesus was the Christ, the Mightier One for whom he waited and whose forerunner he knew himself to be. When John expressed his conviction that Jesus needed no baptismal cleansing, our Lord, conscious of His own sinlessness, did not deny the Baptist's imputation, but nevertheless pressed His application for baptism with the significant explanation: "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." If John was able to comprehend the deeper meaning of this utterance, he must have found therein the truth that water baptism is not alone the means provided for gaining remission of sins, but is also an indispensable ordinance established in righteousness and required of all mankind as an essential condition for membership in the kingdom of God.[293]
John and Jesus were second cousins; however, we don't know if they were close as kids or adults. What is clear, though, is that when Jesus came for baptism, John recognized Him as a sinless Man who didn't need to repent. Since John was given the task of baptizing for the forgiveness of sins, he felt no need to baptize Jesus. He, who had heard the confessions of many, now humbly confessed to Someone he knew was more righteous than he was. Looking back at later events, it seems John didn't realize that Jesus was the Christ, the Mighty One he had been waiting for, and the forerunner he believed himself to be. When John stated that Jesus didn’t need baptism, our Lord, aware of His own sinlessness, didn’t dispute John's assessment but insisted on being baptized, explaining: "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." If John grasped the deeper meaning of this statement, he must have understood that water baptism is not just a way to receive forgiveness for sins, but also a vital ordinance established in righteousness and required of everyone as a necessary step for being part of the kingdom of God.[Pg 126]
Jesus Christ thus humbly complied with the will of the Father, and was baptized of John by immersion in water. That His baptism was accepted as a pleasing and necessary act of submission was attested by what immediately ensued: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."[294] Then John knew his Redeemer.
Jesus Christ humbly followed the Father's will and was baptized by John in water. This act of submission was recognized as pleasing and necessary, as shown by what happened right after: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightaway out of the water: and, look, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on him: and, look, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." [294] Then John recognized his Redeemer.
The four Gospel-writers record the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the baptized Jesus as accompanied by a visible manifestation "like a dove;" and this sign had been indicated to John as the foreappointed means by which the Messiah should be made known to him; and to that sign, before specified, was now added the supreme testimony of the Father as to the literal Sonship of Jesus. Matthew records[Pg 127] the Father's acknowledgment as given in the third person, "This is my beloved Son;" while both Mark and Luke give the more direct address, "Thou art my beloved Son." The variation, slight and essentially unimportant as it is though bearing on so momentous a subject, affords evidence of independent authorship and discredits any insinuation of collusion among the writers.
The four Gospel writers describe the Holy Spirit coming down on the baptized Jesus in a visible form "like a dove." This sign was revealed to John as the chosen way for him to recognize the Messiah. Along with this sign, the Father offered the ultimate testimony about Jesus being His literal Son. Matthew notes[Pg 127] the Father’s acknowledgment in the third person, saying, "This is my beloved Son," while both Mark and Luke provide the more direct phrase, "You are my beloved Son." The slight differences, while not significant, show that the authors wrote independently and dispel any suggestions of collusion among them.
The incidents attending the emergence of Jesus from the baptismal grave demonstrate the distinct individuality of the three Personages of the Godhead. On that solemn occasion Jesus the Son was present in the flesh; the presence of the Holy Ghost was manifest through the accompanying sign of the dove, and the voice of the Eternal Father was heard from heaven. Had we no other evidence of the separate personality of each member of the Holy Trinity, this instance should be conclusive; but other scriptures confirm the great truth.[295]
The events surrounding Jesus' emergence from the baptismal waters clearly show the unique individuality of the three Persons of the Godhead. On that significant occasion, Jesus the Son was physically present; the Holy Spirit was revealed through the sign of the dove, and the voice of the Eternal Father was heard from heaven. Even if we had no other evidence of the distinct personalities of each member of the Holy Trinity, this instance alone would be enough; but other scriptures also support this important truth.[295]
THE TEMPTATIONS OF CHRIST.
Soon after His baptism, immediately thereafter as Mark asserts, Jesus was constrained by the promptings of the Spirit to withdraw from men and the distractions of community life, by retiring into the wilderness where He would be free to commune with His God. So strong was the influence of the impelling force that He was led thereby, or, as stated by the evangelist, driven, into solitary seclusion, in which He remained during forty days, "with the wild beasts" of the desert. This remarkable episode in our Lord's life is described, though not with equal fulness, in three of the Gospels;[296] John is silent thereon.
Soon after His baptism, right after it, as Mark states, Jesus felt compelled by the Spirit to step away from people and the distractions of community life, retreating into the wilderness where He could freely connect with His God. The urge was so strong that He was led, or as the Gospel writer puts it, driven, into solitude, where He stayed for forty days, "with the wild beasts" of the desert. This significant moment in our Lord's life is described, though not in full detail, in three of the Gospels;[296] John does not mention it.
The circumstances attending this time of exile and test must have been related by Jesus Himself, for of other human[Pg 128] witnesses there were none. The recorded narratives deal principally with events marking the close of the forty-day period, but considered in their entirety they place beyond doubt the fact that the season was one of fasting and prayer. Christ's realization that He was the chosen and foreordained Messiah came to Him gradually. As shown by His words to His mother on the occasion of the memorable interview with the doctors in the temple courts, He knew, when but a Boy of twelve years, that in a particular and personal sense He was the Son of God; yet it is evident that a comprehension of the full purport of His earthly mission developed within Him only as He progressed step by step in wisdom. His acknowledgment by the Father, and the continued companionship of the Holy Ghost, opened His soul to the glorious fact of His divinity. He had much to think about, much that demanded prayer and the communion with God that prayer alone could insure. Throughout the period of retirement, he ate not, but chose to fast, that His mortal body might the more completely be subjected to His divine spirit.
The circumstances of this time of exile and testing must have been recounted by Jesus Himself, as there were no other human witnesses. The recorded narratives mainly focus on events marking the end of the forty-day period, but when looked at in full, they clearly show that this was a time of fasting and prayer. Christ's understanding that He was the chosen and predestined Messiah developed gradually. His words to His mother during that memorable meeting with the teachers in the temple reveal that even at the age of twelve, He knew in a specific and personal way that He was the Son of God; however, it's clear that His understanding of the complete meaning of His earthly mission unfolded gradually as He gained wisdom. His acknowledgment by the Father and the ongoing presence of the Holy Spirit opened His heart to the wonderful truth of His divinity. He had a lot to contemplate, much that required prayer and the connection with God that only prayer could provide. Throughout this period of retreat, He chose not to eat, fasting so that His mortal body could more fully yield to His divine spirit.
Then, when He was hungry and physically weak, the tempter came with the insidious suggestion that He use His extraordinary powers to provide food. Satan had chosen the most propitious time for his evil purpose. What will mortals not do, to what lengths have men not gone, to assuage the pangs of hunger? Esau bartered his birthright for a meal. Men have fought like brutes for food. Women have slain and eaten their own babes rather than endure the gnawing pangs of starvation. All this Satan knew when he came to the Christ in the hour of extreme physical need, and said unto Him: "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." During the long weeks of seclusion, our Lord had been sustained by the exaltation of spirit that would naturally attend such all-absorbing concentration of mind as His protracted meditation and communion with the heavens undoubtedly produced; in such profound[Pg 129] devotion of spirit, bodily appetites were subdued and superseded; but the reaction of the flesh was inevitable.
Then, when He was hungry and physically weak, the tempter came with the insidious suggestion that He use His extraordinary powers to provide food. Satan had chosen the perfect moment for his evil plan. What will humans not do, how far will people go, to relieve the pain of hunger? Esau traded his birthright for a meal. People have fought like animals for food. Women have even killed and eaten their own babies rather than face the agony of starvation. Satan was fully aware of all this when he approached Christ in His moment of extreme physical need and said to Him, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones be turned into bread." During the long weeks of solitude, our Lord had been sustained by the uplifting spirit that naturally comes from such intense focus as His deep meditation and communion with the heavens undoubtedly brought; in such profound devotion, physical cravings were subdued and overshadowed; but the body's reaction was inevitable.
Hungry as Jesus was, there was a temptation in Satan's words even greater than that embodied in the suggestion that He provide food for His famishing body—the temptation to put to proof the possible doubt implied in the tempter's "If." The Eternal Father had proclaimed Jesus as His Son; the devil tried to make the Son doubt that divine relationship. Why not prove the Father's interest in His Son at this moment of dire necessity? Was it proper that the Son of God should go hungry? Had the Father so soon forgotten as to leave His Beloved Son thus to suffer? Was it not reasonable that Jesus, faint from long abstinence, should provide for Himself, and particularly so since He could provide, and that by a word of command, if the voice heard at His baptism was that of the Eternal Father. If thou be in reality the Son of God, demonstrate thy power, and at the same time satisfy thy hunger—such was the purport of the diabolical suggestion. To have yielded would have been to manifest positive doubt of the Father's acknowledgment.
Hungry as Jesus was, there was a temptation in Satan's words even greater than the suggestion that He provide food for His starving body—the temptation to test the possible doubt implied in the tempter's "If." The Eternal Father had declared Jesus as His Son; the devil tried to make the Son doubt that divine connection. Why not prove the Father's interest in His Son at this moment of dire need? Was it appropriate for the Son of God to go hungry? Had the Father forgotten so soon as to let His Beloved Son suffer like this? Wasn’t it reasonable for Jesus, weak from not eating for so long, to take care of Himself, especially since He could provide for Himself, and that with just a command, if the voice He heard at His baptism was indeed the Eternal Father’s? If You truly are the Son of God, show Your power, and at the same time satisfy Your hunger—this was the implication of the devil’s suggestion. To give in would have meant showing clear doubt in the Father’s acknowledgment.
Moreover, the superior power that Jesus possessed had not been given to Him for personal gratification, but for service to others. He was to experience all the trials of mortality; another man, as hungry as He, could not provide for himself by a miracle; and though by miracle such a one might be fed, the miraculous supply would have to be given, not provided by himself. It was a necessary result of our Lord's dual nature, comprizing the attributes of both God and man, that He should endure and suffer as a mortal while possessing at all times the ability to invoke the power of His own Godhood by which all bodily needs could be supplied or overcome. His reply to the tempter was sublime and positively final: "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word[Pg 130] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."[297] The word that had proceeded from the mouth of God, upon which Satan would have cast mistrust, was that Jesus was the Beloved Son with whom the Father was well pleased. The devil was foiled; Christ was triumphant.
Moreover, the incredible power that Jesus had was not meant for His own pleasure, but to serve others. He was to go through all the struggles of being human; another person, just as hungry as He was, could not create food for himself through a miracle. Even if a miracle provided food for that person, it would have to be given, not created by his own efforts. It was a necessary outcome of our Lord's dual nature, which included the traits of both God and man, that He should suffer and endure as a human while always having the ability to call on His divine power to meet all physical needs. His answer to the tempter was profound and definitely final: "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word[Pg 130] that comes from the mouth of God."[297] The word that came from the mouth of God, which Satan tried to make Him doubt, was that Jesus was the Beloved Son, with whom the Father was well pleased. The devil was defeated; Christ was victorious.
Realizing that he had utterly failed in his attempt to induce Jesus to use His inherent power for personal service, and to trust in Himself rather than rely upon the Father's providence, Satan went to the other extreme and tempted Jesus to wantonly throw Himself upon the Father's protection.[298] Jesus was standing upon one of the high parts of the temple, a pinnacle or battlement, overlooking the spacious courts, when the devil said unto Him: "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." Again appears the implication of doubt.[299] If Jesus was in fact the Son of God, could He not trust His Father to save Him, and particularly so as it was written[300] that angels would guard Him and bear Him up? Christ's reply to the tempter in the wilderness had embodied a scriptural citation, and this He had introduced with the impressive formula common to expounders of sacred writ—"It is written." In the second attempt, the devil tried to support his suggestion by scripture, and employed a similar expression—"for it is written." Our Lord met and answered the devil's quotation with another, saying: "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."[301]
Realizing that he had completely failed to get Jesus to use His inherent power for personal gain and to trust in Himself instead of relying on the Father's support, Satan went to the other extreme and tempted Jesus to recklessly throw Himself onto the Father's protection.[298] Jesus was standing on a high point of the temple, a pinnacle or battlement, overlooking the spacious courts, when the devil said to Him: "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, He will command His angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so you won’t strike your foot against a stone." Again, there was an implication of doubt.[299] If Jesus was indeed the Son of God, couldn’t He trust His Father to save Him, especially since it was written[300] that angels would protect Him and carry Him? Christ's response to the tempter in the wilderness included a scripture reference, which He prefaced with the authoritative phrase common among those teaching sacred texts—"It is written." In the second attempt, the devil tried to back up his suggestion with scripture too, using a similar phrase—"for it is written." Our Lord countered the devil's quotation with another one, saying: "It is written again, You shall not tempt the Lord your God."[301]
Beside the provocation to sin by wantonly placing Himself in danger, so that the Father's love might be manifested in a miraculous rescue, or by refusing so to challenge the Father's interposition demonstrate that He doubted His[Pg 131] status as the Beloved Son, there lurked an appeal to the human side of Christ's nature, in thought of the fame which an astounding exploit, such as that of leaping from the dizzy height of the temple turrets and alighting unhurt, would surely bring. We cannot resist the thought, though we be not justified in saying that any such had even momentary place in the Savior's mind, that to act upon Satan's suggestion, provided of course the outcome proved to be such as he had indicated, would have been to insure public recognition of Jesus as a Being superior to mortals. It would have been a sign and a wonder indeed, the fame of which would have spread as fire in the dry grass; and all Jewry would have been aflame with excitement and interest in the Christ.
Next to the temptation to sin by recklessly putting Himself in danger, so that the Father’s love could be shown through a miraculous rescue, or by refusing to test the Father’s intervention which could suggest He doubted His status as the Beloved Son, there was also an appeal to the human side of Christ’s nature. The thought of the fame that would come from an incredible act, like jumping from the dizzy height of the temple and landing unharmed, must have been tempting. While we can’t say for sure that such a thought crossed the Savior’s mind, acting on Satan’s suggestion, assuming the result was as he described, would have guaranteed public recognition of Jesus as superior to ordinary humans. It would have truly been a sign and a wonder, the fame of which would spread rapidly; and all of Judea would have been ignited with excitement and interest in the Christ.
The glaring sophistry of Satan's citation of scripture was unworthy a categorical reply; his doctrine deserved neither logic nor argument; his misapplication of the written word was nullified by scripture that was germane; the lines of the psalmist were met by the binding fiat of the prophet of the exodus, in which he had commanded Israel that they should not provoke nor tempt the Lord to work miracles among them. Satan tempted Jesus to tempt the Father. It is as truly a blasphemous interference with the prerogatives of Deity to set limitations or make fixations of time or place at which the divine power shall be made manifest as it is to attempt to usurp that power. God alone must decide when and how His wonders shall be wrought. Once more the purposes of Satan were thwarted and Christ again was victor.
The blatant trickery in Satan's use of scripture didn’t warrant a direct response; his teaching was not worthy of logic or debate. His misinterpretation of the holy text was rendered void by relevant scripture; the psalmist’s words clashed with the command of the prophet during the exodus, who instructed Israel not to provoke or test the Lord by asking for miracles. Satan tried to get Jesus to test the Father. It’s just as much a blasphemous overstep of divine power to impose limits on when and where God’s miracles should occur as it is to try to take that power for oneself. Only God can determine when and how His wonders will be revealed. Once again, Satan's plans were defeated, and Christ emerged victorious.
In the third temptation the devil refrained from further appeal to Jesus to put either His own power or that of the Father to the test. Twice completely foiled, the tempter abandoned that plan of assault; and, discarding all disguise of purpose, submitted a definite proposition. From the top of a high mountain Jesus looked over the land with its wealth of city and field, of vineyard and orchard, of flocks[Pg 132] and of herds; and in vision He saw the kingdoms of the world and contemplated the wealth, the splendor, the earthly glory of them all. Then saith Satan unto Him: "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." So wrote Matthew; the more extended version by Luke follows: "And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine." We need not concern ourselves with conjecture as to whether Satan could have made good his promise in the event of Christ's doing him homage; certain it is Christ could have reached out, and have gathered to Himself the wealth and glory of the world had He willed so to do, and thereby have failed in His Messianic mission. This fact Satan knew full well. Many men have sold themselves to the devil for a kingdom and for less, aye, even for a few paltry pence.
In the third temptation, the devil stopped trying to get Jesus to test either His own power or that of the Father. After being completely defeated twice, the tempter gave up on that approach and, dropping any pretense, made a straightforward offer. From the top of a high mountain, Jesus looked over the land filled with cities, fields, vineyards, orchards, flocks[Pg 132], and herds; He saw the kingdoms of the world and considered their wealth, splendor, and earthly glory. Then Satan said to Him, "I will give you all these things if you will fall down and worship me." Matthew recorded this, while Luke offers a more detailed version: "And the devil said to him, All this power will I give you, and the glory of them: for that is delivered to me; and I can give it to whoever I want. If you will worship me, all shall be yours." We don’t need to speculate about whether Satan could have fulfilled his promise if Christ had honored him; what is certain is that Christ could have chosen to claim the world's wealth and glory if He wanted, but that would have meant failing in His Messianic mission. Satan was well aware of this. Many people have sold their souls to the devil for a kingdom and even for much less, yes, even for a few meager coins.
The effrontery of his offer was of itself diabolical. Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, tabernacled as He then was in mortal flesh, may not have remembered His preexistent state, nor the part He had taken in the great council of the Gods,[302] while Satan, an unembodied spirit—he the disinherited, the rebellious and rejected son—seeking to tempt the Being through whom the world was created by promising Him part of what was wholly His, still may have had, as indeed he may yet have, a remembrance of those primeval scenes. In that distant past, antedating the creation of the earth, Satan, then Lucifer, a son of the morning, had been rejected; and the Firstborn Son had been chosen. Now that the Chosen One was subject to the trials incident to mortality, Satan thought to thwart the divine purpose by making the Son of God subject to himself. He who had been vanquished by Michael and his hosts and cast down as a defeated rebel, asked the embodied Jehovah to worship[Pg 133] him. "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him."[303]
The audacity of his offer was truly sinister. Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, who was then living in a human body, might not have remembered His existence before coming to Earth, or the role He played in the heavenly council, while Satan, a disembodied spirit—he the disgraced, rebellious, and rejected son—seeking to tempt the Being through whom the world was made by offering Him a part of what was completely His, still might have remembered those ancient moments. In that far-off time, before the earth was created, Satan, then Lucifer, a morning star, had been cast aside; and the Firstborn Son had been chosen. Now that the Chosen One was facing the challenges of being human, Satan believed he could disrupt the divine plan by making the Son of God bow to him. He who had been defeated by Michael and his followers and cast down as a defeated rebel, asked the incarnate Jehovah to worship him. "Then Jesus said to him, 'Get away from me, Satan, for it is written, you shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.' Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and attended to him."
It is not to be supposed that Christ's victorious emergence from the dark clouds of the three specified temptations exempted Him from further assaults by Satan, or insured Him against later trials of faith, trust, and endurance. Luke closes his account of the temptations following the forty-day fast as follows: "And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season."[304] This victory over the devil and his wiles, this triumph over the cravings of the flesh, the harassing doubts of the mind, the suggested reaching out for fame and material wealth, were great but not final successes in the struggle between Jesus, the embodied God, and Satan, the fallen angel of light. That Christ was subject to temptation during the period of His association with the apostles He expressly affirmed.[305] That His temptations extended even to the agony in Gethsemane will appear as we proceed with this study. It is not given to the rest of us, nor was it given to Jesus, to meet the foe, to fight and overcome in a single encounter, once for all time. The strife between the immortal spirit and the flesh, between the offspring of God on the one hand, the world and the devil on the other, is persistent through life.
It shouldn't be assumed that Christ's victorious emergence from the dark clouds of the three specific temptations spared Him from future attacks by Satan or protected Him from later tests of faith, trust, and endurance. Luke wraps up his account of the temptations after the forty-day fast like this: "And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season."[304] This victory over the devil and his tricks, this triumph over the desires of the flesh, the nagging doubts of the mind, and the temptation to reach for fame and material wealth were significant but not final victories in the battle between Jesus, the embodied God, and Satan, the fallen angel of light. Christ clearly stated that He faced temptation during His time with the apostles.[305] As we continue this study, we will see that His temptations even extended to the agony in Gethsemane. It isn't given to the rest of us, nor was it given to Jesus, to confront the enemy, to fight, and to win in a single encounter, once and for all. The struggle between the immortal spirit and the flesh, between the children of God on one side, and the world and the devil on the other, is ongoing throughout life.
Few events in the evangelical history of Jesus of Nazareth have given rise to more discussion, fanciful theory, and barren speculation, than have the temptations. All such surmizes we may with propriety ignore. To any believer in the holy scriptures, the account of the temptations therein given is sufficiently explicit to put beyond doubt or question the essential facts; to the unbeliever neither the Christ nor[Pg 134] His triumph appeals. What shall it profit us to speculate as to whether Satan appeared to Jesus in visible form, or was present only as an unseen spirit; whether he spoke in audible voice, or aroused in the mind of his intended victim the thoughts later expressed by the written lines; whether the three temptations occurred in immediate sequence or were experienced at longer intervals? With safety we may reject all theories of myth or parable in the scriptural account, and accept the record as it stands; and with equal assurance may we affirm that the temptations were real, and that the trials to which our Lord was put constituted an actual and crucial test. To believe otherwise, one must regard the scriptures as but fiction.
Few events in the evangelical history of Jesus of Nazareth have sparked as much discussion, wild theory, and pointless speculation as the temptations. We can appropriately disregard all such guesses. For any believer in the holy scriptures, the account of the temptations is clear enough to eliminate any doubt or question about the essential facts; to the non-believer, neither Christ nor His triumph holds any appeal. What’s the point of speculating whether Satan appeared to Jesus in a visible form or was only present as an unseen spirit; whether he spoke in an audible voice or stirred thoughts in the mind of his intended victim that later appeared in written form; whether the three temptations happened in immediate succession or at longer intervals? We can confidently dismiss all theories of myth or parable in the scriptural account and accept the record as it is; we can equally affirm that the temptations were real and that the trials our Lord faced were genuine and significant tests. To believe otherwise means viewing the scriptures as mere fiction.
A question deserving some attention in this connection is that of the peccability or impeccability of Christ—the question as to whether He was capable of sinning. Had there been no possibility of His yielding to the lures of Satan, there would have been no real test in the temptations, no genuine victory in the result. Our Lord was sinless yet peccable; He had the capacity, the ability to sin had He willed so to do. Had He been bereft of the faculty to sin, He would have been shorn of His free agency; and it was to safeguard and insure the agency of man that He had offered Himself, before the world was, as a redeeming sacrifice. To say that He could not sin because He was the embodiment of righteousness is no denial of His agency of choice between evil and good. A thoroughly truthful man cannot culpably lie; nevertheless his insurance against falsehood is not that of external compulsion, but of internal restraint due to his cultivated companionship of the spirit of truth. A really honest man will neither take nor covet his neighbor's goods, indeed it may be said that he cannot steal; yet he is capable of stealing should he so elect. His honesty is an armor against temptation; but the coat of mail, the helmet, the breastplate, and the greaves, are but an outward[Pg 135] covering; the man within may be vulnerable if he can be reached.
A question worth considering here is whether Christ could have sinned or not—whether He had the capacity to yield to sin. If there had been no chance of Him giving in to Satan's temptations, then the challenges He faced wouldn't have been real, and His victory wouldn't hold true significance. Our Lord was without sin yet capable of sinning; He had the ability to choose to sin if He wanted to. If He lacked the ability to sin, He would have lost His free will; and it was to protect and affirm human agency that He offered Himself as a redeeming sacrifice before the world was created. Saying that He could not sin because He was the embodiment of righteousness doesn’t negate His ability to choose between good and evil. A completely truthful person can't lie in a blameworthy way; still, their ability to avoid falsehood comes from an internal commitment to the spirit of truth rather than external pressure. A genuinely honest person won't take or desire their neighbor's possessions, and it's fair to say they can't steal; however, they could if they chose to. Their honesty acts like armor against temptation, but the suit of armor, helmet, breastplate, and greaves are just outer defenses; the person inside could still be vulnerable if approached.
But why proceed with labored reasoning, which can lead to but one conclusion, when our Lord's own words and other scriptures confirm the fact? Shortly before His betrayal, when admonishing the Twelve to humility, He said: "Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations."[306] While here we find no exclusive reference to the temptations immediately following His baptism, the exposition is plain that He had endured temptations, and by implication, these had continued throughout the period of His ministry. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews expressly taught that Christ was peccable, in that He was tempted "in all points" as are the rest of mankind. Consider the unambiguous declaration: "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."[307] And further: "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered."[308]
But why engage in complicated reasoning that only leads to one conclusion when the words of our Lord and other scriptures make it clear? Just before His betrayal, when He was advising the Twelve to be humble, He said: "You are the ones who have stayed with me through my trials."[306] While there's no specific mention of the temptations right after His baptism, it's clear that He faced temptations, and these likely continued throughout His ministry. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews explicitly stated that Christ was capable of being tempted, as He was tempted "in every way" like the rest of humanity. Think about this clear statement: "Since we have a great high priest who has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to our faith. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses; but was tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he did not sin."[307] Moreover: "Though He was God's Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered."[308]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 10.
1. Raiment of Camel's Hair.—Through the prophet Zechariah (13:4) a time was foretold in which professing prophets would no longer "wear a rough garment to deceive." Of the raiment of camel's hair worn by John the Baptist, the Oxford and other marginal readings render the expression "a garment of hair" as more literal than the Bible text. Deems (Light of the Nations, p. 74, note) says: "The garment of camel's hair was not the camel's skin with the hair on, which would be too heavy to wear, but raiment woven of camel's hair, such as Josephus speaks of (B. J. i, 24:3)."
1. Camel Hair Clothing.—The prophet Zechariah (13:4) predicted a time when false prophets would stop "wearing rough clothing to deceive others." Regarding the camel hair clothing worn by John the Baptist, the Oxford and other marginal readings interpret "a garment of hair" more literally than the Bible text. Deems (Light of the Nations, p. 74, note) explains: "The camel hair garment wasn't the skin of the camel with the hair still on it, as that would be too heavy to wear, but clothing made from woven camel hair, like Josephus describes (B. J. i, 24:3)."
2. Locusts and Wild Honey.—Insects of the locust or grasshopper kind were specifically declared clean and suitable for food in the law given to Israel in the wilderness. "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all[Pg 136] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind." (Lev. 11:21, 22.) At the present time locusts are used as food by many oriental peoples, though usually by the poorer classes only. Of the passage referring to locusts as part of the Baptist's food while he lived as a recluse in the desert, Farrar (Life of Christ, p. 97, note,) says: "The fancy that it means the pods of the so-called locust tree (carob) is a mistake. Locusts are sold as articles of food in regular shops for the purpose at Medina; they are plunged into salt boiling water, dried in the sun, and eaten with butter, but only by the poorest beggars." Geikie (Life and Words of Christ, vol. 1, pp. 354, 355) gives place to the following as applied to the Baptist's life: "His only food was the locusts which leaped or flew on the bare hills, and the honey of wild bees which he found, here and there, in the clifts of the rocks, and his only drink a draught of water from some rocky hollow. Locusts are still the food of the poor in many parts of the East. 'All the Bedouins of Arabia, and the inhabitants of towns in Nedj and Hedjaz, are accustomed to eat them,' says Burckhardt. 'I have seen at Medina and Tayi, locust shops, where they are sold by measure. In Egypt and Nubia they are eaten only by the poorest beggars. The Arabs, in preparing them for eating, throw them alive into boiling water, with which a good deal of salt has been mixed, taking them out after a few minutes, and drying them in the sun. The head, feet, and wings, are then torn off, the bodies cleansed from the salt, and perfectly dried. They are sometimes eaten boiled in butter, or spread on unleavened bread mixed with butter.' In Palestine, they are eaten only by the Arabs on the extreme frontiers; elsewhere they are looked on with disgust and loathing, and only the very poorest use them. Tristram, however, speaks of them as 'very palatable.' 'I found them very good,' says he, 'when eaten after the Arab fashion, stewed with butter. They tasted somewhat like shrimps, but with less flavour.' In the wilderness of Judea, various kinds abound at all seasons, and spring up with a drumming sound, at every step, suddenly spreading their bright hind wings, of scarlet, crimson, blue, yellow, white, green, or brown, according to the species. They were 'clean,' under the Mosaic Law, and hence could be eaten by John without offence."
2. Locusts and Wild Honey.—Insects like locusts or grasshoppers were specifically identified as clean and suitable for food in the law given to Israel while they were in the wilderness. "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goes upon all[Pg 136] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind." (Lev. 11:21, 22.) Nowadays, many people in the East, particularly poorer classes, still eat locusts. On the passage about locusts being part of the Baptist's diet while living as a recluse in the desert, Farrar (Life of Christ, p. 97, note) states: "The idea that it refers to the pods of the locust tree (carob) is a mistake. Locusts are sold as food items in shops for that purpose in Medina; they are boiled in salty water, dried in the sun, and eaten with butter, but only by the poorest beggars." Geikie (Life and Words of Christ, vol. 1, pp. 354, 355) describes the Baptist's life as follows: "His only food was the locusts that leaped or flew on the barren hills, and the wild honey he found occasionally in the crevices of the rocks, with water as his only drink from some rocky hollow. Locusts are still eaten by the poor in many areas of the East. 'All the Bedouins of Arabia, and the inhabitants of towns in Nedj and Hedjaz, are used to eating them,' says Burckhardt. 'I have seen locust shops at Medina and Tayi, where they are sold by measure. In Egypt and Nubia, only the poorest beggars eat them. The Arabs prepare them for eating by tossing them alive into boiling water mixed with a lot of salt, taking them out after a few minutes, and drying them in the sun. They then remove the head, feet, and wings, wash the bodies to remove the salt, and dry them completely. They are sometimes eaten boiled in butter or spread on unleavened bread with butter.' In Palestine, they are eaten only by Arabs on the very borders; elsewhere, they are viewed with disgust and only the poorest consume them. However, Tristram describes them as 'very tasty.' 'I found them quite good,' he says, 'when eaten the Arab way, stewed in butter. They tasted a bit like shrimp but with less flavor.' In the wilderness of Judea, various kinds are abundant at all times and jump with a drumming sound at every step, suddenly showing their bright hind wings in colors like scarlet, crimson, blue, yellow, white, green, or brown, depending on the species. They were 'clean' according to the Mosaic Law, allowing John to eat them without offense."
Concerning the mention of wild honey as food used by John, the author last quoted says in a continuation of the same paragraph: "The wild bees in Palestine are far more numerous than those kept in hives, and the greater part of the honey sold in the southern districts is obtained from wild swarms. Few countries, indeed, are better adapted for bees. The dry climate, and the stunted but varied flora, consisting largely of aromatic thymes, mints, and other similar plants, with crocuses in the spring, are very favourable to them, while the dry recesses of the limestone rocks everywhere afford them shelter and protection for their combs. In the wilderness of Judea, bees are far more numerous than in any other part of Palestine, and it is, to this[Pg 137] day, part of the homely diet of the Bedouins, who squeeze it from the combs and store it in skins."
Regarding the mention of wild honey as food used by John, the last quoted author continues in the same paragraph: "Wild bees in Palestine are much more abundant than those kept in hives, and most of the honey sold in the southern areas comes from wild swarms. Few countries are better suited for bees. The dry climate and the diverse but stunted flora, mainly consisting of aromatic thymes, mints, and similar plants, with crocuses in the spring, are very favorable to them, while the dry nooks of the limestone rocks provide them shelter and protection for their combs. In the Judean wilderness, bees are much more plentiful than in any other part of Palestine, and to this[Pg 137] day, it remains a staple in the diet of the Bedouins, who squeeze it from the combs and store it in skins."
3. John's Inferiority to the Mightier One He Proclaimed.—"One mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose" (Luke 3:16), or "whose shoes I am not worthy to bear" (Matt. 3:11); this was the way by which the Baptist declared his inferiority to the Mightier One, who was to succeed and supersede him; and a more effective illustration would be difficult to frame. To loosen the shoe latchet or sandal thong, or to carry the shoes of another, "was a menial office betokening great inferiority on the part of the person performing it." (Smith's Dict. of the Bible.) A passage in the Talmud (Tract. Kidduschin xxii:2) requires a disciple to do for his teacher whatever a servant might be required to do for his master, except the loosing of his sandal thong. Some teachers urged that a disciple should carry his humility even to the extreme of carrying his master's shoes. The humility of the Baptist, in view of the widespread interest his call aroused, is impressive.
3. John's Inferiority to the Mightier One He Proclaimed.—"Someone greater than I is coming, and I’m not even worthy to untie his sandals" (Luke 3:16), or "I’m not worthy to carry his sandals" (Matt. 3:11); this is how the Baptist stated his inferiority to the Greater One who was to come after him. It would be hard to find a better illustration of this. Untying a sandal strap or carrying someone’s shoes "was a menial task that showed a great inferiority of the person doing it." (Smith's Dict. of the Bible.) A passage in the Talmud (Tract. Kidduschin xxii:2) states that a disciple must do for their teacher whatever a servant would do for their master, except untie his sandal strap. Some teachers even suggested that a disciple should be humble enough to carry their master's shoes. The Baptist's humility, especially considering the significant interest his message generated, is striking.
4. The Order in which the Temptations Were Presented.—But two of the Gospel-writers specify the temptations to which Christ was subjected immediately after His baptism; Mark merely mentions the fact that Jesus was tempted. Matthew and Luke place first the temptation that Jesus provide for Himself by miraculously creating bread; the sequence of the later trials is not the same in the two records. The order followed in the text is that of Matthew.
4. The Order of the Temptations.—Only two of the Gospel writers outline the temptations Jesus faced right after His baptism; Mark only notes that Jesus was tempted. Matthew and Luke both start with the temptation of Jesus making bread for Himself through a miracle; however, the sequence of the subsequent trials differs between their accounts. The order used in the text is that of Matthew.
5. The Devil's "If."—Note the later taunting use of that diabolical if as the Christ hung upon the cross. The rulers of the Jews, mocking the crucified Jesus in His agony said, "Let him save himself if he be the Christ." And the soldier, reading the inscription at the head of the cross derided the dying God, saying: "If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself." And yet again, the unrepentant malefactor by His side cried but, "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us." (Luke 23:35-39.) How literally did those railers and mockers quote the very words of their father the devil (see John 8:44). See further, page 658 herein.
5. The Devil's "If."—Notice the later mocking use of that diabolical if as Christ hung on the cross. The Jewish leaders, ridiculing the crucified Jesus in His suffering, said, "Let him save himself if he is the Christ." And the soldier, reading the inscription above the cross, mocked the dying God, saying: "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself." Once again, the unrepentant criminal beside Him shouted, "If you are the Christ, save yourself and us." (Luke 23:35-39.) How literally those mockers quoted the very words of their father the devil (see John 8:44). See further, page 658 herein.
6. Baptism Required of All.—Baptism is required of all persons who live to the age of accountability in the flesh. None are exempt. Jesus Christ, who lived as a Man without sin in the midst of a sinful world, was baptized "to fulfil all righteousness." Six centuries before this event, Nephi, prophesying to the people on the western continent, foretold the baptism of the Savior, and thus drew therefrom the necessity of baptism as a universal requirement: "And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water.... Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he sheweth unto the children of men, that according to the flesh, he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments" (B. of M., 2 Nephi 31:5, 7). See The Articles of Faith, vi:18-29.[Pg 138]
6. Baptism Required of All.—Baptism is required for everyone who reaches the age of accountability. No one is exempt. Jesus Christ, who lived as a sinless man in a sinful world, was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness." Six centuries before this, Nephi, prophesying to the people on the western continent, predicted the baptism of the Savior and illustrated the necessity of baptism as a universal requirement: "And now, if the Lamb of God, being holy, had need to be baptized by water to fulfill all righteousness, then how much more do we, being unholy, need to be baptized, yes, even by water.... Don't you know that he was holy? Yet, despite his holiness, he shows the children of men that according to the flesh, he humbles himself before the Father and bears witness to the Father that he would be obedient to him in keeping his commandments" (B. of M., 2 Nephi 31:5, 7). See The Articles of Faith, vi:18-29.[Pg 138]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[273] 2 Kings 1:8.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 2 Kings 1:8.
[276] Luke 3:2.
[277] Exo. 3:1, 2.
[278] 1 Kings 17:2-7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Kings 17:2-7.
[279] Mark 1:3.
[281] Matt. 3:11.
[284] Luke 3:10; compare Acts 2:37.
[285] Luke 3:10-15.
[286] Mark 1:1.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 1:1.
[287] John 10:41.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 10:41.
[291] Matt. 11:11-14; 17:12; Luke 7:24-30.
[292] Luke 3:23.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 3:23.
[295] Shortly before His death, the Savior promised the apostles that the Father would send unto them the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost (John 14:26, and 15:26). See the author's "Articles of Faith" ii:20-24.
[295] Just before He died, the Savior told the apostles that the Father would send them the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, and 15:26). See the author's "Articles of Faith" ii:20-24.
[297] Matt. 4:4; compare Deut. 8:3.
[300] Matt. 4:6; Psalm 91:11, 12.
[301] Matt. 4:5-7; compare Deut. 6:16.
[304] Luke 4:13.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 4:13.
[305] Luke 22:28.
Luke 22:28.
[306] Luke 22:28.
Luke 22:28.
[307] Heb. 4:14, 15.
[308] Heb. 5:8.
CHAPTER 11.
FROM JUDEA TO GALILEE.
THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY OF JESUS.
During the period of our Lord's retirement in the wilderness the Baptist continued his ministry, crying repentance to all who would pause to hear, and administering baptism to such as came duly prepared and asking with right intent. The people generally were greatly concerned over the identity of John; and as the real import of the voice[309] dawned upon them, their concern deepened into fear. The ever recurring question was, Who is this new prophet? Then the Jews, by which expression we may understand the rulers of the people, sent a delegation of priests and Levites of the Pharisaic party to personally question him. He answered without evasion, "I am not the Christ," and with equal decisiveness denied that he was Elias, or more accurately, Elijah, the prophet who, the rabbis said through a misinterpretation of Malachi's prediction, was to return to earth as the immediate precursor of the Messiah.[310] Furthermore, he declared that he was not "that prophet," by which was meant the Prophet whose coming Moses had foretold,[311] and who was not universally identified in the Jewish mind with the expected Messiah. "Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias."[312] The Pharisaic envoys then demanded of him his authority for baptizing; in reply[Pg 139] he affirmed that the validity of his baptisms would be attested by One who even then was amongst them, though they knew Him not, and averred: "He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose."[313]
During the time our Lord was retired in the wilderness, the Baptist continued his ministry, calling for repentance to everyone willing to listen and performing baptisms for those who came prepared and with the right intentions. The people were generally very concerned about John’s identity, and as they began to understand the real significance of his message, their worry turned into fear. The recurring question was, "Who is this new prophet?" Then the Jewish leaders sent a group of priests and Levites from the Pharisaic party to question him directly. He answered clearly, "I am not the Christ," and just as decisively denied that he was Elijah, the prophet who, according to the rabbis' misinterpretation of Malachi's prophecy, was supposed to return as the immediate forerunner of the Messiah. Furthermore, he stated that he was not "that prophet," referring to the one Moses had predicted, and who was not universally recognized in Jewish thought as the expected Messiah. "Then they asked him, 'Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?'" He responded, "I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as said the prophet Isaiah." The Pharisaic envoys then demanded to know his authority for baptizing; in response, he declared that the validity of his baptisms would be confirmed by Someone who was already among them, although they did not know Him, and affirmed: "He is the one who comes after me and is preferred before me, whose shoelace I am not worthy to untie."
John's testimony, that Jesus was the Redeemer of the world, was declared as boldly as had been his message of the imminent coming of the Lord. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," he proclaimed; and, that none might fail to comprehend his identification of the Christ, he added: "This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water."[314] That the attestation of the ministering presence of the Holy Ghost through the material appearance "like a dove" was convincing to John is shown by his further testimony: "And John bare record saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but 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. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."[315] On the day following that of the utterance last quoted, John repeated his testimony to two of his disciples, or followers, as, Jesus passed, saying again: "Behold the Lamb of God."[316]
John boldly testified that Jesus was the Redeemer of the world, just as he had previously shared his message about the imminent coming of the Lord. "Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," he proclaimed; and to ensure everyone understood his identification of Christ, he added, "This is the one I meant when I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I, for he was before me.’ I didn’t know him myself, but I came baptizing with water so that he might be revealed to Israel."[314] John's confidence in the confirmation of the Holy Spirit's presence, appearing "like a dove," is clear from his further testimony: "And John testified, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I didn't know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.’"[315] The day after he made this statement, John reaffirmed his testimony to two of his disciples as Jesus was passing by, saying once more, "Look, the Lamb of God."[316]
THE FIRST DISCIPLES OF JESUS.[317]
Two of the Baptist's followers, specifically called disciples, were with him when for the second time he expressly designated Jesus as the Lamb of God. These were Andrew[Pg 140] and John; the latter came to be known in after years as the author of the fourth Gospel. The first is mentioned by name, while the narrator suppresses his own name as that of the second disciple. Andrew and John were so impressed by the Baptist's testimony that they immediately followed Jesus; and He, turning toward them asked: "What seek ye?" Possibly somewhat embarrassed by the question, or with a real desire to learn where He might be found later, they replied by another inquiry: "Rabbi, where dwellest thou?" Their use of the title Rabbi was a mark of honor and respect, to which Jesus did not demur. His courteous reply to their question assured them that their presence was no unwelcome intrusion. "Come and see," said He.[318] The two young men accompanied Him, and remained with Him to learn more. Andrew, filled with wonder and joy over the interview so graciously accorded, and thrilled with the spirit of testimony that had been enkindled within his soul, hastened to seek his brother Simon, to whom he said: "We have found the Messias." He brought Simon to see and hear for himself; and Jesus, looking upon Andrew's brother, called him by name and added an appellation of distinction by which he was destined to be known throughout all later history: "Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas." The new name thus bestowed is the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic equivalent of the Greek "Petros," and of the present English "Peter," meaning "a stone."[319]
Two of the Baptist's followers, known as disciples, were with him when he pointed out Jesus as the Lamb of God for the second time. These were Andrew[Pg 140] and John; the latter would later be known as the author of the fourth Gospel. Andrew is mentioned by name, while the narrator doesn’t reveal his own name as the second disciple. Andrew and John were so moved by the Baptist's testimony that they immediately followed Jesus. When Jesus noticed them, He asked, "What are you looking for?" Feeling a bit awkward or genuinely wanting to know where He would be later, they responded with another question: "Rabbi, where are you staying?" Their use of the title Rabbi showed respect, which Jesus accepted. His polite response made it clear that they were welcome. "Come and see," He said.[318] The two young men went with Him and stayed to learn more. Andrew, filled with wonder and joy from this gracious meeting and excited by the spirit of testimony ignited in his soul, rushed to find his brother Simon, telling him, "We have found the Messiah." He brought Simon to meet Jesus, who looked at Andrew's brother, called him by name, and gave him a title that he would be known by throughout history: "You are Simon the son of Jona; you will be called Cephas." This new name is the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic equivalent of the Greek "Petros," and what we now call "Peter," meaning "a stone."[319]
On the following day Jesus set out for Galilee, possibly accompanied by some or all of his newly-made disciples; and on the way He found a man named Philip, in whom He recognized another choice son of Israel. Unto Philip He said: "Follow me." It was customary with rabbis and other teachers of that time to strive for popularity, that many might be drawn to them to sit at their feet and be known as[Pg 141] their disciples. Jesus, however, selected His own immediate associates; and, as He found them and discerned in them the spirits who, in their preexistent state had been chosen for the earthly mission of the apostleship, He summoned them. They were the servants; He was the Master.[320]
On the next day, Jesus headed to Galilee, probably with some or all of his newly recruited disciples. On the way, he came across a man named Philip, who he recognized as another chosen son of Israel. He said to Philip, "Follow me." At that time, it was common for rabbis and teachers to seek popularity, hoping many would gather to learn from them and be known as their disciples. However, Jesus chose his own close associates; as he encountered them, he recognized the spirits who had been chosen in their preexistent state for the earthly mission of apostleship, and he called them. They were the servants; he was the Master.[320]
Philip soon found his friend Nathanael, to whom he testified that He of whom Moses and the prophets had written had at last been found; and that He was none other than Jesus of Nazareth. Nathanael, as his later history demonstrates, was a righteous man, earnest in his hope and expectation of the Messiah, yet seemingly imbued with the belief common throughout Jewry—that the Christ was to come in royal state as seemed befitting the Son of David. The mention of such a One coming from Nazareth, the reputed son of a humble carpenter, provoked wonder if not incredulity in the guileless mind of Nathanael, and he exclaimed: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip's answer was a repetition of Christ's words to Andrew and John—"Come and see." Nathanael left his seat under the fig tree,[321] where Philip had found him, and went to see for himself. As he approached, Jesus said: "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile." Nathanael saw that Jesus could read his mind, and asked in surprize: "Whence knowest thou me?" In reply Jesus showed even greater powers of penetration and perception under conditions that made ordinary observation unlikely if not impossible: "Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee." Nathanael replied with conviction: "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel." Earnest as the man's testimony was, it rested mainly on his recognition of what he took to be a supernatural power in Jesus; our Lord assured him that he should see yet greater things: "And he[Pg 142] saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."
Philip soon found his friend Nathanael and told him that the one Moses and the prophets had written about had finally been found, and it was none other than Jesus of Nazareth. Nathanael, as his later story shows, was a righteous man who sincerely hoped for the Messiah, yet he seemed to hold the common belief among the Jews that the Christ would arrive in royal glory, fitting for the Son of David. The idea of such a person coming from Nazareth, the son of a humble carpenter, amazed and perhaps even shocked the straightforward mind of Nathanael, and he exclaimed, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip responded with the same words that Jesus had said to Andrew and John: "Come and see." Nathanael left his spot under the fig tree,[321] where Philip had found him, and went to check it out for himself. As he got closer, Jesus said, "Look, an Israelite truly without deceit." Nathanael realized that Jesus could read his thoughts and asked in surprise, "How do you know me?" In reply, Jesus demonstrated even greater insight under circumstances that made ordinary observation improbable, saying, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." Nathanael responded with conviction, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel." Although the man's testimony was sincere, it was mainly based on his recognition of what he believed to be a miraculous ability in Jesus; our Lord assured him that he would see even greater things: "And he[Pg 142] said to him, Truly, truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
"THE SON OF MAN."
In the promise and prediction made by Christ to Nathanael, we find the significant title—The Son of Man—appearing for the first time, chronologically speaking, in the New Testament. It recurs, however, about forty times, excluding repetitions in parallel accounts in the several Gospels. In each of these passages it is used by the Savior distinctively to designate Himself. In three other instances the title appears in the New Testament, outside the Gospels; and in each case it is applied to the Christ with specific reference to His exalted attributes as Lord and God.[322]
In the promise and prediction made by Christ to Nathanael, we see the important title—The Son of Man—showing up for the first time, chronologically, in the New Testament. It appears again around forty times, not counting repetitions in parallel accounts across the different Gospels. In each of these instances, the Savior uses it specifically to refer to Himself. The title also appears three more times in the New Testament, outside of the Gospels, and in each case, it refers to Christ with a special emphasis on His exalted qualities as Lord and God.[322]
In the Old Testament, the phrase "son of man" occurs in ordinary usage, denoting any human son[323] and it appears over ninety times as an appellation by which Jehovah addressed Ezekiel, though it is never applied by the prophet to himself.[324] The context of the passages in which Ezekiel is addressed as "son of man" indicates the divine intention of emphasizing the human status of the prophet as contrasted with the divinity of Jehovah.
In the Old Testament, the term "son of man" is used frequently to refer to any human being[323] and it appears over ninety times as a title by which Jehovah spoke to Ezekiel, although the prophet never used it to refer to himself.[324] The context of the passages where Ezekiel is called "son of man" highlights God's intention to underscore the prophet's human nature in contrast to Jehovah's divinity.
The title is used in connection with the record of Daniel's vision,[325] in which was revealed the consummation, yet future, when Adam—the Ancient of Days—shall sit to judge his posterity;[326] on which great occasion, the Son of Man is to appear and receive a dominion that shall be everlasting, transcendently superior to that of the Ancient of Days, and embracing every people and nation, all of whom shall serve the Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of Man.[327]
The title relates to the account of Daniel's vision,[325] in which the future culmination is revealed, when Adam—the Ancient of Days—will sit in judgment over his descendants;[326] during this significant event, the Son of Man will appear and receive a dominion that will be eternal, vastly superior to that of the Ancient of Days, encompassing all peoples and nations, all of whom will serve the Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of Man.[327]
In applying the designation to Himself, the Lord invariably uses the definite article. "The Son of Man" was and is, specifically and exclusively, Jesus Christ. While as a matter of solemn certainty He was the only male human being from Adam down who was not the son of a mortal man, He used the title in a way to conclusively demonstrate that it was peculiarly and solely His own. It is plainly evident that the expression is fraught with a meaning beyond that conveyed by the words in common usage. The distinguishing appellation has been construed by many to indicate our Lord's humble station as a mortal, and to connote that He stood as the type of humanity, holding a particular and unique relationship to the entire human family. There is, however, a more profound significance attaching to the Lord's use of the title "The Son of Man"; and this lies in the fact that He knew His Father to be the one and only supremely exalted Man,[328] whose Son Jesus was both in spirit and in body—the Firstborn among all the spirit-children of the Father, the Only Begotten in the flesh—and therefore in sense applicable to Himself alone, He was and is the Son of the "Man of Holiness," Elohim,[329] the Eternal Father. In His distinctive titles of Sonship, Jesus expressed His spiritual and bodily descent from, and His filial submission to, that exalted Father.
In referring to Himself, the Lord always uses the definite article. "The Son of Man" was and is specifically and exclusively Jesus Christ. While it is certain that He was the only male human being from Adam onward who was not the son of a mortal man, He used the title to clearly show that it was uniquely His. It's clear that this phrase carries a meaning deeper than what the words usually imply. Many have interpreted this title as reflecting our Lord's humble position as a mortal and suggesting that He embodies humanity, representing a unique relationship with the entire human family. However, there's a deeper meaning behind the Lord's use of the title "The Son of Man." It stems from His understanding that His Father is the one and only supremely exalted Man,[328] whose Son Jesus is both in spirit and in body—the Firstborn among all the spirit-children of the Father and the Only Begotten in the flesh—making the title applicable only to Him. He is the Son of the "Man of Holiness," Elohim,[329] the Eternal Father. Through His unique titles of Sonship, Jesus expressed His spiritual and bodily descent from, and His obedient relationship to, that exalted Father.
As revealed to Enoch the Seer, "Man of Holiness" is one of the names by which God the Eternal Father is known; "and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ." We learn further that the Father of Jesus Christ thus proclaimed Himself to Enoch: "Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also."[330] "The[Pg 144] Son of Man" is in great measure synonymous with "The Son of God," as a title denoting divinity, glory, and exaltation; for the "Man of Holiness," whose Son Jesus Christ reverently acknowledges Himself to be, is God the Eternal Father.
As revealed to Enoch the Seer, "Man of Holiness" is one of the names that God the Eternal Father is known by; "and the name of His Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ." We also learn that the Father of Jesus Christ declared Himself to Enoch: "Look, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, too."[330] "The[Pg 144] Son of Man" is largely synonymous with "The Son of God," as a title that represents divinity, glory, and exaltation; because the "Man of Holiness," whose Son Jesus Christ humbly acknowledges Himself to be, is God the Eternal Father.
THE MIRACLE AT CANA IN GALILEE.
Soon after the arrival of Jesus in Galilee we find Him and His little company of disciples at a marriage party in Cana, a neighboring town to Nazareth. The mother of Jesus was at the feast; and for some reason not explained in John's narrative,[331] she manifested concern and personal responsibility in the matter of providing for the guests. Evidently her position was different from that of one present by ordinary invitation. Whether this circumstance indicates the marriage to have been that of one of her own immediate family, or some more distant relative, we are not informed.
Soon after Jesus arrived in Galilee, we find Him and His small group of disciples at a wedding in Cana, a nearby town to Nazareth. Jesus’ mother was at the celebration, and for some reason not explained in John's account,[331] she showed concern and took personal responsibility for providing for the guests. Clearly, her position was different from that of an ordinary guest. We aren’t told whether this means the wedding was for someone in her immediate family or a more distant relative.
It was customary to provide at wedding feasts a sufficiency of wine, the pure though weak product of the local vineyards, which was the ordinary table beverage of the time. On this occasion the supply of wine was exhausted, and Mary told Jesus of the deficiency. Said He: "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." The noun of address, "Woman," as applied by a son to his mother may sound to our ears somewhat harsh, if not disrespectful; but its use was really an expression of opposite import.[332] To every son, the mother ought to be preeminently the woman of women; she is the one woman in the world to whom the son owes his earthly existence; and though the title "Mother" belongs to every woman who has earned the honors of maternity, yet to no child is there more than one woman whom by natural right he can address by that title of respectful acknowledgment. When, in the last dread[Pg 145] scenes of His mortal experience, Christ hung in dying agony upon the cross, He looked, down upon the weeping Mary, His mother, and commended her to the care of the beloved apostle John, with the words: "Woman, behold thy son!"[333] Can it be thought that in this supreme moment, our Lord's concern for the mother from whom He was about to be separated by death was associated with any emotion other than that of honor, tenderness and love?[334]
It was common to serve plenty of wine at wedding feasts, the pure but weak product of local vineyards, which was the usual drink of the time. On this occasion, the wine ran out, and Mary informed Jesus about the shortage. He replied, "Woman, what does that have to do with me? My time hasn’t come yet." The term "Woman," when used by a son to address his mother, might sound harsh or disrespectful to us today; however, its usage was actually the opposite. To every son, his mother should be the foremost woman in his life; she is the one woman in the world who gave him life. While the title "Mother" can be given to any woman who deserves the recognition of motherhood, each child has only one woman they can rightfully call by that title with respect. When, in the final, agonizing moments of His life, Christ hung on the cross, He looked down at His weeping mother Mary and entrusted her to the care of the beloved apostle John, saying, "Woman, behold your son!" Is it possible to think that in that critical moment, our Lord's feelings for His mother, from whom He was about to part forever, were anything other than honor, tenderness, and love?
Nevertheless, His words to Mary at the marriage feast may have conveyed a gentle reminder of her position as the mother of a Being superior to herself; even as on that earlier occasion when she had found her Boy, Jesus, in the temple, He had brought home to her the fact that her jurisdiction over Him was not supreme. The manner in which she told Him of the insufficiency of wine probably suggested an intimation that He use His more than human power, and by such means supply the need. It was not her function to direct or even to suggest the exercize of the power inherent in Him as the Son of God; such had not been inherited from her. "What have I to do with thee?" He asked; and added: "Mine hour is not yet come." Here we find no disclaimer of the ability to do what she apparently wanted Him to do, but the plain implication that He would act only when the time was right for the purpose, and that He, not she, must decide when that time had come. She understood His meaning, in part at least, and contented herself by instructing the servants to do whatsoever He directed. Here again is evidence of her position of responsibility and domestic authority at the social gathering.
However, His words to Mary at the wedding might have served as a gentle reminder of her role as the mother of someone greater than herself; just like that earlier time when she found her son, Jesus, in the temple, He had made it clear that her authority over Him wasn't absolute. The way she mentioned the lack of wine likely hinted that He should use His divine power to meet the need. It wasn't her role to dictate or even suggest how He should use the power He had as the Son of God; that power wasn't something she had passed on to Him. "What do I have to do with you?" He asked, adding, "My hour has not yet come." Here, there's no denial of His ability to do what she seemed to want, but a clear suggestion that He would act only when the time was right, and that He, not her, would decide when that time would arrive. She understood His meaning, at least in part, and accepted it by telling the servants to do whatever He said. This again shows her role of responsibility and authority at the social event.
The time for His intervention soon arrived. There stood within the place six water pots;[335] these He directed the servants to fill with water. Then, without audible command or[Pg 146] formula of invocation, as best we know, He caused to be effected a transmutation within the pots, and when the servants drew therefrom, it was wine, not water that issued. At a Jewish social gathering, such as was this wedding festival, some one, usually a relative of the host or hostess, or some other one worthy of the honor, was made governor of the feast, or, as we say in this day, chairman, or master of ceremonies. To this functionary the new wine was first served; and he, calling the bridegroom, who was the real host, asked him why he had reserved his choice wine till the last, when the usual custom was to serve the best at the beginning, and the more ordinary later. The immediate result of this, the first recorded of our Lord's miracles, is thus tersely stated by the inspired evangelist: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."[336]
The time for His intervention soon arrived. There stood six water pots in the place;[335] He instructed the servants to fill them with water. Then, without any spoken command or known formula, He caused a change to happen within the pots, and when the servants drew from them, it was wine, not water, that came out. At a Jewish social gathering like this wedding festival, someone, usually a relative of the host or a respected guest, was appointed as the master of ceremonies. This person was the first to be served the new wine; calling the bridegroom, the actual host, he asked why he had saved the best wine for last when the usual practice was to serve the finest first and the more ordinary later. The immediate result of this, the first recorded miracle of our Lord, is succinctly stated by the inspired evangelist: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."[336]
The circumstances incident to the miraculous act are instructive to contemplate. The presence of Jesus at the marriage, and His contribution to the successful conduct of the feast, set the seal of His approval upon the matrimonial relationship and upon the propriety of social entertainment. He was neither a recluse nor an ascetic; He moved among men, eating and drinking, as a natural, normal Being.[337] On the occasion of the feast He recognized and heeded the demands of the liberal hospitality of the times, and provided accordingly. He, who but a few days before had revolted at the tempter's suggestion that He provide bread for His impoverished body, now used His power to supply a luxury for others. One effect of the miracle was to confirm the trust of those whose belief in Him as the Messiah was yet young and untried. "His disciples believed on him"; surely they had believed in some measure before, otherwise they[Pg 147] would not have followed Him; but their belief was now strengthened and made to approach, if indeed it did not attain, the condition of abiding faith in their Lord. The comparative privacy attending the manifestation is impressive; the moral and spiritual effect was for the few, the inauguration of the Lord's ministry was not to be marked by public display.
The circumstances surrounding the miraculous event are worth reflecting on. Jesus' presence at the wedding and His role in making the celebration successful highlight His approval of marriage and the appropriateness of social gatherings. He wasn't a hermit or a strict ascetic; He interacted with people, eating and drinking like anyone else. During the feast, He acknowledged the generous hospitality of the time and responded accordingly. Just days earlier, He had resisted the temptation to turn stones into bread for His own survival, but now He used His power to provide a luxury for others. One impact of the miracle was to strengthen the faith of those who were still new in their belief in Him as the Messiah. "His disciples believed in him"; they had some level of belief before, or else they wouldn't have followed Him, but now their faith was deepened and perhaps reached a state of lasting belief in their Lord. The relatively private nature of this miracle is significant; the moral and spiritual effects were meant for a select few, as the beginning of the Lord's ministry wasn't intended to be a public spectacle.
MIRACLES IN GENERAL
The act of transmutation whereby water became wine was plainly a miracle, a phenomenon not susceptible of explanation, far less of demonstration, by what we consider the ordinary operation of natural law. This was the beginning of His miracles, or as expressed in the revized version of the New Testament, "his signs." In many scriptures miracles are called signs, as also wonders, powers, works, wonderful works, mighty works,[338] etc. The spiritual effect of miracles would be unattained were the witnesses not caused to inwardly wonder, marvel, ponder and inquire; mere surprize or amazement may be produced by deception and artful trickery. Any miraculous manifestation of divine power would be futile as a means of spiritual effect were it unimpressive. Moreover, every miracle is a sign of God's power; and signs in this sense have been demanded of prophets who professed to speak by divine authority, though such signs have not been given in all cases. The Baptist was credited with no miracle, though he was pronounced by the Christ as more than a prophet;[339] and the chronicles of some earlier prophets[340] are devoid of all mention of miracles. On the other hand, Moses, when commissioned to deliver Israel from Egypt, was made, to understand that the Egyptians[Pg 148] would look for the testimony of miracles, and he was abundantly empowered therefore.[341]
The act of turning water into wine was clearly a miracle, something that can't be explained or demonstrated by what we see as the usual rules of nature. This was the start of His miracles, or as it’s referred to in the revised version of the New Testament, "his signs." In many scriptures, miracles are called signs, as well as wonders, powers, works, wonderful works, and mighty works.[338] The spiritual impact of miracles wouldn't be achieved if they didn't cause the witnesses to internally wonder, marvel, reflect, and ask questions; simple surprise or shock can be created through trickery and deceit. Any miraculous display of divine power would be pointless for spiritual impact if it didn't leave an impression. Additionally, every miracle serves as a sign of God's power; and signs, in this context, have been requested from prophets who claimed to speak with divine authority, although such signs haven't always been provided. John the Baptist performed no miracles, even though Christ called him more than a prophet;[339] and the accounts of some earlier prophets[340] make no mention of miracles at all. In contrast, Moses, when tasked with leading Israel out of Egypt, was made to understand that the Egyptians[Pg 148] would expect miraculous proof, and he was given plenty of power to do so.[341]
Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized. Gravitation is everywhere operative, but the local and special application of other agencies may appear to nullify it—as by muscular effort or mechanical impulse a stone is lifted from the ground, poised aloft, or sent hurtling through space. At every stage of the process, however, gravity is in full play, though its effect is modified by that of other and locally superior energy. The human sense of the miraculous wanes as comprehension of the operative process increases. Achievements made possible by modern invention of telegraph and telephone with or without wires, the transmutation of mechanical power into electricity with its manifold present applications and yet future possibilities, the development of the gasoline motor, the present accomplishments in aerial navigation—these are no longer miracles in man's estimation, because they are all in some degree understood, are controlled by human agency, and, moreover, are continuous in their operation and not phenomenal. We arbitrarily classify as miracles only such phenomena as are unusual, special, transitory, and wrought by an agency beyond the power of man's control.
Miracles can't go against the laws of nature, but they happen through the use of laws that aren't widely or commonly accepted. Gravity works everywhere, but the specific applications of other forces might seem to counteract it—like when we lift a stone off the ground with our muscles or push it through the air with a machine. At every step of this process, gravity is fully at work, even if its effects are altered by other, stronger forces in that moment. Our sense of the miraculous fades as we learn more about how things work. The innovations made possible by modern inventions like the telegraph and telephone, whether wired or wireless, the conversion of mechanical power into electricity along with its many current uses and future potentials, the advancement of gasoline engines, and today's achievements in flying—none of these are seen as miracles anymore because we understand them to some extent, they can be controlled by people, and they operate consistently rather than being extraordinary. We tend to label as miracles only those events that are rare, special, temporary, and caused by forces beyond our control.
In a broader sense, all nature is miracle. Man has learned that by planting the seed of the grape in suitable soil, and by due cultivation, he may conduce to the growth of what shall be a mature and fruitful vine; but is there no miracle, even in the sense of inscrutable processes, in that development? Is there less of real miracle in the so-called natural course of plant development—the growth of root, stem, leaves, and fruit, with the final elaboration of the rich nectar of the vine—than there was in what appears supernatural in the transmutation of water into wine at Cana?[Pg 149]
In a broader sense, all of nature is a miracle. Humanity has figured out that by planting grape seeds in the right soil and nurturing them properly, they can grow into mature, fruitful vines. But isn’t there a miracle, even in the sense of mysterious processes, in that growth? Is the so-called natural process of plant development—the growth of roots, stems, leaves, and fruit, culminating in the creation of the vine's rich nectar—any less miraculous than the seemingly supernatural turning of water into wine at Cana?[Pg 149]
In the contemplation of the miracles wrought by Christ, we must of necessity recognize the operation of a power transcending our present human understanding. In this field, science has not yet advanced far enough to analyze and explain. To deny the actuality of miracles on the ground that, because we cannot comprehend the means, the reported results are fictitious, is to arrogate to the human mind the attribute of omniscience, by implying that what man cannot comprehend cannot be, and that therefore he is able to comprehend all that is. The miracles of record in the Gospels are as fully supported by evidence as are many of the historical events which call forth neither protest nor demand for further proof. To the believer in the divinity of Christ, the miracles are sufficiently attested; to the unbeliever they appear but as myths and fables.[342]
In reflecting on the miracles performed by Christ, we must recognize that there is a power at work that goes beyond our current understanding. In this area, science hasn’t made enough progress to analyze or explain these events. To reject the reality of miracles just because we cannot grasp how they happened is to assume we know everything, suggesting that if something is beyond human comprehension, it must not exist, and that we can understand everything there is to know. The miracles documented in the Gospels are just as well-supported by evidence as many historical events that don’t raise any objections or requests for more proof. For those who believe in the divinity of Christ, the miracles are well-supported; for skeptics, they seem like myths and stories.[342]
To comprehend the works of Christ, one must know Him as the Son of God; to the man who has not yet learned to know, to the honest soul who would inquire after the Lord, the invitation is ready; let him "Come and see."
To understand the works of Christ, you need to know Him as the Son of God. For the person who hasn’t yet come to know Him, for the sincere soul seeking the Lord, the invitation is open; let them "Come and see."
NOTES TO CHAPTER 11.
1. Misunderstanding of Malachi's Prediction.—In the closing chapter of the compilation of scriptures known to us as the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi thus describes a condition incident to the last days, immediately preceding the second coming of Christ: "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings." The fateful prophecy concludes with the following blessed and far-reaching promise: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Malachi 4:1, 2, 5, 6.) It has been held by theologians and Bible commentators that this prediction had reference to the birth and ministry of John the Baptist, (compare Matt. 11:14; 17:11; Mark 9:11; Luke 1:17), upon whom rested the spirit and power of[Pg 150] Elias (Luke 1:17). However, we have no record of Elijah having ministered unto the Baptist, and furthermore, the latter's ministry, glorious though it was, justifies no conclusion that in him did the prophecy find its full realization. In addition, it should be remembered, that the Lord's declaration through Malachi, relative to the day of burning in which the wicked would be destroyed as stubble, yet awaits fulfilment. It is evident, therefore, that the commonly accepted interpretation is at fault, and that we must look to a later date than the time of John for the fulfilment of Malachi's prediction. The later occasion has come; it belongs to the present dispensation, and marks the inauguration of a work specially reserved for the Church in these latter days. In the course of a glorious manifestation to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, in the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, April 3d, 1836, there appeared unto them Elijah, the prophet of old, who had been taken from earth while still in the body. He declared unto them: "Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi, testifying that he (Elijah) should be sent before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse. Therefore the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands, and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors." (Doc. and Cov. 110:13-16.) See also The House of the Lord, pp. 82-83.
1. Misunderstanding of Malachi's Prediction.—In the last chapter of what we refer to as the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi describes a situation that will occur in the last days, just before the second coming of Christ: "For, look, the day is coming that will burn like an oven, and all the proud, yes, and all who do wickedly, will be like stubble: and the coming day will set them on fire, says the Lord of hosts, leaving them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name, the Sun of righteousness will rise with healing in his wings." This significant prophecy concludes with a reassuring and far-reaching promise: "Look, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes; he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse." (Malachi 4:1, 2, 5, 6.) Theologians and Bible commentators have suggested that this prediction refers to the birth and ministry of John the Baptist (compare Matt. 11:14; 17:11; Mark 9:11; Luke 1:17), on whom the spirit and power of[Pg 150] Elijah rested (Luke 1:17). However, we have no record of Elijah ministering to the Baptist, and although John's ministry was glorious, it does not support the conclusion that the prophecy was fully realized in him. Additionally, it should be noted that the Lord's statement through Malachi about the burning day when the wicked would be destroyed as stubble is still yet to be fulfilled. It is clear, therefore, that the commonly accepted interpretation is incorrect, and we must look to a later date than John’s time for the fulfillment of Malachi's prediction. That later occasion has arrived; it relates to the present dispensation and marks the beginning of a work specifically reserved for the Church in these latter days. During a glorious manifestation to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland, Ohio temple on April 3rd, 1836, Elijah, the prophet from ancient times who had been taken from the earth while still alive, appeared to them. He declared to them: "Look, the time has fully come, as spoken by the mouth of Malachi, testifying that he (Elijah) would be sent before the great and terrible day of the Lord to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be struck with a curse. Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are given into your hands, and by this, you may know that the great and terrible day of the Lord is near, even at the doors." (Doc. and Cov. 110:13-16.) See also The House of the Lord, pp. 82-83.
2. The Sign of the Dove.—"John the Baptist ... had the privilege of beholding the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a dove, or rather in the sign of the dove, in witness of that administration. The sign of the dove was instituted before the creation of the world, a witness for the Holy Ghost, and the devil cannot come in the sign of a dove. The Holy Ghost is a personage, and is in the form of a personage. It does not confine itself to the form of the dove, but in sign of the dove. The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove is an emblem or token of truth and innocence."—From Sermon by Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 260-261.
2. The Sign of the Dove.—"John the Baptist ... had the honor of seeing the Holy Spirit come down in the form of a dove, or more accurately, in the sign of the dove, as a testimony to that event. The sign of the dove was established before the world's creation, serving as a witness of the Holy Spirit, and the devil cannot appear in the sign of a dove. The Holy Spirit is a being and takes the form of a being. It is not limited to the form of the dove, but in the sign of the dove. The Holy Spirit cannot be changed into a dove; however, the sign of a dove was given to John to indicate the authenticity of the act, as the dove represents truth and innocence."—From Sermon by Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 260-261.
3. The Testimony of John the Baptist.—Observe that the Baptist's testimony to the divinity of Christ's mission is recorded as having been given after the period of our Lord's forty-day fast and temptations, and therefore approximately six weeks subsequent to the baptism of Jesus. To the deputation of priests and Levites of the Pharisaic party, who visited him by direction of the rulers, probably by appointment from the Sanhedrin, John, after disavowing that he was the Christ or any one of the prophets specified in the inquiry, said: "There standeth one among you whom ye know not; he it is who coming after me is preferred before me." On the next day, and again on the day following that, he bore public testimony to Jesus as the Lamb of God; and on the third day after the visit of the priests and Levites to John, Jesus started on the journey to Galilee (John 1:19-43).
3. The Testimony of John the Baptist.—Note that John the Baptist's testimony about the divine mission of Christ is recorded as having taken place after Jesus's forty-day fast and temptation, which means it was about six weeks after Jesus's baptism. When a group of priests and Levites from the Pharisees came to him, likely sent by the rulers or appointed by the Sanhedrin, John clarified that he was neither the Christ nor any of the prophets they mentioned. He said, "There is someone among you whom you don't know; he is the one who comes after me and is greater than me." The next day, and again the following day, he publicly testified about Jesus as the Lamb of God. Then, on the third day after the priests and Levites visited him, Jesus began his journey to Galilee (John 1:19-43).
John's use of the designation "Lamb of God" implied his[Pg 151] conception of the Messiah as One appointed for sacrifice, and his use of the term is the earliest mention found in the Bible. For later Biblical applications, direct or implied, see Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 17; etc.
John's use of the term "Lamb of God" suggested his understanding of the Messiah as someone destined for sacrifice, and this is the earliest reference found in the Bible. For later Biblical references, either direct or implied, see Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 17; etc.
4. "Come and See."—The spirit of our Lord's invitation to the young truth seekers, Andrew and John, is manifest in a similar privilege extended to all. The man who would know Christ must come to Him, to see and hear, to feel and know. Missionaries may carry the good tidings, the message of the gospel, but the response must be an individual one. Are you in doubt as to what that message means to-day? Then come and see for yourself. Would you know where Christ is to be found? Come and see.
4. "Come and See."—The essence of our Lord's invitation to the young seekers of truth, Andrew and John, is reflected in a similar opportunity offered to everyone. Anyone who wants to know Christ must come to Him, to see and hear, to feel and understand. Missionaries can share the good news, the message of the gospel, but the response has to be personal. Are you unsure about what that message means today? Then come and see for yourself. Do you want to know where to find Christ? Come and see.
5. The Eternal Father a Resurrected, Exalted Being.—"As the Father hath power in himself, so hath the Son power in himself, to lay down his life and take it again, so he has a body of his own. The Son doeth what he hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down his life and taken it again; so he has a body of his own; each one will be in his own body."—Joseph Smith; see Hist, of the Church, vol. 5, p. 426.
5. The Eternal Father a Resurrected, Exalted Being.—"Just as the Father has the power within Himself, the Son has the power within Himself to lay down His life and take it back again, meaning He has His own body. The Son does what He has observed the Father doing; therefore, the Father has also, at some point, laid down His life and taken it back again; thus, He has His own body; each will exist in their own body."—Joseph Smith; see Hist, of the Church, vol. 5, p. 426.
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil was rent to-day, and the Great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another."—Joseph Smith; see Compendium, p. 190.
"God was once like us and is now an exalted man sitting up in the heavens! That’s the big secret. If the veil were torn today, and the Great God who keeps this world in its orbit, and who supports all worlds and everything by His power, became visible—I’m saying, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him in the form of a man—just like you, in appearance and very form as a man; because Adam was created in the exact fashion, image, and likeness of God, and he received guidance from Him, walked, talked, and communicated with Him, just like one man does with another."—Joseph Smith; see Compendium, p. 190.
6. Waterpots for Ceremonial Cleansing.—In the house at Cana there stood in a place specially reserved, six waterpots of stone "after the manner of the purifying of the Jews." Vessels of water were provided as a matter of prescribed order in Jewish homes, to facilitate the ceremonial washings enjoined by the law. From these pots or jars the water was drawn off as required; they were reservoirs holding the supply, not vessels used in the actual ablution.
6. Waterpots for Ceremonial Cleansing.—In the house in Cana, there were six stone waterpots kept in a special place "following the Jewish purification customs." Water vessels were provided as a standard practice in Jewish homes to make the required ceremonial washings easier as mandated by the law. Water was drawn from these pots or jars as needed; they served as reservoirs holding the water supply, not as containers used for the actual washing.
7. "The Attitude of Science Towards Miracles" is the subject of a valuable article by Prof. H. L. Orchard, published in Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, 1910, Vol. 42, pp. 81-122. This article was the Gunning Prize Essay for 1909. After a lengthy analytical treatment of his subject, the author presents the following summation, which was concurred in by those who took part in the ensuing discussions: "We here complete our scientific investigation of Bible Miracles. It has embraced (1) the nature of the phenomenon; (2) the conditions under which it is alleged to have occurred; (3) the character of the testimony to its occurrence. To the inquiry—Were the Bible miracles probable? science answers in the affirmative. To the further inquiry—Did[Pg 152] they actually occur? the answer of science is again, and very emphatically, in the affirmative. If we liken them to gold, she has made her assay and says the gold is pure. Or the Bible miracles may be compared to a string of pearls. If science seeks to know whether the pearls are genuine, she may apply chemical and other tests to the examination of their character; she may search into the conditions and circumstances in which the alleged pearls were found. Were they first found in an oyster, or in some manufacturing laboratory? And she may investigate the testimony of experts. Should the result of any one of these examinations affirm the genuineness of the pearls, science will be slow to believe that they are 'paste'; if all the results declare their genuineness, science will not hesitate to say that they are true pearls. This, as we have seen, is the case of the Bible miracles. Science, therefore, affirms their actual occurrence."
7. "The Attitude of Science Towards Miracles" is the topic of a valuable article by Prof. H. L. Orchard, published in the Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, 1910, Vol. 42, pp. 81-122. This article was the Gunning Prize Essay for 1909. After a thorough analytical examination of the subject, the author provides the following summary, which was agreed upon by those who participated in the subsequent discussions: "We have now completed our scientific investigation of Bible Miracles. It has covered (1) the nature of the phenomenon; (2) the conditions under which it is claimed to have occurred; (3) the character of the testimony regarding its occurrence. To the question—Were the Bible miracles likely? science answers yes. To the next question—Did[Pg 152] they actually happen? the answer from science is once again a strong yes. If we compare them to gold, science has tested it and confirms the gold is pure. Or we could think of the Bible miracles as a string of pearls. If science wants to determine if the pearls are real, it might conduct chemical and other tests to evaluate their character; it might look into the conditions and circumstances in which the supposed pearls were found. Were they originally discovered in an oyster or in some factory? Science may also check the testimony of experts. If any one of these tests confirms the authenticity of the pearls, science will be hesitant to believe they are 'fake'; if all results prove they are genuine, science will confidently say that they are real pearls. This, as we have seen, is the situation with Bible miracles. Therefore, science affirms their actual occurrence."
8. The Testimony of Miracles.—The Savior's promise in a former day (Mark 16:17-18), as in the present dispensation (Doc. and Cov. 84:65-73), is definite, to the effect that specified gifts of the Spirit are to follow the believer as signs of divine favor. The possession and exercize of such gifts may be taken therefore as essential features of the Church of Christ. Nevertheless we are not justified in regarding the evidence of miracles as infallible testimony of authority from heaven; on the other hand, the scriptures furnish abundant proof that spiritual powers of the baser sort have wrought miracles, and will continue so to do, to the deceiving of many who lack discernment. If miracles be accepted as infallible evidence of godly power, the magicians of Egypt, through the wonders which they accomplished in opposition to the ordained plan for Israel's deliverance, have as good a claim to our respect as has Moses (Exo. 7:11). John the Revelator saw in vision a wicked power working miracles, and thereby deceiving many; doing great wonders, even bringing fire from heaven (Rev. 13:11-18). Again, he saw three unclean spirits, whom he knew to be "the spirits of devils working miracles" (Rev. 16:13-14). Consider, in connection with this, the prediction made by the Savior:—There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect (Matt. 24:24). The invalidity of miracles as a proof of righteousness is indicated in an utterance of Jesus Christ regarding the events of the great judgment:—"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. 7:22-23). The Jews, to whom these teachings were addressed, knew that wonders could be wrought by evil powers; for they charged Christ with working miracles by the authority of Beelzebub the prince of devils (Matt. 12:22-30; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15).—From the author's The Articles of Faith, xii:25, 26.[Pg 153]
8. The Testimony of Miracles.—The Savior's promise in the past (Mark 16:17-18), as in the current era (Doc. and Cov. 84:65-73), is clear that specific gifts of the Spirit are meant to follow believers as signs of divine favor. Therefore, having and using such gifts can be seen as essential aspects of the Church of Christ. However, we shouldn't view the evidence of miracles as an infallible sign of authority from heaven; on the contrary, the scriptures provide plenty of evidence that lesser spiritual powers have performed miracles and will continue to do so, deceiving many who lack discernment. If we accept miracles as infallible proof of godly power, then the magicians of Egypt, who performed wonders against the ordained plan for Israel's deliverance, have just as much claim to our respect as Moses does (Exo. 7:11). John the Revelator saw in a vision a wicked power performing miracles and deceiving many, doing great wonders, even bringing down fire from heaven (Rev. 13:11-18). He also saw three unclean spirits, which he recognized as "the spirits of devils working miracles" (Rev. 16:13-14). In this context, consider the prediction made by the Savior:—There will be false Christs and false prophets who show great signs and wonders, so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect (Matt. 24:24). The invalidity of miracles as proof of righteousness is evident in Jesus Christ's statement about the events of the great judgment:—"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? And in your name cast out demons? And in your name perform many wonderful works? And then I will say to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice iniquity" (Matt. 7:22-23). The Jews, to whom these teachings were directed, understood that wonders could be performed by evil powers; they accused Christ of working miracles through the authority of Beelzebub, the prince of demons (Matt. 12:22-30; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15).—From the author's The Articles of Faith, xii:25, 26.[Pg 153]
FOOTNOTES:
Footnotes:
[309] Luke 3:4.
Luke 3:4.
[313] John 1:25-27.
[314] John 1:29-31.
[317] John 1:35-51.
John 1:35-51.
[322] Acts 7:56; Rev. 1:13; 14:14.
[325] Dan. 7:13.
[327] Doc. and Cov. 49:6; 58:65; 65:5; 122:8. Observe that in modern revelation the title is used only as applying to the Christ in His resurrected and glorified state.
[327] Doc. and Cov. 49:6; 58:65; 65:5; 122:8. Notice that in modern revelations, the title is only used in reference to Christ in His resurrected and glorified state.
[330] P. of G.P., Moses 6:57; 7:35; see also 7:24, 47, 54, 56, 59, 65. Observe that Satan addressed Moses as "son of man" in a blasphemous attempt to coerce Moses into worshiping him by emphasizing the mortal weakness and inferiority of the man in contrast with his own false pretension of godship. (Moses 1:12.)
[330] P. of G.P., Moses 6:57; 7:35; see also 7:24, 47, 54, 56, 59, 65. Notice that Satan called Moses "son of man" in a disrespectful attempt to manipulate Moses into worshiping him by highlighting the human weakness and inferiority of the man compared to his own false claim of divinity. (Moses 1:12.)
[331] John 2:1-11.
John 2:1-11.
[333] John 19:26.
[336] John 2:11.
[337] The absence of all false austerity and outward show of abnormal abstinence in His life furnished an imagined excuse for unfounded charges of excess, through which He was said to be a glutton and a winebibber. (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34.)
[337] The lack of any false modesty and the outward appearance of extreme self-restraint in His life provided a made-up reason for baseless accusations of overindulgence, leading people to label Him as a glutton and a drunkard. (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34.)
[338] Matt. 7:22; 11:20; 12:38; 16:1; 24:24; Mark 6:14; Luke 10:13; John 2:18; 7:21; 10:25; 14:11; Acts 6:8; 8:6; 14:3; 19:11; Rom. 15:19; Rev. 13:13; etc.
[338] Matt. 7:22; 11:20; 12:38; 16:1; 24:24; Mark 6:14; Luke 10:13; John 2:18; 7:21; 10:25; 14:11; Acts 6:8; 8:6; 14:3; 19:11; Rom. 15:19; Rev. 13:13; etc.
[339] John 10:41; Matt. 11:9.
[340] For example Zechariah and Malachi.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ For instance, Zechariah and Malachi.
CHAPTER 12.
EARLY INCIDENTS IN OUR LORD'S PUBLIC MINISTRY.
FIRST CLEARING OF THE TEMPLE.
Soon after the marriage festivities in Cana, Jesus, accompanied by His disciples, as also by His mother and other members of the family, went to Capernaum, a town pleasantly situated near the northerly end of the Sea of Galilee or Lake of Gennesaret[343] and the scene of many of our Lord's miraculous works; indeed it came to be known as His own city.[344] Because of the unbelief of its people it became a subject of lamentation to Jesus when in sorrow He prefigured the judgment that would befall the place.[345] The exact site of the city is at present unknown. On this occasion Jesus tarried but a few days at Capernaum; for the time of the annual Passover was near, and in compliance with Jewish law and custom He went up to Jerusalem.
Soon after the wedding celebrations in Cana, Jesus, along with His disciples and His mother and other family members, went to Capernaum, a town nicely located near the northern end of the Sea of Galilee or Lake of Gennesaret[343] and the site of many of His miraculous acts; it eventually became known as His own city.[344] Because of the lack of belief among its residents, it became a cause of sadness for Jesus when He sorrowfully foresaw the judgment that would come upon the place.[345] The exact location of the city is currently unknown. During this visit, Jesus stayed only a few days in Capernaum; the annual Passover was approaching, and according to Jewish law and customs, He went up to Jerusalem.
The synoptic Gospels,[346] which are primarily devoted to the labors of Christ in Galilee, contain no mention of His attendance at the paschal festival between His twelfth year and the time of His death; to John alone are we indebted for the record of this visit at the beginning of Christ's public ministry. It is not improbable that Jesus had been present at other Passovers during the eighteen years over which the evangelists pass in complete and reverent silence; but at any or all such earlier visits, He, not being thirty years old, could not have assumed the right or privilege of a teacher without contravening established customs.[347] It is worth our attention[Pg 154] to note that on this, the first recorded appearance of Jesus in the temple subsequent to His visit as a Boy, He should resume His "Father's business" where He had before been engaged. It was in His Father's service that He had been found in discussion with the doctors of the law,[348] and in His Father's cause He was impelled to action on this later occasion.
The synoptic Gospels,[346] which mainly focus on Christ's work in Galilee, do not mention His attendance at the Passover festival between His twelfth year and the time of His death; we owe the record of this visit, marking the start of Christ's public ministry, only to John. It's quite possible that Jesus attended other Passovers during the eighteen years the evangelists remain silent about; however, during any of those earlier visits, He wouldn't have been able to take on the role or privilege of a teacher, as He wasn’t yet thirty, which would have gone against established customs.[347] It's notable[Pg 154] that on this, the first recorded appearance of Jesus in the temple since His visit as a Boy, He continued His "Father's business" from where He left off. It was in His Father's service that He was found having discussions with the teachers of the law,[348] and it was in His Father's cause that He was driven to act on this later occasion.
The multitudinous and mixed attendance at the Passover celebration has already received passing mention;[349] some of the unseemly customs that prevailed are to be held in mind. The law of Moses had been supplemented by a cumulative array of rules, and the rigidly enforced requirements as to sacrifices and tribute had given rise to a system of sale and barter within the sacred precincts of the House of the Lord. In the outer courts were stalls of oxen, pens of sheep, cages of doves and pigeons; and the ceremonial fitness of these sacrificial victims was cried aloud by the sellers, and charged for in full measure. It was the custom also to pay the yearly poll tribute of the sanctuary at this season—the ransom offering required of every male in Israel, and amounting to half a shekel[350] for each, irrespective of his relative poverty or wealth. This was to be paid "after the shekel of the sanctuary," which limitation, as rabbis had ruled, meant payment in temple coin. Ordinary money, varieties of which bore effigies and inscriptions of heathen import, was not acceptable, and as a result, money-changers plied a thriving trade on the temple grounds.
The large and diverse crowd at the Passover celebration has already been mentioned; some of the inappropriate customs that were common need to be noted. The law of Moses had been supplemented by a growing list of rules, and the strictly enforced requirements regarding sacrifices and offerings had led to a system of buying and selling within the sacred area of the House of the Lord. In the outer courts, there were stalls for oxen, pens for sheep, and cages for doves and pigeons; the sellers loudly proclaimed the ceremonial suitability of these sacrificial animals and charged full price. It was also the tradition to pay the annual temple tax during this time—the ransom payment required of every adult male in Israel, which amounted to half a shekel for each person, regardless of their wealth or poverty. This payment was to be made "after the shekel of the sanctuary," which the rabbis interpreted as meaning in temple coins. Regular money, which often bore images and inscriptions of pagan significance, was not accepted, leading to money-changers operating a busy business on the temple grounds.
Righteously indignant at what He beheld, zealous for the sanctity of His Father's House, Jesus essayed to clear the place;[351] and, pausing not for argument in words, He promptly applied physical force almost approaching violence—the one form of figurative language that those corrupt barterers for[Pg 155] pelf could best understand. Hastily improvizing a whip of small cords, He laid about Him on every side, liberating and driving out sheep, oxen, and human traffickers, upsetting the tables of the exchangers and pouring out their heterogeneous accumulations of coin. With tender regard for the imprisoned and helpless birds He refrained from assaulting their cages; but to their owners He said: "Take these things hence;" and to all the greedy traders He thundered forth a command that made them quail: "Make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." His disciples saw in the incident a realization of the psalmist's line: "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up."[352]
Righteously angry about what He saw and passionate about the sanctity of His Father’s House, Jesus set out to clean the area;[351] and without wasting time on words, He quickly used physical force that nearly turned violent—the one thing those corrupt merchants could understand. He hurriedly made a whip from some cords and began to drive out the sheep, oxen, and human traffickers, overturning the tables of the money changers and pouring out their mixed coins. He showed kindness to the trapped and helpless birds and didn't harm their cages; instead, He told their owners, "Get these things out of here," and directed all the greedy traders with a powerful command that made them tremble: "Do not make my Father’s house a place of business." His disciples recognized the situation as a fulfillment of the psalmist’s words: "The zeal for your house has consumed me."[352]
The Jews, by which term we mean the priestly officials and rulers of the people, dared not protest this vigorous action on the ground of unrighteousness; they, learned in the law, stood self-convicted of corruption, avarice, and of personal responsibility for the temple's defilement. That the sacred premises were in sore need of a cleansing they all knew; the one point upon which they dared to question the Cleanser was as to why He should thus take to Himself the doing of what was their duty. They practically submitted to His sweeping intervention, as that of one whose possible investiture of authority they might be yet compelled to acknowledge. Their tentative submission was based on fear, and that in turn upon their sin-convicted consciences. Christ prevailed over those haggling Jews by virtue of the eternal principle that right is mightier than wrong, and of the psychological fact that consciousness of guilt robs the culprit of valor when the imminence of just retribution is apparent to his soul.[353] Yet, fearful lest He should prove to be a prophet with power, such as no living priest or rabbi even professed to be, they timidly asked for credentials of His authority—"What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou[Pg 156] doest these things?" Curtly, and with scant respect for this demand, so common to wicked and adulterous men,[354] Jesus replied: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."[355]
The Jews, referring to the priestly officials and leaders of the people, didn’t dare to protest this strong action on the grounds of injustice; they, who were knowledgeable in the law, were fully aware of their own corruption, greed, and personal responsibility for the temple’s defilement. They all knew the sacred grounds were in desperate need of cleansing; the only thing they felt they could question about the Cleanser was why He took it upon Himself to do what was their responsibility. They basically accepted His sweeping intervention, acknowledging Him as someone whose potential authority they might eventually have to recognize. Their hesitant acceptance was driven by fear, which stemmed from their guilty consciences. Christ triumphed over those cunning Jews because of the eternal truth that right is more powerful than wrong, and the psychological reality that the awareness of guilt takes away the courage of the wrongdoer when the threat of just punishment is clear to their soul. Yet, afraid that He might be a prophet with power unlike any living priest or rabbi claimed to have, they nervously asked for proof of His authority—"What sign do you show us since you’re doing these things?" Briefly, and without much regard for this request common to wicked and corrupt individuals, Jesus responded: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Blinded by their own craft, unwilling to acknowledge the Lord's authority, yet fearful of the possibility that they were opposing one who had the right to act, the perturbed officials found in the words of Jesus reference to the imposing temple of masonry within whose walls they stood. They took courage; this strange Galilean, who openly flouted their authority, spoke irreverently of their temple, the visible expression of the profession they so proudly flaunted in words—that they were children of the covenant, worshipers of the true and living God, and hence superior to all heathen and pagan peoples. With seeming indignation they rejoined: "Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?"[356] Though frustrated in their desire to arouse popular indignation against Jesus at this time, the Jews refused to forget or forgive His words. When afterward He stood an undefended prisoner, undergoing an illegal pretense of trial before a sin-impeached court, the blackest perjury uttered against Him was that of the false witnesses who testified: "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands."[357] And while He hung in mortal suffering, the scoffers who passed by the cross wagged their heads and taunted the dying Christ with "Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself, and come down from the cross."[358] Yet His words to the Jews who had demanded the credentials of a sign had no reference to the colossal Temple of Herod, but to the sanctuary of His own body, in which, more literally[Pg 157] than in the man-built Holy of Holies, dwelt the ever living Spirit of the Eternal God. "The Father is in me" was His doctrine.[359]
Blinded by their own skills and reluctant to recognize the Lord's authority, yet anxious about possibly opposing someone with the right to act, the unsettled officials found in Jesus' words a reference to the impressive temple of stone around them. They felt emboldened; this unusual Galilean, who openly disobeyed their authority, spoke disrespectfully of their temple, the visible representation of the identity they proudly claimed—that they were children of the covenant, worshipers of the true and living God, and thus superior to all non-Jewish people. With visible anger, they retorted: "This temple took forty-six years to build, and are you going to raise it in three days?"[356] Although they were frustrated in their attempt to rally public outrage against Jesus at that moment, the Jews didn’t forget or forgive His words. Later, when He stood defenseless as a prisoner, facing an illegitimate trial before a corrupt court, the worst lies spoken against Him came from the false witnesses who claimed: "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple made by hands, and in three days I will build another not made by hands."[357] While He suffered on the cross, the onlookers mocked Him, saying, "Oh, you who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself and come down from the cross."[358] Yet, His words to the Jews who asked for a sign were not about the massive Temple of Herod, but about the sanctuary of His own body, where, more truly than in the man-made Holy of Holies, the ever-living Spirit of the Eternal God dwelled. "The Father is in me" was His teaching.[359]
"He spake of the temple of His body," the real tabernacle of the Most High.[360] This reference to the destruction of the temple of His body, and the renewal thereof after three days, is His first recorded prediction relating to His appointed death and resurrection. Even the disciples did not comprehend the profound meaning of His words until after His resurrection from the dead; then they remembered and understood. The priestly Jews were not as dense as they appeared to be, for we find them coming to Pilate while the body of the crucified Christ lay in the tomb, saying: "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again."[361] Though we have many records of Christ having said that He would die and on the third day would rise again, the plainest of such declarations were made to the apostles rather than openly to the public. The Jews who waited upon Pilate almost certainly had in mind the utterance of Jesus when they had stood, nonplussed before Him, at the clearing of the temple courts.[362]
"He spoke of the temple of His body," the true dwelling place of the Most High.[360] This mention of the destruction of His body and its restoration after three days is His first recorded prediction regarding His imminent death and resurrection. Even the disciples didn't grasp the deep meaning of His words until after He rose from the dead; then they remembered and understood. The priestly Jews weren't as clueless as they seemed, as we see them approaching Pilate while the body of the crucified Christ rested in the tomb, saying: "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.'"[361] Although there are many records of Christ saying He would die and rise again on the third day, the clearest statements were made to the apostles instead of in public. The Jews who went to Pilate likely had in mind what Jesus said when they stood, confused before Him, during the clearing of the temple courts.[362]
Such an accomplishment as that of defying priestly usage and clearing the temple purlieus by force could not fail to impress, with varied effect, the people in attendance at the feast; and they, returning to their homes in distant and widely separated provinces, would spread the fame of the courageous Galilean Prophet. Many in Jerusalem believed on Him at the time, mainly because they were attracted by the miracles He wrought; but He refused to "commit himself unto them," realizing the insecure foundation of their professions. Popular adulation was foreign to His purpose;[Pg 158] He wanted no motley following, but would gather around Him such as received the testimony of His Messiahship from the Father. "He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man."[363]
Such an achievement as challenging religious customs and forcefully clearing the temple grounds was bound to make an impression on the people attending the festival, with varying reactions. As they returned to their distant homes in different regions, they would share the story of the brave Galilean Prophet. Many people in Jerusalem believed in Him at that time, mostly because they were drawn to the miracles He performed; however, He did not fully trust them, understanding the shaky basis of their beliefs. Seeking popularity was not His aim; He didn’t want a mixed crowd but instead sought those who accepted the proof of His Messiahship from the Father. "He knew all people and didn’t need anyone to tell Him about man; for He knew what was in man."[Pg 158]
The incident of Christ's forcible clearing of the temple is a contradiction of the traditional conception of Him as of One so gentle and unassertive in demeanor as to appear unmanly. Gentle He was, and patient under affliction, merciful and long-suffering in dealing with contrite sinners, yet stern and inflexible in the presence of hypocrisy, and unsparing in His denunciation of persistent evil-doers. His mood was adapted to the conditions to which He addressed Himself; tender words of encouragement or burning expletives of righteous indignation issued with equal fluency from His lips. His nature was no poetic conception of cherubic sweetness ever present, but that of a Man, with the emotions and passions essential to manhood and manliness. He, who often wept with compassion, at other times evinced in word and action the righteous anger of a God. But of all His passions, however gently they rippled or strongly surged, He was ever master. Contrast the gentle Jesus moved to hospitable service by the needs of a festal party in Cana, with the indignant Christ plying His whip, and amidst commotion and turmoil of His own making, driving cattle and men before Him as an unclean herd.
The episode of Christ forcefully clearing the temple contradicts the typical view of Him as someone gentle and unassertive to the point of seeming unmanly. He was gentle and patient in the face of suffering, merciful and long-suffering with repentant sinners, yet stern and unwavering when confronting hypocrisy, and relentless in His condemnation of persistent wrongdoers. His demeanor shifted based on the situations He faced; tender words of encouragement and fiery expressions of righteous anger flowed equally from His lips. His character wasn’t just a poetic idea of sweet innocence; it embodied a Man with the feelings and passions that come with true manhood. He often wept with compassion but also exhibited in both word and action the righteous anger of God. Yet no matter how gently they flowed or how fiercely they surged, He was always in control of His emotions. Consider the gentle Jesus, moved to serve at a joyous gathering in Cana, alongside the indignant Christ wielding His whip, driving cattle and people before Him like an unclean herd amid the chaos He created.
JESUS AND NICODEMUS.[364]
That the wonderful deeds wrought by Christ at and about the time of this memorable Passover had led some of the learned, in addition to many of the common people, to believe in Him, is evidenced by the fact that Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee in profession and who occupied a high place as one of the rulers of the Jews, came to Him on an errand[Pg 159] of inquiry. There is significance in the circumstance that this visit was made at night. Apparently the man was impelled by a genuine desire to learn more of the Galilean, whose works could not be ignored; though pride of office and fear of possible suspicion that he had become attached to the new Prophet led him to veil his undertaking with privacy.[365] Addressing Jesus by the title he himself bore, and which he regarded as one of honor and respect, he said: "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."[366] Whether his use of the plural pronoun "we" indicates that he was sent by the Sanhedrin, or by the society of Pharisees—the members of which were accustomed to so speak, as representatives of the order—or was employed in the rhetorical sense as indicating himself alone, is of little importance. He acknowledged Jesus as a "teacher come from God," and gave reasons for so regarding Him. Whatever of feeble faith might have been stirring in the heart of the man, such was founded on the evidence of miracles, supported mainly by the psychological effect of signs and wonders. We must accord him credit for sincerity and honesty of purpose.
The amazing things that Christ did around the time of this memorable Passover led some scholars, as well as many ordinary people, to believe in Him. This is shown by the fact that Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a high-ranking member of the Jewish ruling class, came to Him to inquire about His teachings[Pg 159]. It’s notable that this visit happened at night. Clearly, Nicodemus had a genuine desire to learn more about the Galilean, whose actions were undeniable. However, his status and fear of being suspected of aligning with the new Prophet made him want to keep his visit private.[365] He addressed Jesus using the title he himself held, which he saw as one of honor, saying: "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can perform these miracles that you do unless God is with him."[366] Whether his use of "we" meant he was representing the Sanhedrin or the Pharisees, who often spoke this way to indicate their collective voice, or if he was simply speaking for himself, is not very important. He recognized Jesus as a "teacher come from God" and provided reasons for this belief. Any wavering faith he may have had was based on the evidence of miracles, primarily influenced by the psychological impact of these signs and wonders. We should acknowledge his sincerity and honest intentions.
Without waiting for specific questions, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus appears to have been puzzled; he asked how such a rejuvenation was possible. "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" We do Nicodemus no injustice in assuming that he as a rabbi, a man learned in the scriptures, ought to have known that there was other meaning in the words of Jesus than that of a mortal, literal birth. Moreover, were it possible that a man could be born a second[Pg 160] time literally and in the flesh, how could such a birth profit him in spiritual growth? It would be but a reentrance on the stage of physical existence, not an advancement. The man knew that the figure of a new birth was common in the teachings of his day. Every proselyte to Judaism was spoken of at the time of his conversion as one new-born.
Without waiting for specific questions, Jesus answered him, "Truly, I tell you, unless someone is born again, they cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus seemed confused; he asked how such a rebirth was possible. "How can someone be born when they are old? Can they enter their mother's womb a second time and be born?" We do Nicodemus no injustice by assuming that as a rabbi, a man knowledgeable in the scriptures, he should have understood that Jesus' words carried a deeper meaning than a physical birth. Furthermore, if it were possible for someone to be literally born a second time in the flesh, how would such a birth help them grow spiritually? It would just be a reentry into physical existence, not progress. The man was aware that the concept of being reborn was common in the teachings of his time. Every new convert to Judaism was referred to at their conversion as being newly born.
The surprize manifested by Nicodemus was probably due, in part at least, to the universality of the requirement as announced by Christ. Were the children of Abraham included? The traditionalism of centuries was opposed to any such view. Pagans had to be born again through a formal acceptance of Judaism, if they would become even small sharers of the blessings that belonged as a heritage to the house of Israel; but Jesus seemed to treat all alike, Jews and Gentiles, heathen idolaters and the people who with their lips at least called Jehovah, God.
The surprise shown by Nicodemus likely came, at least in part, from the universal requirement laid out by Christ. Did it include the children of Abraham? Centuries of tradition disagreed with any such idea. Non-Jews had to go through a formal acceptance of Judaism to become even minor participants in the blessings that belonged to the house of Israel; however, Jesus appeared to treat everyone equally—Jews and Gentiles, pagan idol worshippers, and those who at least professed to acknowledge Jehovah as God.
Jesus repeated the declaration, and with precision, emphasizing by the impressive "Verily, verily," the greatest lesson that had ever saluted the ears of this ruler in Israel: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." That the new birth thus declared to be absolutely essential as a condition of entrance into the kingdom of God, applicable to every man, without limitation or qualification, was a spiritual regeneration, was next explained to the wondering rabbi: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." Still the learned Jew pondered yet failed to comprehend. Possibly the sound of the night breeze was heard at that moment; if so, Jesus was but utilizing the incident as a skilful teacher would do to impress a lesson when He continued: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." Plainly stated, Nicodemus[Pg 161] was given to understand that his worldly learning and official status availed him nothing in any effort to understand the things of God; through the physical sense of hearing he knew that the wind blew; by sight he could be informed of its passage: yet what did he know of the ultimate cause of even this simple phenomenon? If Nicodemus would really be instructed in spiritual matters, he had to divest himself of the bias due to his professed knowledge of lesser things.
Jesus repeated the statement, clearly emphasizing with the strong "Truly, truly," the most important lesson this ruler in Israel had ever heard: "Truly, truly, I tell you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, they cannot enter the kingdom of God." This new birth, which was declared to be absolutely essential for entering the kingdom of God and applicable to everyone without exception, was explained to the amazed rabbi: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don’t be surprised that I said to you, you must be born again." Still, the educated Jew was confused and didn’t understand. Maybe he heard the night breeze at that moment; if so, Jesus used this moment like a skilled teacher to make a point when He continued: "The wind blows where it wants, and you hear its sound, but you can’t tell where it comes from or where it goes: so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." Clearly, Nicodemus[Pg 161] was meant to understand that his worldly knowledge and official position meant nothing when trying to understand the things of God; through his physical sense of hearing, he knew the wind was blowing; by sight, he could see its movement: yet what did he know about the ultimate cause of even this simple phenomenon? If Nicodemus truly wanted to learn about spiritual matters, he needed to set aside the biases from his supposed knowledge of lesser things.
Rabbi and eminent Sanhedrist though he was, there at the humble lodging of the Teacher from Galilee, he was in the presence of a Master. In the bewilderment of ignorance he asked, "How can these things be?" The reply must have been humbling if not humiliating to the man: "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" Plainly a knowledge of some of the fundamental principles of the gospel had been before accessible; Nicodemus was held in reproach for his lack of knowledge, particularly as he was a teacher of the people. Then our Lord graciously expounded at greater length, testifying that He spoke from sure knowledge, based upon what He had seen, while Nicodemus and his fellows were unwilling to accept the witness of His words. Furthermore, Jesus averred His mission to be that of the Messiah, and specifically foretold His death and the manner thereof—that He, the Son of Man, must be lifted up, even as Moses had lifted the serpent in the wilderness as a prototype, whereby Israel might escape the fatal plague.[367]
Rabbi and prominent member of the Sanhedrin though he was, in the simple lodging of the Teacher from Galilee, he found himself in the presence of a Master. Confused, he asked, "How can these things be?" The answer must have been humbling, if not humiliating for him: "Are you a teacher of Israel and yet you don’t know these things?" Clearly, some of the fundamental principles of the gospel had been previously accessible; Nicodemus was criticized for his lack of knowledge, especially as he was a teacher of the people. Then our Lord graciously elaborated, stating that He spoke from certain knowledge based on what He had seen, while Nicodemus and his peers were unwilling to accept His testimony. Moreover, Jesus affirmed His mission as the Messiah and specifically predicted His death and the manner of it—that He, the Son of Man, must be lifted up, just as Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness as a symbol, so that Israel might escape the deadly plague.[367]
The purpose of the foreappointed death of the Son of Man was: "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life"; for to this end, and out of His boundless love to man had the Father devoted His Only Begotten Son. And further, while it was true that in His mortal advent the Son had not come to sit as a judge, but to teach, persuade and save, nevertheless condemnation[Pg 162] would surely follow rejection of that Savior, for light had come, and wicked men avoided the light, hating it in their preference for the darkness in which they hoped to hide their evil deeds. Here again, perhaps, Nicodemus experienced a twinge of conscience, for had not he been afraid to come in the light, and had he not chosen the dark hours for his visit? Our Lord's concluding words combined both instruction and reproof: "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
The reason for the predetermined death of the Son of Man was: "That whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life"; for this purpose, and out of His endless love for humanity, the Father had dedicated His Only Begotten Son. Additionally, while it was true that during His time on earth the Son had not come to judge, but to teach, persuade, and save, condemnation would definitely follow the rejection of that Savior. Light had come, and wicked people shunned the light, preferring the darkness where they hoped to conceal their evil actions. Here again, perhaps, Nicodemus felt a pang of conscience, for had he not been afraid to come into the light and had he not chosen to visit during the dark hours? Our Lord's final words offered both guidance and rebuke: "But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."
The narrative of this interview between Nicodemus and the Christ constitutes one of our most instructive and precious scriptures relating to the absolute necessity of unreserved compliance with the laws and ordinances of the gospel, as the means indispensable to salvation. Faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, through whom alone men may gain eternal life; the forsaking of sin by resolute turning away from the gross darkness of evil to the saving light of righteousness; the unqualified requirement of a new birth through baptism in water, and this of necessity by the mode of immersion, since otherwise the figure of a birth would be meaningless; and the completion of the new birth through baptism by the Spirit—all these principles are taught herein in such simplicity and plainness as to make plausible no man's excuse for ignorance.
The story of this interview between Nicodemus and Christ is one of our most valuable scriptures about the absolute necessity of fully following the laws and teachings of the gospel as essential for salvation. Faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God is the only way for people to obtain eternal life; turning away from sin by decisively rejecting the darkness of evil in favor of the saving light of righteousness; the clear requirement of being born again through water baptism, which must be done by immersion, as otherwise the idea of being born would be meaningless; and completing this new birth through baptism by the Spirit— all these principles are explained here in such a simple and clear way that no one can justifiably claim ignorance.
If Jesus and Nicodemus were the only persons present at the interview, John, the writer, must have been informed thereof by one of the two. As John was one of the early disciples, afterward one of the apostles, and as he was distinguished in the apostolic company by his close personal companionship with the Lord, it is highly probable that he heard the account from the lips of Jesus. It was evidently John's purpose to record the great lesson of the occasion rather than to tell the circumstantial story. The record begins and ends with equal abruptness; unimportant incidents[Pg 163] are omitted; every line is of significance; the writer fully realized the deep import of his subject and treated it accordingly. Later mention of Nicodemus tends to confirm the estimate of the man as he appears in this meeting with Jesus—that of one who was conscious of a belief in the Christ, but whose belief was never developed into such genuine and virile faith as would impel to acceptance and compliance irrespective of cost or consequence.[368]
If Jesus and Nicodemus were the only ones at the meeting, John, the author, must have learned about it from one of the two. Since John was one of the early disciples and later became an apostle, known for his close personal relationship with the Lord, it's likely that he heard the story directly from Jesus. John's goal was clearly to highlight the important lesson from the meeting rather than to give a detailed account. The record starts and ends suddenly; unimportant details are left out; every line matters; the writer understood the significance of his topic and handled it with care. Later references to Nicodemus support the view of him as he appears in this encounter with Jesus—someone who recognized his belief in Christ, but whose faith never fully grew into a strong and active commitment that would drive him to accept and act regardless of the cost or consequences.[Pg 163][368]
FROM CITY TO COUNTRY.
Leaving Jerusalem, Jesus and His disciples went into the rural parts of Judea, and there tarried, doubtless preaching as opportunity was found or made; and those who believed on Him were baptized.[369] The prominent note of His early public utterances was that of His forerunner in the wilderness: "Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."[370] The Baptist continued his labors; though doubtless, since his recognition of the Greater One for whose coming he had been sent to prepare, he considered the baptism he administered as of somewhat different significance. He had at first baptized in preparation for One who was to come; now he baptized repentant believers unto Him who had come.
Leaving Jerusalem, Jesus and His disciples went into the rural areas of Judea, where they stayed, likely preaching whenever they got the chance. Those who believed in Him were baptized.[369] The main message of His early public speeches was similar to that of His forerunner in the wilderness: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."[370] The Baptist continued his work; however, after recognizing the Greater One he had prepared for, he likely saw the baptism he performed as having a different meaning. Initially, he baptized in preparation for Someone who was to come; now he baptized repentant believers in honor of the One who had already arrived.
Disputation had arisen between some of John's zealous adherents and one or more Jews[371] concerning the doctrine of purifying. The context[372] leaves little room for doubt that a question was involved as to the relative merits of John's baptism and that administered by the disciples of Jesus. With excusable ardor and well-intended zeal for their master, the disciples of John, who had been embroiled in the dispute, came to him saying: "Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the[Pg 164] same baptizeth, and all men come to him." John's supporters were concerned at the success of One whom they regarded in some measure as a rival to their beloved teacher. Had not John given to Jesus His first attestation? "He to whom thou bearest witness" said they, not deigning even to designate Jesus by name. Following the example of Andrew, and of John the future apostle, the people were leaving the Baptist and gathering about the Christ. John's reply to his ardent followers constitutes a sublime instance of self-abnegation. His answer was to this effect: A man receives only as God gives unto him. It is not given to me to do the work of Christ. Ye yourselves are witnesses that I disclaimed being the Christ, and that I said I was one sent before Him. He is as the Bridegroom; I am only as the friend of the bridegroom,[373] His servant; and I rejoice greatly in being thus near Him; His voice gives me happiness; and thus my joy is fulfilled. He of whom you speak stands at the beginning of His ministry; I near the end of mine. He must increase but I must decrease. He came from heaven and therefore is superior to all things of earth; nevertheless men refuse to receive His testimony. To such a One, the Spirit of God is not apportioned; it is His in full measure. The Father loveth Him, the Son, and hath given all things into His hand, and: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."[374]
Dispute had broken out between some of John's passionate followers and a few Jews[371] about the concept of purification. The context[372] clearly indicates that there was a question regarding the comparative value of John's baptism versus that of Jesus' disciples. With understandable enthusiasm and good intentions for their leader, John's disciples approached him saying: "Rabbi, the one who was with you on the other side of the Jordan, the one you testified about, look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him." John's supporters were worried about the success of someone they saw as a rival to their cherished teacher. Hadn’t John affirmed Jesus first? "The one you testify about," they said, not even mentioning Jesus by name. Following the example of Andrew and John, the future apostle, people were leaving the Baptist and gathering around Christ. John's response to his eager followers is a remarkable example of humility. He replied essentially: A person can only receive what God gives him. It’s not my place to do Christ’s work. You yourselves know I said I’m not the Christ, but one who was sent before Him. He is like the Bridegroom; I am only the friend of the Bridegroom,[373] His servant; and I take great joy in being so close to Him; His voice brings me happiness, and my joy is complete. The one you mention is just starting His ministry; I am nearing the end of mine. He must become greater, while I become less. He came from heaven and is therefore greater than all earthly things; yet people refuse to accept His testimony. To someone like Him, the Spirit of God isn't given in portions; He has it in full measure. The Father loves Him, the Son, and has entrusted everything to Him, and: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."[374]
In such a reply, under the existent conditions, is to be found the spirit of true greatness, and of a humility that could rest only on a conviction of divine assurance to the Baptist as to himself and the Christ. In more than one sense was John great among all who are born of women.[375] He had entered upon his work when sent of God so to do;[Pg 165][376] he realized that his work had been in a measure superseded, and he patiently awaited his release, in the meantime continuing in the ministry, directing souls to his Master. The beginning of the end was near. He was soon seized and thrown into a dungeon; where, as shall be shown, he was beheaded to sate the vengeance of a corrupt woman whose sins he had boldly denounced.[377]
In such a response, given the current circumstances, we can see the essence of true greatness and a humility that could only come from a deep belief in divine assurance for both the Baptist and Christ. In more than one way, John was great among all who are born of women.[375] He began his mission when God sent him to do so;[Pg 165][376] he understood that his work had somewhat been replaced, and he patiently waited for his release while continuing to minister, guiding souls to his Master. The beginning of the end was approaching. He would soon be arrested and thrown into a dungeon; where, as will be detailed, he was beheaded to satisfy the vengeance of a corrupt woman whose sins he had fearlessly condemned.[377]
The Pharisees observed with increasing apprehension the growing popularity of Jesus, evidenced by the fact that even more followed after Him and accepted baptism at the hands of His disciples than had responded to the Baptist's call. Open opposition was threatened; and as Jesus desired to avert the hindrance to His work which such persecution at that time would entail, He withdrew from Judea and retired to Galilee, journeying by way of Samaria. This return to the northern province was effected after the Baptist had been cast into prison.[378]
The Pharisees watched with growing concern as Jesus became more popular, as seen by the increasing number of people who followed Him and got baptized by His disciples, outpacing those who had responded to John the Baptist. Open opposition was imminent; and since Jesus wanted to avoid the obstacles that such persecution would create for His work at that time, He left Judea and went to Galilee, traveling through Samaria. This return to the northern region happened after John the Baptist had been imprisoned.[378]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 12.
1. Sea of Galilee.—This, the largest body of fresh water in Palestine, is somewhat pear-shape in outline and measures approximately thirteen miles in extreme length on a northerly-southerly line and between six and seven miles in greatest width. The river Jordan enters it at the northeast extremity and flows out at the south-west; the lake may be regarded, therefore, as a great expansion of the river, though the water-filled depression is about two hundred feet in depth. The outflowing Jordan connects the sea of Galilee with the Dead Sea, the latter a body of intensely saline water, which in its abundance of dissolved salts and in the consequent density of its brine is comparable to the Great Salt Lake in Utah, though the chemical composition of the waters is materially different. The sea of Galilee is referred to by Luke, in accordance with its more appropriate classification as a lake (Luke 5:1, 2; 8:22, 23, 33). Adjoining the lake on the north-west is a plain, which in earlier times was highly cultivated: this was known as the land of Gennesaret (Matt. 14:34; Mark 6:53); and the water body came to be known as the sea or lake of Gennesaret (Luke 5:1). From the prominence of one of the cities on its western shore, it was known also as the sea of Tiberias (John 6:1,23; 21:1). In the Old Testament it is called[Pg 166] the sea of Chinnereth (Numb. 34:11) or Chinneroth (Josh. 12:3) after the name of a contiguous city (Josh. 19:35). The surface of the lake or sea is several hundred feet below normal sea-level, 681 feet lower than the Mediterranean according to Zenos, or 700 feet as stated by some others. This low-lying position gives to the region a semi-tropical climate. Zenos, in the Standard Bible Dictionary, says: "The waters of the lake are noted for abundant fish. The industry of fishing was accordingly one of the most stable resources of the country round about.... Another feature of the sea of Galilee is its susceptibility to sudden storms. These are occasioned partly by its lying so much lower than the surrounding tableland (a fact that creates a difference of temperature and consequent disturbances in the atmosphere), and partly by the rushing of gusts of wind down the Jordan valley from the heights of Hermon. The event recorded in Matt. 8:24 is no extraordinary case. Those who ply boats on the lake are obliged to exercize great care to avoid peril from such storms. The shores of the sea of Galilee as well as the lake itself were the scenes of many of the most remarkable events recorded in the Gospels."
1. Sea of Galilee.—This is the largest freshwater body in Palestine, shaped somewhat like a pear. It stretches about thirteen miles from north to south and measures between six and seven miles at its widest point. The Jordan River flows into it from the northeast and out from the southwest, making the lake an extension of the river, though the lake itself is around two hundred feet deep. The outflowing Jordan connects the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, which is extremely salty. The concentration of dissolved salts in the Dead Sea makes its brine much denser than that of the Great Salt Lake in Utah, although their chemical compositions are quite different. Luke refers to the Sea of Galilee as a lake, which is a more accurate classification (Luke 5:1, 2; 8:22, 23, 33). To the northwest of the lake is a plain that was once well-cultivated, known as the land of Gennesaret (Matt. 14:34; Mark 6:53); this body of water also became known as the sea or lake of Gennesaret (Luke 5:1). Due to the prominence of one of its cities on the western shore, it was also called the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1, 23; 21:1). In the Old Testament, it is referred to as the sea of Chinnereth (Num. 34:11) or Chinneroth (Josh. 12:3), named after a nearby city (Josh. 19:35). The surface of the lake is several hundred feet below sea level, about 681 feet lower than the Mediterranean according to Zenos, or 700 feet according to others. This low elevation gives the region a semi-tropical climate. Zenos, in the Standard Bible Dictionary, notes that "the waters of the lake are known for their abundance of fish. Therefore, fishing was one of the most reliable industries in the area... Another characteristic of the Sea of Galilee is its tendency for sudden storms. This happens partly because it is situated lower than the surrounding land, creating temperature differences and atmospheric disturbances, and partly due to strong winds rushing down the Jordan Valley from the heights of Hermon. The incident recorded in Matt. 8:24 is not unusual. Those who operate boats on the lake must take great care to avoid dangers posed by such storms. The shores of the Sea of Galilee, as well as the lake itself, were the locations of many significant events recorded in the Gospels."
2. The Four Gospels.—All careful students of the New Testament must have observed that the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, treat the events of the Savior's sayings and doings in Galilee with greater fulness than they accord to His work in Judea; the book or Gospel of John, on the other hand, treats particularly the incidents of our Lord's Judean ministry, without excluding, however, important events that occurred in Galilee. In style of writing and method of treatment, the authors of the first three Gospels (evangelists as they and John are collectively styled in theologic literature) differ more markedly from the author of the fourth Gospel than among themselves. The events recorded by the first three can be more readily classified, collated, or arranged, and in consequence the Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke are now commonly known as the Synoptics, or Synoptic Gospels.
2. The Four Gospels.—All serious students of the New Testament must have noticed that the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke cover the events of the Savior's teachings and actions in Galilee more thoroughly than they do His work in Judea; conversely, the Gospel of John focuses primarily on the incidents from our Lord's ministry in Judea, but it doesn't omit significant events that took place in Galilee. In terms of writing style and approach, the authors of the first three Gospels (referred to as evangelists along with John in theological literature) stand out more from the author of the fourth Gospel than they do from each other. The events described by the first three can be more easily categorized, compiled, or organized, and as a result, the Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke are now commonly called the Synoptics, or Synoptic Gospels.
3. Thirty Years of Age.—According to Luke (3:23) Jesus was about thirty years of age at the time of His baptism, and we find that soon thereafter, He entered publicly upon the work of His ministry. The law provided that at the age of thirty years the Levites were required to enter upon their special service (Numb. 4:3). Clarke, Bible Commentary, treating the passage in Luke 3:23, says: "This was the age required by the law to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office." Jesus may possibly have had regard for what had become a custom of the time, in waiting until He had attained that age before entering publicly on the labors of a Teacher among the people. Not being of Levitical descent He was not eligible to priestly ordination in the Aaronic order, and therefore, certainly did not wait for such before beginning His ministry. To have taught in public at an earlier age would have been to arouse criticism, and objection, which might have resulted in serious handicap or hindrance at the outset.[Pg 167]
3. Thirty Years of Age.—According to Luke (3:23), Jesus was about thirty years old when He was baptized, and shortly after that, He publicly began His ministry. The law stated that Levites were required to start their special service at the age of thirty (Numb. 4:3). Clarke, in his Bible Commentary, discussing Luke 3:23, notes: "This was the age set by the law for priests before they could be installed in their office." Jesus may have considered this custom of the day, waiting until He reached that age before taking on the role of a Teacher among the people. Since He was not of Levitical descent, He wasn't eligible for priestly ordination in the Aaronic line, so He certainly didn't wait for that to begin His ministry. Teaching publicly at a younger age could have sparked criticism and opposition, which might have created serious obstacles right from the start.[Pg 167]
4. Throngs and Confusion at the Passover Festival.—While it is admittedly impossible that even a reasonably large fraction of the Jewish people could be present at the annual Passover gatherings at Jerusalem, and in consequence provision was made for local observance of the feast, the usual attendance at the temple celebration in the days of Jesus was undoubtedly enormous. Josephus calls the Passover throngs "an innumerable multitude" (Wars, ii, 1:3), and in another place (Wars, vi, 9:3) states that the attendance reached the enormous aggregate of three millions of souls; such is the record, though many modern writers treat the statement as an exaggeration. Josephus says that for the purpose of giving the emperor Nero information as to the numerical strength of the Jewish people, particularly in Palestine, the chief priests were asked by Cestius to count the number of lambs slain at the feast, and the number reported was 256,500, which on the basis of between ten and eleven persons to each paschal table would indicate the presence, he says, of at least 2,700,200, not including visitors other than Jews, and such of the people of Israel as were debarred from participation in the paschal meal because of ceremonial unfitness.
4. Crowds and Confusion at the Passover Festival.—While it’s clear that it’s impossible for even a significant portion of the Jewish population to attend the annual Passover celebrations in Jerusalem, local observances of the feast were arranged. However, the typical attendance at the temple celebration during Jesus' time was undoubtedly huge. Josephus describes the Passover crowds as "an innumerable multitude" (Wars, ii, 1:3), and elsewhere (Wars, vi, 9:3) he claims that attendance reached an astounding total of three million people; this is what is recorded, though many modern writers consider it an exaggeration. Josephus notes that to provide Emperor Nero with information about the Jewish population, especially in Palestine, Cestius asked the chief priests to count the number of lambs slaughtered at the feast, which totaled 256,500. Based on the assumption of between ten and eleven people per paschal table, this would suggest a presence of at least 2,700,200, not counting non-Jewish visitors or those from Israel who couldn't participate in the paschal meal due to ceremonial uncleanliness.
The scenes of confusion, inevitable under the conditions then prevailing, are admirably summarized by Geikie (Life and Words of Christ, chap. 30), who cites many earlier authorities for his statements: "The streets were blocked by the crowds from all parts, who had to make their way to the Temple, past flocks of sheep, and droves of cattle, pressing on in the sunken middle part of each street reserved for them, to prevent contact and defilement. Sellers of all possible wares beset the pilgrims, for the great feasts were, as has been said, the harvest time of all trades at Jerusalem, just as, at Mecca, even at this day, the time of the great concourse of worshippers at the tomb of the Prophet, is that of the busiest trade among the merchant pilgrims, who form the caravans from all parts of the Mohammedan world.
The chaotic scenes, unavoidable under the circumstances at the time, are well captured by Geikie (Life and Words of Christ, chap. 30), who references many earlier sources for his claims: "The streets were clogged with crowds from every direction, making their way to the Temple, navigating past flocks of sheep and herds of cattle, which were herded down the central part of each street designated for them, to avoid contact and defilement. Sellers of every kind of merchandise surrounded the pilgrims, as the major festivals were, as previously mentioned, the peak season for all trades in Jerusalem, just like, at Mecca, even today, the time of the massive gathering of worshippers at the tomb of the Prophet coincides with the busiest trade among the merchant pilgrims, who form caravans from all over the Muslim world."
"Inside the Temple space, the noise and pressure were, if possible, worse. Directions were posted up to keep to the right or the left, as in the densest thoroughfares of London. The outer court, which others than Jews might enter, and which was, therefore, known as the Court of the Heathen, was in part, covered with pens for sheep, goats, and cattle, for the feast and the thank-offerings. Sellers shouted the merits of their beasts, sheep bleated, and oxen lowed. It was, in fact, the great yearly fair of Jerusalem, and the crowds added to the din and tumult, till the services in the neighboring courts were sadly disturbed. Sellers of doves, for poor women coming for purification from all parts of the country, and for others, had a space set apart for them. Indeed, the sale of doves was, in great measure, secretly, in the hands of the priests themselves: Hannas, the high priest, especially, gaining great profits from his dove cotes on Mount Olivet. The rents of the sheep and cattle pens, and the profits on the doves, had led the priests to sanction the incongruity of thus turning the Temple itself into a noisy market. Nor was this all.[Pg 168] Potters pressed on the pilgrims their clay dishes and ovens for the Passover lamb; hundreds of traders recommended their wares aloud; shops for wine, oil, salt, and all else needed for sacrifices, invited customers; and, in addition, persons going across the city, with all kinds of burdens, shortened their journey by crossing the Temple grounds. The provision for paying the tribute, levied on all, for the support of the Temple, added to the distraction. On both sides of the east Temple gate, stalls had for generations been permitted for changing foreign money. From the fifteenth of the preceding month money-changers had been allowed to set up their tables in the city, and from the twenty-first,—or twenty days before the Passover,—to ply their trade in the Temple itself. Purchasers of materials for offerings paid the amount at special stalls, to an officer of the Temple, and received a leaden cheque for which they got what they had bought, from the seller. Large sums, moreover, were changed, to be cast, as free offerings, into one of the thirteen chests which formed the Temple treasury. Every Jew, no matter how poor, was, in addition, required to pay yearly a half-shekel—about eighteen pence—as atonement money for his soul, and for the support of the Temple. As this would not be received except in a native coin, called the Temple shekel, which was not generally current, strangers had to change their Roman, Greek, or Eastern money, at the stalls of the money-changers, to get the coin required. The trade gave ready means for fraud, which was only too common. Five per cent. exchange was charged, but this was indefinitely increased by tricks and chicanery, for which the class had everywhere earned so bad a name, that like the publicans, their witness would not be taken before a court."
Inside the Temple area, the noise and chaos were even worse. Signs were posted to direct people to keep to the right or left, just like in the busiest streets of London. The outer court, where non-Jews could enter and which was known as the Court of the Gentiles, was partly filled with pens for sheep, goats, and cattle for the feasts and thank offerings. Sellers shouted about the quality of their animals, sheep bleated, and oxen lowed. It was essentially the big annual fair of Jerusalem, and the crowds added to the noise and commotion, disturbing the services in the nearby courts. There was a designated area for sellers of doves, catering to poor women seeking purification from all over the country. In fact, the sale of doves was largely controlled in secret by the priests themselves, especially by Annas, the high priest, who made significant profits from his dove coops on Mount Olivet. The rents from the sheep and cattle pens, along with the profits from the sale of doves, led the priests to approve of the absurdity of turning the Temple itself into a noisy marketplace. And that was just part of it.[Pg 168] Potters pushed their clay dishes and ovens for the Passover lamb on the pilgrims; hundreds of traders loudly promoted their goods; shops selling wine, oil, salt, and everything else needed for sacrifices called out to customers; and, on top of that, people traveling across the city with various loads cut through the Temple grounds to save time. The requirement to pay a tax for the support of the Temple added to the distraction. For generations, stalls for exchanging foreign currency had been allowed on both sides of the east Temple gate. From the fifteenth of the previous month, money-changers had been allowed to set up their tables in the city, and from the twenty-first—or twenty days before the Passover—they were permitted to conduct business right in the Temple. Buyers of materials for offerings paid their amounts at specific stalls to a Temple officer and received a leaden token to collect what they had purchased from the seller. Moreover, large amounts were exchanged to be freely given as offerings in one of the thirteen containers that made up the Temple treasury. Every Jew, no matter how poor, was also required to pay an annual half-shekel—about eighteen pence—as atonement money for his soul and for the Temple's support. Since this would only be accepted in a local coin known as the Temple shekel, which wasn’t widely used, foreigners had to exchange their Roman, Greek, or Eastern money at the money-changer stalls to get the required coins. This trade made it easy for fraud, which was all too common. A five percent exchange fee was charged, but this was often inflated through tricks and deceit, earning the money-changers such a bad reputation that, like tax collectors, their testimony was often not accepted in court.
Touching the matter of the defilement to which the temple courts had been subjected by traffickers acting under priestly license, Farrar, (Life of Christ, p. 152), gives us the following: "And this was the entrance-court to the Temple of the Most High! The court which was a witness that that house should be a House of Prayer for all nations had been degraded into a place which, for foulness, was more like shambles, and for bustling commerce more like a densely-crowded bazaar; while the lowing of oxen, the bleating of sheep, the Babel of many languages, the huckstering and wrangling, and the clinking of money and of balances (perhaps not always just), might be heard in the adjoining courts, disturbing the chant of the Levites and the prayers of priests!"
Regarding the issue of the pollution that the temple courts experienced due to traders operating with the priests' approval, Farrar, (Life of Christ, p. 152), writes the following: "And this was the entrance court to the Temple of the Most High! The court that was meant to be a House of Prayer for all nations had been turned into a space that, in its filth, resembled a slaughterhouse, and in its bustling activity, looked more like a crowded marketplace; while the lowing of oxen, the bleating of sheep, the shouting of many languages, the haggling and arguing, and the clinking of coins and scales (possibly not always fair), could be heard in the nearby courts, interrupting the chants of the Levites and the prayers of the priests!"
5. The Servility of the Jews in the Presence of Jesus.—The record of the achievement of Jesus, in ridding the temple courts of those who had made the House of the Lord a market place, contains nothing to suggest the inference that He exercized superhuman strength or more than manly vigor. He employed a whip of His own making, and drove all before Him. They fled helter-skelter. None are said to have voiced an objection until the expulsion had been made complete. Why did not some among the multitude object? The submission appears to have[Pg 169] been abject and servile in the extreme. Farrar, (Life of Christ, pp. 151, 152) raises the question and answers it with excellent reasoning and in eloquent lines: "Why did not this multitude of ignorant pilgrims resist? Why did these greedy chafferers content themselves with dark scowls and muttered maledictions, while they suffered their oxen and sheep to be chased into the streets and themselves ejected, and their money flung rolling on the floor, by one who was then young and unknown, and in the garb of despised Galilee? Why, in the same way we might ask, did Saul suffer Samuel to beard him in the very presence of his army? Why did David abjectly obey the orders of Joab? Why did Ahab not dare to arrest Elijah at the door of Naboth's vineyard? Because sin is weakness; because there is in the world nothing so abject as a guilty conscience, nothing so invincible as the sweeping tide of a Godlike indignation against all that is base and wrong. How could these paltry sacrilegious buyers and sellers, conscious of wrongdoing, oppose that scathing rebuke, or face the lightnings of those eyes that were enkindled by an outraged holiness? When Phinehas the priest was zealous for the Lord of Hosts, and drove through the bodies of the prince of Simeon and the Midianitish woman with one glorious thrust of his indignant spear, why did not guilty Israel avenge that splendid murder? Why did not every man of the tribe of Simeon become a Goel to the dauntless assassin? Because Vice cannot stand for one moment before Virtue's uplifted arm. Base and grovelling as they were, these money-mongering Jews felt, in all that remnant of their souls which was not yet eaten away by infidelity and avarice, that the Son of Man was right.
5. The Servility of the Jews in the Presence of Jesus.—The account of Jesus clearing the temple courts of those who turned the House of the Lord into a marketplace doesn’t imply that He had superhuman strength or anything more than regular human energy. He used a whip He made himself and drove everyone out. They fled in a panic. No one is reported to have objected until the expulsion was complete. Why didn’t anyone from the crowd raise an objection? Their submission seemed incredibly abject and servile. Farrar, (Life of Christ, pp. 151, 152) poses the question and answers it with strong reasoning and eloquent phrasing: "Why didn’t this crowd of ignorant pilgrims resist? Why did these greedy vendors merely scowl and mutter curses while they allowed their oxen and sheep to be chased into the streets, and themselves thrown out, with their money scattered across the floor, by someone who was then young and unknown, dressed in the garment of a despised Galilean? Similarly, we might ask, why did Saul allow Samuel to confront him in front of his army? Why did David meekly follow Joab’s orders? Why did Ahab not dare to stop Elijah at Naboth's vineyard? Because sin is weakness; because nothing is as abject as a guilty conscience, and nothing is as unstoppable as the overwhelming tide of righteous outrage against all that is base and wrong. How could these miserable, sacrilegious buyers and sellers, aware of their wrongdoing, challenge that fierce rebuke or face the anger in those eyes ignited by offended holiness? When Phinehas the priest showed zeal for the Lord of Hosts and pierced through the bodies of the prince of Simeon and the Midianite woman with one glorious thrust of his indignant spear, why didn’t guilty Israel seek revenge for that bold act? Why didn’t every man from the tribe of Simeon defend the fearless assassin? Because Vice cannot stand for even a moment against Virtue’s raised arm. Lowly and degraded as they were, these money-driven Jews felt, in all that remained of their souls that hadn’t been consumed by disbelief and greed, that the Son of Man was right.
"Nay, even the Priests and Pharisees, and Scribes and Levites, devoured as they were by pride and formalism, could not condemn an act which might have been performed by a Nehemiah or a Judas Maccabaeus, and which agreed with all that was purest and best in their traditions. But when they had heard of this deed, or witnessed it, and had time to recover from the breathless mixture of admiration, disgust, and astonishment which it inspired, they came to Jesus, and though they did not dare to condemn what He had done, yet half indignantly asked Him for some sign that He had a right to act thus."
"No, even the priests, Pharisees, scribes, and Levites, consumed by their pride and formalism, couldn't condemn an act that might have been done by Nehemiah or Judas Maccabaeus, and that aligned with the purest and best parts of their traditions. But when they heard about this deed, or saw it for themselves, and had a moment to recover from the mix of admiration, disgust, and astonishment it sparked, they approached Jesus. Even though they didn't dare to outright condemn what He had done, they half-indignantly asked Him for some sign that He had the authority to act in such a way."
6. Jewish Regard for the Temple.—The Jews professed high regard for the temple. "An utterance of the Savior, construed by the dark-minded as an aspersion upon the temple, was used against Him as one of the chief accusations on which His death was demanded. When the Jews clamored for a sign of His authority He predicted His own death and subsequent resurrection, saying, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,' (John 2:19-22; see also Matt. 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29). They blindly regarded this remark as a disrespectful allusion to their temple, a structure built by human hands, and they refused to forget or forgive. That this veneration continued after the crucifixion of our Lord is evident from accusations brought against Stephen, and still later against Paul. In their murderous rage the people accused Stephen of disrespect[Pg 170] for the temple, and brought false witnesses who uttered perjured testimony saying, 'This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place.' (Acts 6:13.) And Stephen was numbered with the martyrs. When it was claimed that Paul had brought with him into the temple precincts, a Gentile, the whole city was aroused, and the infuriated mob dragged Paul from the place and sought to kill him. (Acts 21:26-31.)"—The author; House of the Lord, pp. 60, 61.
6. Jewish Regard for the Temple.—The Jews had a deep respect for the temple. "A statement from the Savior, which some interpreted as an attack on the temple, became one of the main accusations against Him that led to His death. When the Jews demanded a sign of His authority, He predicted His own death and resurrection, saying, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,' (John 2:19-22; see also Matt. 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29). They foolishly took this comment as disrespect toward their temple, which was built by human hands, and they couldn’t let it go or forgive it. This reverence continued even after our Lord’s crucifixion, as seen in the accusations against Stephen and later against Paul. In a fit of rage, the people accused Stephen of disrespecting the temple and brought in false witnesses who testified, 'This man never stops speaking blasphemous words against this holy place.' (Acts 6:13.) And Stephen was counted among the martyrs. When it was alleged that Paul had brought a Gentile into the temple area, the entire city was stirred up, and a furious mob dragged Paul out and tried to kill him. (Acts 21:26-31.)"—The author; House of the Lord, pp. 60, 61.
7. Some of the "Chief Rulers" Believed.—Nicodemus was not the only one among the ruling classes who believed in Jesus; but of most of these we learn nothing to indicate that they had sufficient courage to come even by night to make independent and personal inquiry. They feared the result in loss of popularity and standing. We read in John 12:42, 43: "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." Note also the instance of the scribe who proffered to become a professed disciple, but, probably because of some degree of insincerity or unfitness, was rather discouraged than approved by Jesus. (Matt. 8:19, 20.)
7. Some of the "Chief Rulers" Believed.—Nicodemus wasn't the only one in the ruling class who believed in Jesus; however, we don't learn much about most of them showing the courage to come forward, even at night, to ask questions on their own. They were worried about losing their popularity and status. We read in John 12:42, 43: "Yet, many of the chief rulers believed in him; but because of the Pharisees, they didn’t confess him, fearing they would be expelled from the synagogue, for they loved the approval of people more than the approval of God." Also, there's the example of the scribe who wanted to be a disciple, but he was likely discouraged rather than supported by Jesus, probably due to some insincerity or unworthiness. (Matt. 8:19, 20.)
8. Nicodemus.—The course followed by this man evidences at once that he really believed in Jesus as one sent of God, and that his belief failed of development into a condition of true faith, which, had it but been realized, might have led to a life of devoted service in the Master's cause. When at a later stage than that of his interview with Christ the chief priests and Pharisees upbraided the officers whom they had sent to take Jesus into custody and who returned to report their failure, Nicodemus, one of the council, ventured to mildly expostulate against the murderous determination of the rulers, by stating a general proposition in interrogative form: "Doth our law judge any man before it hear him and know what he doeth?" He was answered by his colleagues with contempt, and appears to have abandoned his well-intended effort (John 7:50-53; read preceding verses 30-49). We next hear of him bringing a costly contribution of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred-weight, to be used in the burial of Christ's then crucified body; but even in this deed of liberality and devotion, in which his sincerity of purpose cannot well be questioned, he had been preceded by Joseph of Arimathea, a man of rank, who had boldly asked for and secured the body for reverent burial (John 19:38-42). Nevertheless Nicodemus did more than did most of his believing associates among the noble and great ones; and to him let all due credit be given; he will not fail of his reward.
8. Nicodemus.—The actions of this man clearly show that he genuinely believed in Jesus as someone sent by God, but his belief didn’t grow into true faith. If it had, it might have led to a life dedicated to serving the Master. Later, when the chief priests and Pharisees criticized the officers they had sent to arrest Jesus—who returned empty-handed—Nicodemus, a member of the council, dared to speak up against the rulers’ intent to kill. He asked a simple question: "Does our law judge a man before hearing him and knowing what he does?" His colleagues responded with scorn, and he seems to have given up on his well-intentioned effort (John 7:50-53; see the previous verses 30-49). We next see him bringing a generous amount of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds, to use for the burial of Jesus’ crucified body. However, even in this act of generosity, where his sincere intention is hard to doubt, he was preceded by Joseph of Arimathea, a respected man, who boldly requested and secured the body for a respectful burial (John 19:38-42). Nevertheless, Nicodemus did more than most of his believing peers among the influential and elite, and he deserves recognition for that; he will not go without his reward.
9. "The Jews" or "A Jew."—We read that "there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying" (John 3:25). Bearing in mind that the expression "the Jews" is very commonly used by the author of the fourth Gospel to designate the officials or rulers among the people, the passage quoted may be understood to mean that the Baptist's disciples were engaged in disputation with the priestly rulers.[Pg 171] It is held, however, by Biblical scholars generally, that "the Jews" in this passage is a mistranslation, and that the true rendering is "a Jew." The disputation concerning purifying appears to have arisen between some of the Baptist's followers and a single opponent; and the passage as it appears in the King James version of the Bible is an instance of scripture not translated correctly.
9. "The Jews" or "A Jew."—We read that "there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying" (John 3:25). Keeping in mind that the term "the Jews" is often used by the author of the fourth Gospel to refer to the officials or leaders among the people, this passage can be understood to mean that the Baptist's disciples were having a debate with the priestly leaders.[Pg 171] However, most biblical scholars agree that "the Jews" in this passage is a mistranslation, and the correct translation is "a Jew." The debate about purification seems to have occurred between some of the Baptist's followers and a single opponent; and the way this passage appears in the King James version of the Bible serves as an example of scripture not being translated accurately.
10. Friend of the Bridegroom.—Judean marriage customs in the days of Christ required the appointing of a chief grooms-man, who attended to all the preliminaries and made arrangements for the marriage feast, in behalf of the bridegroom. He was distinctively known as the friend of the bridegroom. When the ceremonial requirements had been complied with, and the bride had been legally and formally given unto her spouse, the joy of the bridegroom's friend was fulfilled inasmuch as his appointed duties had been successfully discharged. (John 3:29.) According to Edersheim, (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 1, p. 148), by the simpler customs prevalent in Galilee a "friend of the bridegroom" was not often chosen; and (pp. 663-4) the expression "children of the bridechamber" (Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34, in all of which citations the expression is used by Jesus), was applied collectively to all the invited guests at a wedding festival. He says: "As the institution of 'friends of the bridegroom' prevailed in Judea, but not in Galilee, this marked distinction of the 'friend of the bridegroom' in the mouth of the Judean John, and 'sons (children) of the bridechamber' in that of the Galilean Jesus, is itself evidential of historic accuracy."
10. Friend of the Bridegroom.—Judean marriage customs in the days of Christ involved appointing a chief groomsman, who took care of all the preparations and organized the marriage feast on behalf of the bridegroom. He was specifically known as the friend of the bridegroom. Once the ceremonial requirements were met and the bride was formally given to her spouse, the joy of the bridegroom's friend was complete, as he had successfully fulfilled his duties. (John 3:29.) According to Edersheim, (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 1, p. 148), under the simpler customs in Galilee, a "friend of the bridegroom" was rarely appointed; and (pp. 663-4) the term "children of the bridechamber" (Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34, where Jesus uses the term) referred collectively to all the invited guests at a wedding celebration. He notes: "Since the role of 'friends of the bridegroom' was common in Judea but not in Galilee, this distinction—'friend of the bridegroom' used by the Judean John and 'sons (children) of the bridechamber' used by the Galilean Jesus—provides evidence of historical accuracy."
11. The Atonement Money.—In the course of the exodus, the Lord required of every male in Israel who was twenty years old or older at the time of a census the payment of a ransom, amounting to half a shekel (Exo. 30:12-16). See pages 383 and 396 herein. As to the use to which this money was to be put, the Lord thus directed Moses: "And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls" (Exo. 30:16; see also 38:25-31). In time, the tax of half a shekel, equivalent to a bekah (Exo. 38:26), was collected annually, though for this exaction no scriptural authority is of record. This tax must not be confused with the redemption money, amounting to five shekels for every firstborn male, the payment of which exempted the individual from service in the labors of the sanctuary. In place of the firstborn sons in all the tribes, the Lord designated the Levites for this special ministry; nevertheless He continued to hold the firstborn males as peculiarly His own, and required the payment of a ransom as a mark of their redemption from the duties of exclusive service. See Exo. 13:12, 13-15; Numb. 3:13, 40-51; 8:15-18; 18:15, 16; also pages 95, 96 herein.[Pg 172]
11. The Atonement Money.—During the exodus, the Lord required every male in Israel who was twenty years old or older at the time of a census to pay a ransom of half a shekel (Exo. 30:12-16). See pages 383 and 396 herein. Regarding the use of this money, the Lord instructed Moses: "You shall take the atonement money from the children of Israel and allocate it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; it shall serve as a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord, to atone for your souls" (Exo. 30:16; see also 38:25-31). Over time, the half-shekel tax, equivalent to a bekah (Exo. 38:26), was collected annually, although there is no scriptural authority recorded for this requirement. This tax should not be confused with the redemption money of five shekels for every firstborn male, which exempted the individual from service in the sanctuary. Instead of the firstborn sons from all the tribes, the Lord appointed the Levites for this special ministry; however, He still regarded the firstborn males as uniquely His own and required the payment of a ransom as a sign of their redemption from exclusive service duties. See Exo. 13:12, 13-15; Numb. 3:13, 40-51; 8:15-18; 18:15, 16; also pages 95, 96 herein.[Pg 172]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[345] Matt. 11:23; Luke 10:15.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 11:23; Luke 10:15.
[351] John 2:14-17.
John 2:14-17.
[352] Compare Psalm 69:9.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See Psalm 69:9.
[358] Mark 15:29, 30.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 15:29, 30.
[359] John 10:38; 17:21.
[362] As Canon Farrar has tersely written, "Unless the 'we remember' was a distinct falsehood, they could have been referring to no other occasion than this." ("Life of Christ," p. 155.)
[362] As Canon Farrar bluntly stated, "Unless the 'we remember' was a complete lie, they could only be talking about this moment." ("Life of Christ," p. 155.)
[363] John 2:23-25.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 2:23-25.
[364] John 3:1-21.
[366] John 3:2; read verses 1-21.
[367] Numb. 21:7-9.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Num. 21:7-9.
[369] John 3:22; compare 4:2.
[370] Matt. 4:17; compare Mark 1:15.
[372] John 3:25-36.
[374] John 3:27-36.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 3:27-36.
[375] Matt. 11:11.
[376] Luke 3:2,3.
[377] Matt. 14:3-12.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 14:3-12.
[378] Matt. 4:12.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 4:12.
CHAPTER 13.
HONORED BY STRANGERS, REJECTED BY HIS OWN.
JESUS AND THE SAMARITAN WOMAN.
The direct route from Judea to Galilee lay through Samaria; but many Jews, particularly Galileans, chose to follow an indirect though longer way rather than traverse the country of a people so despized by them as were the Samaritans. The ill-feeling between Jews and Samaritans had been growing for centuries, and at the time of our Lord's earthly ministry had developed into most intense hatred.[379] The inhabitants of Samaria were a mixed people, in whom the blood of Israel was mingled with that of the Assyrians and other nations; and one cause of the animosity existing between them and their neighbors both on the north and the south was the Samaritans' claim for recognition as Israelites; it was their boast that Jacob was their father; but this the Jews denied. The Samaritans had a version of the Pentateuch, which they revered as the law, but they rejected all the prophetical writings of what is now the Old Testament, because they considered themselves treated with insufficient respect therein.
The direct route from Judea to Galilee went through Samaria, but many Jews, especially Galileans, preferred to take a longer, indirect path instead of passing through a land inhabited by people they looked down upon, the Samaritans. The hostility between Jews and Samaritans had been building for centuries, and by the time of Jesus’ ministry, it had escalated into intense hatred.[379] The people living in Samaria were a mixed group, with their heritage combining the blood of Israel, Assyrians, and other nations. One reason for the animosity between them and their neighbors to the north and south was the Samaritans' claim to be recognized as Israelites; they proudly asserted that Jacob was their ancestor, a claim the Jews rejected. The Samaritans had their own version of the Pentateuch, which they held as their law, but they dismissed all the prophetic writings of what we now call the Old Testament, feeling that they were not given enough respect in those texts.
To the orthodox Jew of the time a Samaritan was more unclean than a Gentile of any other nationality. It is interesting to note the extreme and even absurd restrictions then in force in the matter of regulating unavoidable relations between the two peoples. The testimony of a Samaritan could not be heard before a Jewish tribunal. For a Jew to eat food prepared by a Samaritan was at one time regarded by rabbinical authority as an offense as great as that of eating[Pg 173] the flesh of swine. While it was admitted that produce from a field in Samaria was not unclean, inasmuch as it sprang directly from the soil, such produce became unclean if subjected to any treatment at Samaritan hands. Thus, grapes and grain might be purchased from Samaritans, but neither wine nor flour manufactured therefrom by Samaritan labor. On one occasion the epithet "Samaritan" was hurled at Christ as an intended insult. "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?"[380] The Samaritan conception of the mission of the expected Messiah was somewhat better founded than was that of the Jews, for the Samaritans gave greater prominence to the spiritual kingdom the Messiah would establish, and were less exclusive in their views as to whom the Messianic blessings would be extended.
To the Orthodox Jew of that time, a Samaritan was considered more unclean than any Gentile from other nationalities. It's interesting to note the extreme and even ridiculous restrictions that were in place regarding unavoidable interactions between the two groups. A Samaritan's testimony could not be heard in a Jewish court. For a Jew to eat food prepared by a Samaritan was once viewed by rabbinical authority as a sin as serious as eating pork.[Pg 173] While it was accepted that produce from Samaria was not impure since it came directly from the soil, it became unclean if handled by a Samaritan. Therefore, Jews could buy grapes and grain from Samaritans, but they could not use wine or flour made by Samaritan labor. At one point, the term "Samaritan" was thrown at Christ as an insult. "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?"[380] The Samaritan view of the Messiah's mission was somewhat more grounded than that of the Jews, as the Samaritans emphasized the spiritual kingdom the Messiah would create and were less exclusive about who would receive the Messianic blessings.
In His journey to Galilee Jesus took the shorter course, through Samaria; and doubtless His choice was guided by purpose, for we read that "He must needs go" that way.[381] The road led through or by the town called Sychar,[382] "near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph."[383] There was Jacob's well, which was held in high esteem, not only for its intrinsic worth as an unfailing source of water, but also because of its association with the great patriarch's life. Jesus, travel-warn and weary, rested at the well, while His disciples went to the town to buy food. A woman came to fill her water-jar, and Jesus said to her: "Give me to drink." By the rules of oriental hospitality then prevailing, a request for water was one that should never be denied if possible to grant; yet the woman hesitated, for she was amazed that a Jew should ask a favor of a Samaritan, however, great the need. She expressed her surprize in the question "How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me,[Pg 174] which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." Jesus, seemingly forgetful of thirst in His desire to teach, answered her by saving: "If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water." The woman reminded Him that He had no bucket or cord with which to draw from the deep well, and inquired further as to His meaning, adding: "Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?"
On His journey to Galilee, Jesus took the quicker route through Samaria, which was likely a purposeful choice, as it is stated that "He had to go" that way.[381] The road passed through or near a town called Sychar,[382] "close to the piece of land that Jacob gave to his son Joseph."[383] There was Jacob’s well, highly valued not only for its steady supply of water but also for its connection to the life of the great patriarch. Jesus, tired from travel, rested at the well while His disciples went into the town to buy food. A woman came to fill her water jar, and Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink." According to the customs of hospitality at that time, a request for water was one that should never be turned down if possible; however, the woman hesitated because she was surprised that a Jew would ask a Samaritan for a favor, no matter how great the need. She expressed her surprise by asking, "How is it that you, being a Jew, ask for a drink from me,[Pg 174] who am a Samaritan woman? For Jews do not associate with Samaritans." Jesus, seemingly forgetting His thirst in His eagerness to teach, replied, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that says to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." The woman pointed out that He had no bucket or rope to draw from the deep well and further questioned Him, asking, "Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, and his children and his livestock?"
Jesus found in the woman's words a spirit similar to that with which the scholarly Nicodemus had received His teachings; each failed alike to perceive the spiritual lesson He would impart. He explained to her that water from the well would be of but temporary benefit; to one who drank of it thirst would return. "But," he added, "whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." The woman's interest was keenly aroused, either from curiosity or as an emotion of deeper concern, for she now became the petitioner, and, addressing Him by a title of respect, said: "Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw." She could see nothing beyond the material advantage attaching to water that would once and for all quench thirst. The result of the draught she had in mind would be to give her immunity from one bodily need, and save her the labor of coming to draw from the well.
Jesus recognized in the woman's words a mindset similar to that of the educated Nicodemus, who had struggled to understand His teachings; both failed to grasp the spiritual lesson He wanted to share. He explained to her that the water from the well only offered temporary relief; anyone who drank it would only become thirsty again. "But," He added, "whoever drinks the water I give will never be thirsty again; the water I provide will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life." The woman's interest was piqued, either out of curiosity or a deeper concern, as she became the one asking for help. Addressing Him respectfully, she said, "Sir, give me this water so I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw." She could only see the practical advantage of having water that would permanently satisfy her thirst. The outcome she envisioned would free her from one physical need and save her the effort of collecting water from the well.
The subject of the conversation was abruptly changed by Jesus bidding her to go, call her husband, and return. To her reply that she had no husband Jesus revealed to her His superhuman powers of discernment, by telling her she had spoken truthfully, inasmuch as she had had five husbands, while the man with whom she was then living was not her[Pg 175] husband. Surely no ordinary being could have so read the unpleasing story of her life; she impulsively confessed her conviction, saying: "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet." She desired to turn the conversation, and, pointing to Mount Gerizim, upon which the sacrilegious priest Manasseh had erected a Samaritan temple, she remarked with little pertinence to what had been said before: "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." Jesus replied in yet deeper vein, telling her that the time was near when neither that mountain nor Jerusalem would be preeminently a place of worship; and He clearly rebuked her presumption that the traditional belief of the Samaritans was equally good with that of the Jews; for, said He: "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." Changed and corrupted as the Jewish religion had become, it was better than that of her people; for the Jews did accept the prophets, and through Judah the Messiah had come. But, as Jesus expounded the matter to her, the place of worship was of lesser importance than the spirit of the worshiper. "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
The topic of the conversation changed suddenly when Jesus told her to go fetch her husband and come back. When she said she had no husband, Jesus revealed His extraordinary ability to see into her life, telling her she spoke the truth because she had had five husbands, and the man she was currently living with wasn’t her husband. No ordinary person could have known such unflattering details about her life; she instinctively acknowledged this, saying, "Sir, I can tell you're a prophet." She wanted to change the subject, so she pointed to Mount Gerizim, where the priest Manasseh had built a Samaritan temple, and mentioned, somewhat off-topic, "Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that Jerusalem is the right place to worship." Jesus responded with a deeper insight, telling her that the time was coming when worship wouldn’t be restricted to that mountain or Jerusalem. He directly challenged her assumption that the Samaritans' beliefs were as valid as the Jews', saying, "You don’t know what you’re worshiping; we know what we worship, for salvation is from the Jews." Although the Jewish religion had become flawed and corrupt, it was still superior to hers because the Jews accepted the prophets, and through Judah, the Messiah had come. However, as Jesus explained, the location of worship mattered less than the attitude of the worshiper. "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
Unable or unwilling to understand Christ's meaning, the woman sought to terminate the lesson by a remark that probably was to her but casual: "I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things." Then, to her profound amazement, Jesus rejoined with the awe-inspiring declaration: "I that speak unto thee am he." The language was unequivocal, the assertion one that required no elucidation. The woman must regard Him thereafter as either an imposter or the Messiah. She left her pitcher at the well, and hastening to the town told of her experience, saying: "Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?"
Unable or unwilling to understand what Christ meant, the woman tried to end the conversation with a comment that was likely just casual for her: "I know that the Messiah is coming, the one called Christ; when he arrives, he will explain everything to us." Then, to her great surprise, Jesus responded with the powerful statement: "I who am talking to you am he." The message was clear, and his claim needed no explanation. From then on, the woman had to see Him as either a fraud or the Messiah. She left her water jug at the well and quickly ran to the town to share her experience, saying: "Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did: could this be the Christ?"
Near the conclusion of the interview between Jesus and[Pg 176] the woman, the returning disciples arrived with the provisions they had gone to procure. They marveled at finding the Master in conversation with a woman, and a Samaritan woman at that, yet none of them asked of Him an explanation. His manner must have impressed them with the seriousness and solemnity of the occasion. When they urged Him to eat He said: "I have meat to eat that ye know not of." To them His words had no significance beyond the literal sense, and they queried among themselves as to whether some one had brought Him food during their absence; but He enlightened them in this way: "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."
Near the end of the interview between Jesus and[Pg 176] the woman, the returning disciples came back with the supplies they had gone to get. They were surprised to see the Master talking with a woman, especially a Samaritan, but none of them asked Him for an explanation. His demeanor must have made them aware of the seriousness of the moment. When they urged Him to eat, He replied, "I have food to eat that you don’t know about." To them, His words didn’t mean anything beyond the literal interpretation, and they wondered among themselves if someone had brought Him food while they were away; but He clarified for them, "My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to complete His work."
A crowd of Samaritans appeared, coming from the city. Looking upon them and upon the grain fields nearby, Jesus continued: "Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest." The import of the saying seems to be that while months would elapse before the wheat and the barley were ready for the sickle, the harvest of souls, exemplified by the approaching crowd, was even then ready; and that from what He had sown the disciples might reap, to their inestimable advantage, since they would have wages for their hire and would gather the fruits of other labor than their own.
A crowd of Samaritans came from the city. Looking at them and the nearby fields, Jesus said, "Don't you say, 'There are still four months until the harvest'? I tell you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields; they are already white for harvest." The meaning behind this seems to be that while it would still be months before the wheat and barley were ready to be harvested, the harvest of souls, represented by the approaching crowd, was already ready. What He had sown would allow the disciples to reap benefits for themselves, as they would receive payment for their work and gather the results of someone else's labor.
Many of the Samaritans believed on Christ, at first on the strength of the woman's testimony, then because of their own conviction; and they said to the woman at whose behest they had at first gone to meet Him: "Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." Graciously He acceded to their request to remain, and tarried with them two days. It is beyond question that Jesus did not share in the national prejudice of the Jews against the people of Samaria; an honest soul was acceptable[Pg 177] to Him come whence he may. Probably the seed sown during this brief stay of our Lord among the despized people of Samaria was that from which so rich a harvest was reaped by the apostles in after years.[384]
Many of the Samaritans believed in Christ, initially because of the woman's testimony, and then because of their own conviction. They said to the woman who had first brought them to meet Him, "Now we believe, not just because of what you said; we have heard Him ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Christ, the Savior of the world." Graciously, He agreed to stay with them and spent two days there. It's clear that Jesus didn't share the Jewish prejudice against the Samaritans; to Him, an honest person was welcome no matter where they came from. It’s likely that the seeds planted during His brief stay among the despised people of Samaria led to a rich harvest reaped by the apostles in later years.[Pg 177][384]
JESUS AGAIN IN GALILEE: AT CANA AND NAZARETH.
Following the two days' sojourn among the Samaritans, Jesus, accompanied by the disciples who had traveled with Him from Judea, resumed the journey northward into Galilee, from which province He had been absent several months. Realizing that the people of Nazareth, the town in which He had been brought up, would be probably loath to acknowledge Him as other than the carpenter, or, as He stated, knowing that "a prophet hath no honour in his own country,"[385] He went first to Cana. The people of that section, and indeed the Galileans generally, received Him gladly; for many of them had attended the last Passover and probably had been personal witnesses of the wonders He had wrought in Judea. While at Cana He was visited by a nobleman, most likely a high official of the province, who entreated Him to proceed to Capernaum and heal his son, who was then lying at the point of death. With the probable design of showing the man the true condition of his mind, for we cannot doubt that Jesus could read his thoughts, our Lord said to him: "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe."[386] As observed in earlier instances, notably in the refusal of Jesus to commit Himself to the professing believers at Jerusalem, whose belief rested solely on their wonder at the things He did,[387] our Lord would not regard miracles, though wrought by Himself, as a sufficient and secure foundation for faith. The entreating nobleman, in anguish over the precarious state of his son, in no way[Pg 178] resented the rebuke such as a captious mind may have found in the Lord's reply; but with sincere humility, which showed his belief that Jesus could heal the boy, he renewed and emphasized his plea: "Sir, come down ere my child die."
After spending two days with the Samaritans, Jesus, along with the disciples who traveled with Him from Judea, continued His journey north into Galilee, where He had been away for several months. Knowing that the people of Nazareth, the town where He grew up, would probably be reluctant to see Him as anything more than the carpenter He was known to be, He mentioned that "a prophet has no honor in his own country." So, He decided to go to Cana first. The people there, and the Galileans in general, welcomed Him warmly; many had been at the last Passover and had likely witnessed the miracles He performed in Judea. While in Cana, a nobleman—likely a high-ranking official—came to Him and begged Him to go to Capernaum to heal his son, who was near death. To show the man the true state of his faith, as Jesus could read his thoughts, He said, "Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe." As seen in previous situations, like when Jesus refrained from fully committing to the professing believers in Jerusalem—whose faith relied only on their amazement at His works—He did not consider miracles, even those He performed, to be a solid foundation for faith. The desperate nobleman, worried about his son's critical condition, did not take offense at what might have seemed like a rebuke in Jesus' response. Instead, with genuine humility, which showed his belief that Jesus could heal his son, he repeated and stressed his plea: "Sir, please come down before my child dies."
Probably the man had never paused to reason as to the direct means or process by which death might be averted and healing be insured through the words of any being; but in his heart he believed in Christ's power, and with pathetic earnestness besought our Lord to intervene in behalf of his dying son. He seemed to consider it necessary that the Healer be present, and his great fear was that the boy would not live until Jesus could arrive. "Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way." The genuineness of the man's trust is shown by his grateful acceptance of the Lord's assurance, and by the contentment that he forthwith manifested. Capernaum, where his son lay, was about twenty miles away; had he been still solicitous and doubtful he would probably have tried to return home that day, for it was one o'clock in the afternoon when Jesus spoke the words that had given to him such relief; but he journeyed leisurely, for on the following day he was still on the road, and was met by some of his servants who had been sent to cheer him with the glad word of his son's recovery. He inquired when the boy had begun to amend, and was told that at the seventh hour on the yesterday the fever had left him. That was the time at which Christ had said, "Thy son liveth." The man's belief ripened fast, and both he and his household accepted the gospel.[388] This was the second miracle wrought by Jesus when in Cana, though in this instance the subject of the blessing was in Capernaum.
Probably the man had never stopped to think about how death could be avoided and healing ensured through the words of any being; but deep down, he believed in Christ's power and earnestly asked our Lord to help his dying son. He felt it was essential for the Healer to be present, and his biggest fear was that the boy wouldn’t survive until Jesus could get there. "Jesus said to him, 'Go your way; your son lives.' And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken to him, and he went on his way." The authenticity of the man’s faith is shown by his grateful acceptance of the Lord’s assurance and the peace he immediately showed. Capernaum, where his son lay, was about twenty miles away; had he still been anxious and uncertain, he would likely have tried to return home that day, since it was one o'clock in the afternoon when Jesus spoke the words that brought him such relief. But he traveled at a relaxed pace, and by the next day, he was still on the road when some of his servants met him to share the joyful news of his son's recovery. He asked when the boy had started to get better, and they told him that at seven o'clock yesterday, the fever had left him. That was the exact time Christ had said, "Your son lives." The man’s belief grew quickly, and both he and his household accepted the gospel.[388] This was the second miracle Jesus performed in Cana, although in this case, the recipient of the blessing was in Capernaum.
Our Lord's fame spread through all the region round about. During a period not definitely stated, He taught in the synagogs of the towns and was received with favor,[Pg 179] being glorified of all.[389] He then returned to Nazareth, His former home, and as was his custom, attended the synagog on the Sabbath day. Many times as boy and man He had sat in that house of worship, listening to the reading of the law and the prophets and to the commentaries or Targums[390] relating thereto, as delivered by appointed readers; but now, as a recognized teacher of legal age He was eligible to take the reader's place. On this occasion He stood up to read, when the service had reached the stage at which extracts from the prophetical books were to be read to the congregation. The minister in charge handed Him the roll, or book, of Isaiah; He turned to the part known to us as the beginning of the sixty-first chapter, and read: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord."[391] Handing the book to the minister, He sat down. It was allowable for the reader in the service of the Jewish synagog to make comments in explanation of what had been read; but to do so he must sit. When Jesus took His seat the people knew that He was about to expound the text, and "the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him." The scripture He had quoted was one recognized by all classes as specifically referring to the Messiah, for whose coming the nation waited. The first sentence of our Lord's commentary was startling; it involved no labored analysis, no scholastic interpretation, but a direct and unambiguous application: "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." There was such graciousness in His words that all wondered, and they said, "Is not this Joseph's son?"[392]
Our Lord's reputation spread throughout the region. For an unspecified time, He taught in the synagogues of various towns and was welcomed with favor, being praised by everyone. He then returned to Nazareth, His hometown, and, as was His custom, attended the synagogue on the Sabbath. Many times, both as a boy and as a man, He had sat in that place of worship, listening to the readings of the law and the prophets, along with the commentaries or Targums related to them, delivered by designated readers. But now, as a recognized teacher of legal age, He was eligible to take the reader's place. On this occasion, when the service reached the point where extracts from the prophetic books were to be read to the congregation, the minister in charge handed Him the scroll or book of Isaiah. He turned to what we know as the beginning of the sixty-first chapter and read: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives, and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Handing the book back to the minister, He sat down. It was customary for the reader in a Jewish synagogue to offer comments explaining what had been read, but he had to be seated to do so. When Jesus took His seat, the people knew He was about to explain the text, and "the eyes of all those in the synagogue were focused on Him." The scripture He quoted was recognized by all as specifically referring to the Messiah, for whom the nation was waiting. The first sentence of our Lord's commentary was surprising; it did not include a complicated analysis or scholarly interpretation but was a direct and clear statement: "This day, this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." There was such grace in His words that everyone was amazed, and they said, "Isn't this Joseph's son?"
Jesus knew their thoughts even if He heard not their words, and, forestalling their criticism, He said: "Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country." In their hearts the people were eager for a sign, a wonder, a miracle. They knew that Jesus had wrought such in Cana, and a boy in Capernaum had been healed by His word; at Jerusalem too He had astonished the people with mighty works. Were they, His townsmen, to be slighted? Why would He not treat them to some entertaining exhibition of His powers? He continued His address, reminding them that in the days of Elijah, when for three years and a half no rain had fallen, and famine had reigned, the prophet had been sent to but one of the many widows, and she a woman of Sarepta in Sidon, a Gentile, not a daughter of Israel. And again, though there had been many lepers in Israel in the days of Elisha, but one leper, and he a Syrian, not an Israelite, had been cleansed through the prophet's ministration, for Naaman alone had manifested the requisite faith.
Jesus knew what they were thinking even if He didn't hear their words, and anticipating their criticism, He said: "You will definitely say to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself: what we heard you did in Capernaum, do also here in your hometown.' And He said, truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in his own hometown." In their hearts, the people were eager for a sign, a wonder, a miracle. They knew that Jesus had performed such things in Cana, and a boy in Capernaum had been healed by His word; in Jerusalem too, He had amazed the people with mighty works. Were they, His fellow townspeople, to be ignored? Why wouldn't He show them some impressive display of His powers? He continued His speech, reminding them that during the days of Elijah, when it hadn't rained for three and a half years and famine was widespread, the prophet had been sent to only one of the many widows, and she was a woman from Sarepta in Sidon, a Gentile, not an Israelite. And again, although there had been many lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha, only one leper, and he was a Syrian, not an Israelite, had been healed through the prophet's help, for Naaman alone had shown the necessary faith.
Then great was their wrath. Did He dare to class them with Gentiles and lepers? Were they to be likened unto despized unbelievers, and that too by the son of the village carpenter, who had grown from childhood in their community? Victims of diabolical rage, they seized the Lord and took Him to the brow of the hill on the slopes of which the town was built, determined to avenge their wounded feelings by hurling Him from the rocky cliffs. Thus early in His ministry did the forces of opposition attain murderous intensity. But our Lord's time to die had not yet come. The infuriated mob was powerless to go one step farther than their supposed victim would permit. "But he passing through the midst of them went his way." Whether they were overawed by the grace of His presence, silenced by the[Pg 181] power of His words, or stayed by some more appalling intervention, we are not informed. He departed from the unbelieving Nazarenes, and thenceforth Nazareth was no longer His home.
Then their anger was intense. How dare He compare them to Gentiles and lepers? Were they really being likened to despised unbelievers, especially by the son of the local carpenter who had grown up among them? Consumed by rage, they grabbed the Lord and took Him to the edge of the hill where the town was built, intent on getting revenge for their hurt feelings by throwing Him off the rocky cliffs. So early in His ministry, the forces of opposition reached a murderous level. But it wasn't yet His time to die. The furious mob couldn't go any further than what He allowed. "But He passing through the midst of them went His way." Whether they were awed by His grace, silenced by the power of His words, or held back by some other unsettling force, we don't know. He left the unbelieving Nazarenes, and from then on, Nazareth was no longer His home.
IN CAPERNAUM.
Jesus wended His way to Capernaum,[393] which became to Him as nearly a place of abode as any He had in Galilee. There He taught, particularly on Sabbath days; and the people were astonished at His doctrine, for He spoke with authority and power.[394] In the synagog, on one of these occasions, was a man who was a victim of possession, and subject to the ravages of an evil spirit, or, as the text so forcefully states, one who "had a spirit of an unclean devil." It is significant that this wicked spirit, which had gained such power over the man as to control his actions and utterances, was terrified before our Lord and cried out with a loud voice, though pleadingly: "Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God." Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, commanding him to be silent, and to leave the man; the demon obeyed the Master, and after throwing the victim into violent though harmless paroxysm, left him. Such a miracle caused the beholders to wonder the more, and they exclaimed: "What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out. And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about."[395]
Jesus made His way to Capernaum,[393] which became as close to a home as He had in Galilee. There, He taught, especially on Sabbath days, and the people were amazed at His teachings because He spoke with authority and power.[394] In the synagogue, on one of these occasions, there was a man possessed by an evil spirit, or as the text describes it, one who "had a spirit of an unclean devil." It’s notable that this evil spirit, which had gained so much power over the man that it controlled his actions and words, was frightened in front of our Lord and shouted out loudly, almost begging: "Leave us alone; what do we have to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are; the Holy One of God." Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, ordering it to be quiet and to leave the man; the demon obeyed Him, and after violently shaking the victim but doing no harm, it left him. This miracle amazed everyone present, and they exclaimed: "What is this message! For with authority and power, He commands the unclean spirits, and they come out. And news about Him spread throughout the surrounding countryside."[395]
In the evening of the same day, when the sun had set, and therefore after the Sabbath had passed[396], the people flocked about Him, bringing their afflicted friends and kindred;[Pg 182] and these Jesus healed of their divers maladies whether of body or of mind. Among those so relieved were many who had been possessed of devils, and these cried out, testifying perforce of the Master's divine authority: "Thou art Christ the Son of God."[397]
In the evening of the same day, after the sun had set and the Sabbath was over[396], people gathered around Him, bringing their sick friends and family;[Pg 182] and Jesus healed them of their various ailments, both physical and mental. Among those He helped were many who had been possessed by demons, and they shouted out, acknowledging the Master's divine power: "You are Christ, the Son of God."[397]
On these as on other occasions, we find evil spirits voicing through the mouths of their victims their knowledge that Jesus was the Christ; and in all such instances the Lord silenced them with a word; for He wanted no such testimony as theirs to attest the fact of His Godship. Those spirits were of the devil's following, members of the rebellious and defeated hosts that had been cast down through the power of the very Being whose authority and power they now acknowledged in their demoniac frenzy. Together with Satan himself, their vanquished chief, they remained unembodied, for to all of them the privileges of the second or mortal estate had been denied;[398] their remembrance of the scenes that had culminated in their expulsion from heaven was quickened by the presence of the Christ, though He stood in a body of flesh.
On this and other occasions, we see evil spirits speaking through their victims, acknowledging that Jesus was the Christ. In each of these cases, the Lord silenced them with a word because He didn’t want testimonies like theirs to affirm His divinity. Those spirits followed the devil, part of the defeated ranks cast down by the very Being whose authority and power they now admitted in their demonic rage. Along with Satan, their vanquished leader, they remained disembodied, as they were denied the privileges of the second or mortal state; their memories of the events that led to their expulsion from heaven were stirred by the presence of Christ, even though He was in a physical body.
Many modern writers have attempted to explain the phenomenon of demoniacal possession; and beside these there are not a few who deny the possibility of actual domination of the victim by spirit personages. Yet the scriptures are explicit in showing the contrary. Our Lord distinguished between this form of affliction and that of simple bodily disease in His instructions to the Twelve: "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils."[399] In the account of the incidents under consideration, the evangelist Mark observes the same distinction, thus: "They brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils." In several instances, Christ, in rebuking demons, addressed them as individuals distinct from[Pg 183] the human being afflicted,[400] and in one such instance commanded the demon to "come out of him, and enter no more into him."[401]
Many contemporary writers have tried to explain the phenomenon of demonic possession, and there are also quite a few who deny that a person can actually be dominated by spirit beings. However, the scriptures clearly indicate the opposite. Our Lord made a distinction between this type of affliction and regular physical illness in His guidance to the Twelve: "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils."[399] In the account of the events being discussed, the evangelist Mark notes the same difference: "They brought to him all who were sick, and those who were possessed by demons." In several instances, Christ, while rebuking demons, referred to them as individuals separate from[Pg 183] the person affected,[400] and in one case specifically commanded the demon to "come out of him, and enter no more into him."[401]
In this matter as in others the simplest explanation is the pertinent truth; theory raised on other than scriptural foundation is unstable. Christ unequivocally associated demons with Satan, specifically in His comment on the report of the Seventy whom He authorized and sent forth, and who testified with joy on their return that even the devils had been subject unto them through His name; and to those faithful servants He said: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."[402] The demons that take possession of men, overruling their agency and compelling them to obey Satanic bidding, are the unembodied angels of the devil, whose triumph it is to afflict mortals, and if possible to impel them to sin. To gain for themselves the transitory gratification of tenanting a body of flesh, these demons are eager to enter even into the bodies of beasts.[403]
In this matter, as in others, the simplest explanation is the relevant truth; theories based on anything other than scripture are shaky. Christ clearly linked demons to Satan, especially in His response to the report of the Seventy He had sent out, who joyfully testified upon their return that even the demons had been subject to them in His name; to those loyal servants, He said: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."[402] The demons that take control of people, overriding their free will and forcing them to obey Satan's commands, are the disembodied angels of the devil, whose goal is to torment humans and, if possible, lead them to sin. To achieve the temporary pleasure of occupying a physical body, these demons are eager to enter even the bodies of animals.[403]
Possibly it was during the interval between the rebuking of the evil spirit in the synagog and the miracles of healing and casting out devils in the evening of that Sabbath, that Jesus went to the house of Simon, whom He had before named Peter, and there found the mother-in-law of His disciple lying ill of fever. Acceding to the request of faith He rebuked the disease; the woman was healed forthwith, rose from her bed, and ministered the hospitality of her home unto Jesus and those who were with Him.[404]
Possibly it was during the time between the rebuke of the evil spirit in the synagogue and the miracles of healing and casting out demons that evening on that Sabbath when Jesus went to Simon's house, the guy He had previously named Peter. There, He found Peter's mother-in-law seriously ill with a fever. Responding to the request made with faith, He rebuked the illness; the woman was immediately healed, got up from her bed, and began to serve Jesus and those with Him. [404]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 13.
1. Animosity Between Jews and Samaritans.—In any consideration of the Samaritans, it must be kept in mind that a certain city and the district or province in which it was situated were both known as Samaria. The principal facts pertaining to[Pg 184] the origin of the Samaritans and the explanation of the mutual animosity existing between that people and the Jews in the time of Christ, have been admirably summarized by Geikie (Life and Words of Christ, vol. i, pp. 495-6). Omitting his citation of authorities, we quote: "After the deportation of the Ten Tribes to Assyria, Samaria had been repeopled by heathen colonists from various provinces of the Assyrian empire, by fugitives from the authorities of Judea, and by stragglers of one or other of the Ten Tribes, who found their way home again. The first heathen settlers, terrified at the increase of wild animals, especially lions, and attributing it to their not knowing the proper worship of the God of the country, sent for one of the exiled priests, and, under his instructions, added the worship of Jehovah to that of their idols—an incident in their history from which later Jewish hatred and derision taunted them as 'proselytes of the lions,' as it branded them, from their Assyrian origin, with the name of Cuthites. Ultimately, however, they became even more rigidly attached to the Law of Moses than the Jews themselves. Anxious to be recognized as Israelites, they set their hearts on joining the Two Tribes, on their return from captivity, but the stern Puritanism of Ezra and Nehemiah admitted no alliance between the pure blood of Jerusalem and the tainted race of the north. Resentment at this affront was natural, and excited resentment in return, till, in Christ's day, centuries of strife and mutual injury, intensified by theological hatred on both sides, had made them implacable enemies. The Samaritans had built a temple on Mount Gerizim, to rival that of Jerusalem, but it had been destroyed by John Hyrcanus, who had also levelled Samaria to the ground. They claimed for their mountain a greater holiness than that of Moriah; accused the Jews of adding to the word of God, by receiving the writings of the prophets, and prided themselves on owning only the Pentateuch as inspired; favoured Herod because the Jews hated him, and were loyal to him and the equally hated Romans; had kindled false lights on the hills, to vitiate the Jewish reckoning by the new moons, and thus throw their feasts into confusion, and, in the early youth of Jesus, had even defiled the very Temple itself, by strewing human bones in it, at the Passover.
1. Animosity Between Jews and Samaritans.—When discussing the Samaritans, it’s important to remember that a city and the surrounding area were both called Samaria. The key points about the origin of the Samaritans and the reasons behind the mutual animosity between them and the Jews during the time of Christ have been well summarized by Geikie (Life and Words of Christ, vol. i, pp. 495-6). Without citing his sources, we note: "After the Ten Tribes were deported to Assyria, Samaria was repopulated by pagan settlers from different regions of the Assyrian empire, by refugees from Judea, and by members of the Ten Tribes who managed to return home. The first pagan settlers, scared by the rise of wild animals, particularly lions, and believing it was due to their lack of proper worship of the country’s God, brought back an exiled priest for guidance. Following his direction, they combined the worship of Jehovah with that of their idols—an event in their history that later earned them mockery from the Jews, who referred to them as 'proselytes of the lions' and labeled them Cuthites due to their Assyrian ancestry. However, over time, they became even more devoted to the Law of Moses than the Jews themselves. Eager to be recognized as Israelites, they sought to join the Two Tribes upon their return from exile, but the strict standards of Ezra and Nehemiah excluded any alliance between the pure line of Jerusalem and the mixed-race people of the north. It was natural for them to feel resentment over this slight, which only fueled further animosity, until, in Christ’s day, centuries of conflict and mutual harm, heightened by theological hatred, made them fierce enemies. The Samaritans constructed a temple on Mount Gerizim to rival Jerusalem’s, which had been destroyed by John Hyrcanus, who also leveled Samaria. They claimed their mountain was more holy than Moriah, accused the Jews of adding to God’s word by accepting the writings of the prophets, and prided themselves on only recognizing the Pentateuch as inspired. They supported Herod because of the Jews' hatred toward him, and were loyal to him and the equally despised Romans; they even lit false signals on the hills to disrupt the Jewish calendar for the new moons, causing confusion for their festivals, and during Jesus’ early years, they defiled the Temple by scattering human bones inside it during Passover.
"Nor had hatred slumbered on the side of the Jews. They knew the Samaritans only as Cuthites, or heathens from Cuth. 'The race that I hate is no race,' says the son of Sirach. It was held that a people who once had worshipped five gods could have no part in Jehovah. The claim of the Samaritans that Moses had buried the Tabernacle and its vessels on the top of Gerizim, was laughed to scorn. It was said that they had dedicated their temple, under Antiochus Epiphanes, to the Greek Jupiter. Their keeping the commands of Moses even more strictly than the Jews, that it might seem they were really of Israel, was not denied; but their heathenism, it was said, had been proved by the discovery of a brazen dove, which they worshipped, on the top of Gerizim. It would have been enough that they boasted of Herod as their good king, who had married a daughter of their people; that he had been free to follow, in[Pg 185] their country, his Roman tastes, so hated in Judea; that they had remained quiet, after his death, when Judea and Galilee were in uproar, and that for their peacefulness a fourth of their taxes had been remitted and added to the burdens of Judea. Their friendliness to the Romans was an additional provocation. While the Jews were kept quiet only by the sternest severity, and strove to the utmost against the introduction of anything foreign, the Samaritans rejoiced in the new importance which their loyalty to the empire had given them. Shechem flourished: close by, in Cæsarea, the procurator held his court: a division of cavalry, in barracks at Sebaste—the old Samaria—had been raised in the territory. The Roman strangers were more than welcome to while away the summer in their umbrageous valleys.
"Nor had hatred rested on the side of the Jews. They knew the Samaritans only as Cuthites, or pagans from Cuth. 'The race that I hate is no race,' says the son of Sirach. It was believed that a people who had worshipped five gods could have no connection to Jehovah. The Samaritans’ claim that Moses had buried the Tabernacle and its vessels on top of Gerizim was laughed at. It was said they had dedicated their temple, under Antiochus Epiphanes, to the Greek Jupiter. Their strict adherence to the commands of Moses, even more so than the Jews, which made it seem they were truly part of Israel, was acknowledged; but it was claimed their paganism was proven by the discovery of a bronze dove, which they worshipped, on top of Gerizim. It was already problematic that they boasted about Herod as their good king, who had married a daughter of their people; that he had been able to pursue his Roman interests, so despised in Judea, while in their land; that they had remained calm after his death, when Judea and Galilee were in turmoil, and that their peacefulness led to a quarter of their taxes being reduced and shifted to the burdens of Judea. Their friendliness toward the Romans was an extra irritation. While the Jews were kept in line only by the strictest measures and fought hard against any foreign influences, the Samaritans reveled in the new significance their loyalty to the empire had brought them. Shechem thrived: nearby, in Cæsarea, the procurator held his court; a cavalry unit, stationed at Sebaste—the old Samaria—had been established in the area. The Roman newcomers were more than welcome to spend the summer in their shaded valleys."
"The illimitable hatred, rising from so many sources, found vent in the tradition that a special curse had been uttered against the Samaritans, by Ezra, Zerubbabel, and Joshua. It was said that these great ones assembled the whole congregation of Israel in the Temple, and that three hundred priests, with three hundred trumpets, and three hundred books of the Law, and three hundred scholars of the Law, had been employed to repeat, amidst the most solemn ceremonial, all the curses of the Law against the Samaritans. They had been subjected to every form of excommunication; by the incommunicable name of Jehovah; by the Tables of the Law, and by the heavenly and earthly synagogues. The very name became a reproach. 'We know that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil,' said the Jews, to Jesus, in Jerusalem.... A Samaritan egg, as the hen laid it, could not be unclean, but what of a boiled egg? Yet interest and convenience strove, by subtle casuistry, to invent excuses for what intercourse was unavoidable. The country of the Cuthites was clean, so that a Jew might, without scruple, gather and eat its produce. The waters of Samaria were clean, so that a Jew might drink them or wash in them. Their dwellings were clean, so that he might enter them, and eat or lodge in them. Their roads were clean, so that the dust of them did not defile a Jew's feet. The Rabbis even went so far in their contradictory utterances, as to say that the victuals of the Cuthites were allowed, if none of their wine or vinegar were mixed with them, and even their unleavened bread was to be reckoned fit for use at the Passover. Opinions thus wavered, but, as a rule, harsher feeling prevailed."
The endless hatred, coming from so many sources, was expressed through the tradition that Ezra, Zerubbabel, and Joshua had pronounced a special curse against the Samaritans. It was said that these notable figures gathered the entire congregation of Israel in the Temple, where three hundred priests, three hundred trumpets, three hundred copies of the Law, and three hundred scholars of the Law were involved in solemnly reciting all the curses of the Law directed at the Samaritans. They were subjected to every possible form of excommunication; by the sacred name of Jehovah; by the Tables of the Law, and by both the heavenly and earthly synagogues. The very name became a disgrace. "We know that you are a Samaritan and have a demon,” the Jews said to Jesus in Jerusalem. A Samaritan egg, as laid by the hen, couldn’t be unclean, but what about a boiled egg? Yet necessity and convenience tried, through clever arguments, to find excuses for unavoidable contact. The land of the Cuthites was considered clean, so a Jew could gather and eat its produce without hesitation. The waters of Samaria were clean, allowing a Jew to drink them or wash in them. Their homes were clean, so he could enter them and eat or stay there. Their roads were clean, meaning their dust didn’t defile a Jew’s feet. The Rabbis even went as far as to say that food from the Cuthites was acceptable if none of their wine or vinegar was mixed in, and even their unleavened bread was considered fit for Passover. Opinions varied, but generally, harsher sentiments prevailed.
That the hostile sentiment has continued unto this day, at least on the part of the Jews, is affirmed by Frankl and others. Thus, as quoted by Farrar (p. 166 note): "'Are you a Jew?' asked Salameh Cohen, the Samaritan high priest, of Dr. Frankl; 'and do you come to us, the Samaritans, who are despised by the Jews?' (Jews in the East, ii, 329). He added that they would willingly live in friendship with the Jews, but that the Jews avoided all intercourse with them. Soon after, visiting Sepharedish Jews of Nablous, Dr. Frankl asked one of that sect, 'if he had any intercourse with the Samaritans?' The women retreated with a cry of horror, and one of them said, 'Have you been[Pg 186] among the worshipers of the pigeons?' I said that I had. The women again fell back with the same expression of repugnance and one of them said, 'Take a purifying bath!'" (idem, p. 334). Canon Farrar adds, "I had the pleasure of spending a day among the Samaritans encamped on Mount Gerizim, for their annual passover, and neither in their habits nor apparent character could I see any cause for all this horror and hatred."
The ongoing hostile feelings persist to this day, particularly among the Jews, as noted by Frankl and others. As quoted by Farrar (p. 166 note): "'Are you a Jew?' asked Salameh Cohen, the Samaritan high priest, of Dr. Frankl; 'and do you come to us, the Samaritans, who are looked down upon by the Jews?' (Jews in the East, ii, 329). He mentioned that they would happily live in friendship with the Jews, but the Jews avoided any interaction with them. Shortly after, when visiting Sephardic Jews in Nablous, Dr. Frankl asked a member of that group if he had any contact with the Samaritans. The women recoiled in horror, and one of them said, 'Have you been among the worshipers of the pigeons?' I replied that I had. The women again stepped back with the same look of disgust, and one of them exclaimed, 'Take a purifying bath!'" (idem, p. 334). Canon Farrar added, "I had the pleasure of spending a day among the Samaritans camped on Mount Gerizim for their annual Passover, and in their customs or evident character, I found no reason for all this fear and animosity."
2. Sychar.—The town where dwelt the Samaritan woman with whom Jesus conversed at Jacob's well, is named Sychar in John 4:5; the name occurs nowhere else in the Bible. Attempts have been made to identify the place with Shechem, a city dear to the Jewish heart because of its prominence in connection with the lives of the early patriarchs. It is now generally admitted, however, that Sychar was a small village on the site of the present Askar, which is, says Zenos, "a village with a spring and some ancient rock-hewn tombs, about five eighths of a mile north of Jacob's well."
2. Sychar.—The town where the Samaritan woman talked with Jesus at Jacob's well is called Sychar in John 4:5; this name doesn't appear anywhere else in the Bible. Some have tried to link this place to Shechem, a city that holds a special place in Jewish history because of its importance to the early patriarchs. However, it's now commonly accepted that Sychar was a small village where Askar is located today, which Zenos describes as "a village with a spring and some ancient rock-cut tombs, about five-eighths of a mile north of Jacob's well."
3. The Nobleman of Capernaum.—The name of the nobleman whose son was healed by the word of Jesus is not given. Attempts to identify him with Chuza, the steward of Herod Antipas, are based on unreliable tradition. The family of the nobleman accepted the teachings of Christ. "Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward" (Luke 8:3) was among the grateful and honorable women who had been recipients of our Lord's healing ministry, and who contributed of their substance for the furtherance of His work. Unconfirmed tradition should not be confounded with authentic history.
3. The Nobleman of Capernaum.—The name of the nobleman whose son was healed by Jesus is not mentioned. Efforts to link him to Chuza, the steward of Herod Antipas, rely on unreliable traditions. The nobleman's family embraced Christ's teachings. "Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward" (Luke 8:3) was among the thankful and respected women who received healing from our Lord and who supported His work with their resources. Unverified traditions should not be mixed up with genuine history.
4. The Targums are ancient Jewish paraphrases on the scriptures, which were delivered in the synagogs in the languages of the common people. In the time of Christ the language spoken by the Jews was not Hebrew, but an Aramaic dialect. Edersheim states that pure Hebrew was the language of scholars and of the synagog, and that the public readings from the scriptures had to be rendered by an interpreter. "In earliest times indeed," says he, "it was forbidden to the Methurgeman [interpreter] to read his translation, or to write down a Targum, lest the paraphrase should be regarded as of equal authority with the original." The use of written targums was "authoritatively sanctioned before the end of the second century after Christ. This is the origin of our two oldest extant Targumim—that of Onkelos (as it is called) on the Pentateuch; and that on the Prophets, attributed to Jonathan the son of Uzziel. These names do not indeed, accurately represent the authorship of the oldest Targumim, which may more correctly be regarded as later and authoritative recensions of what, in some form, had existed before. But although these works had their origin in Palestine, it is noteworthy that in the form in which at present we possess them, they are the outcome of the schools of Babylon." (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i, pp. 10, 11.)
4. The Targums are ancient Jewish paraphrases of the scriptures that were shared in synagogues in the everyday languages of the people. During the time of Christ, Jews spoke not Hebrew, but a dialect of Aramaic. Edersheim points out that pure Hebrew was the language of scholars and the synagogue, and that public readings of the scriptures required an interpreter. "In the earliest times," he says, "it was forbidden for the Methurgeman [interpreter] to read his translation or to write down a Targum, so that the paraphrase wouldn't be seen as having equal authority as the original." The use of written Targums was "officially approved before the end of the second century after Christ." This is the origin of our two oldest surviving Targumim—the one by Onkelos on the Pentateuch and the one on the Prophets, attributed to Jonathan the son of Uzziel. These names do not precisely indicate the authorship of the oldest Targumim, which can be more accurately viewed as later and authoritative revisions of what had existed before in some form. However, even though these works originated in Palestine, it is significant that, in the form we currently have them, they are the result of the schools of Babylon." (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i, pp. 10, 11.)
5. Capernaum.—"The name Capernaum signifies, according to some authorities, 'the Village of Nahum,' according to others, 'the Village of Consolation.' As we follow the history of Jesus[Pg 187] we shall discover that many of His mighty works were wrought, and many of His most impressive words were spoken in Capernaum. The infidelity of the inhabitants, after all the discourses and wonderful works which He had done among them, brought out the saying of Jesus, 'And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be cast down to hell.' (Matt. 11:23.) So thoroughly has this prediction been fulfilled that no trace of the city remains, and the very site which it occupied is now a matter of conjecture, there being even no ecclesiastical tradition of the locality. At the present day two spots have claims which are urged, each with such arguments of probability as to make the whole question the most difficult in sacred topography.... We shall probably never be able to know the exact fact. Jesus damned it to oblivion, and there it lies. We shall content ourselves with the New Testament notices as bearing on the work of Jesus.
5. Capernaum.—"Capernaum means, according to some experts, 'the Village of Nahum,' and according to others, 'the Village of Consolation.' As we look into the history of Jesus[Pg 187], we’ll find that He performed many of His greatest miracles and spoke some of His most powerful messages in Capernaum. The disbelief of the people, despite all His teachings and amazing works among them, led to Jesus saying, 'And you, Capernaum, which are exalted to heaven, shall be brought down to hell.' (Matt. 11:23.) This prediction has been so completely fulfilled that no trace of the city remains, and the exact location it stood is now merely a guess, with no official tradition pointing to its site. Today, there are two locations claimed to be Capernaum, each supported by arguments that make this issue one of the most challenging in sacred geography.... We may never know the exact truth. Jesus condemned it to oblivion, and that’s where it remains. We’ll be satisfied with the New Testament accounts in relation to the work of Jesus.
"We learn that it was somewhere on the borders of Zabulun and Nephtali, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, (compare Matt 4:13, with John 6:24). It was near or in 'the land of Gennesaret' (compare Matt 14:34, with John 6:17, 21, 24), a plain about three miles long and one mile wide, which we learn from Josephus was one of the most prosperous and crowded districts of Palestine. It was probably on the great road leading from Damascus to the south, 'by the way of the sea,' (Matt. 4:15.) There was great wisdom in selecting this as a place to open a great public ministry. It was full of a busy population. The exceeding richness of the wonderful plain of Gennesaret supported the mass of inhabitants it attracted. Josephus (B. J., iii, 10:8) gives a glowing description of this land."—Deems Light of the Nations, pp. 167, 168.
"We learn that it was located somewhere on the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, (compare Matt 4:13, with John 6:24). It was near or in 'the land of Gennesaret' (compare Matt 14:34, with John 6:17, 21, 24), a plain about three miles long and one mile wide, which Josephus described as one of the most prosperous and crowded areas in Palestine. It was probably along the main road that led from Damascus to the south, 'by the way of the sea,' (Matt. 4:15.) There was great wisdom in choosing this location to start a major public ministry. It was bustling with a busy population. The incredible fertility of the beautiful plain of Gennesaret supported the large number of people it attracted. Josephus (B. J., iii, 10:8) gives a glowing description of this land."—Deems Light of the Nations, pp. 167, 168.
6. Knowledge Does Not Insure Salvation.—James of old chided his brethren for certain empty professions (James 2:19). Said he in effect: You take pride and satisfaction in declaring your belief in God; you boast of being distinguished from the idolaters and the heathen because you accept one God; you do well to so profess, and so believe; but, remember, others do likewise; even the devils believe; and, we may add, so firmly that they tremble at thought of the fate which that belief makes sure. Those confessions of the devils, that Christ was the Son of God, were founded on knowledge; yet their knowledge of the great truth did not change their evil natures. How different was their acknowledgment of the Savior from that of Peter, who, to the Master's question "Whom say ye that I am?" replied in practically the words used by the unclean spirits before cited, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:15-16; see also Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). Peter's faith had already shown its vital power; it had caused him to forsake much that had been dear, to follow his Lord through persecution and suffering, and to put away worldliness with all its fascinations, for the sacrificing godliness which his faith made so desirable. His knowledge of God as the Father, and of the Son as the Redeemer, was perhaps no greater than that of the unclean spirits; but while to them that knowledge was but an added cause of condemnation, to him it was a means of salvation.—Abridged from The Articles of Faith.[Pg 188]
6. Knowledge Does Not Insure Salvation.—James once warned his fellow believers about empty declarations (James 2:19). He effectively said: You take pride in claiming your belief in God; you boast about being different from idol worshipers and pagans because you believe in one God; that’s good for you; but remember, others do the same; even demons believe; and we can add, they believe so strongly that they tremble at the thought of the consequences that belief brings. The demons’ confession that Christ was the Son of God was based on knowledge; yet knowing this truth didn’t change their wicked nature. Their recognition of the Savior was very different from Peter's. When asked by the Master "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered almost exactly as the unclean spirits had, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:15-16; see also Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). Peter's faith had already demonstrated its power; it drove him to leave behind precious things, to follow his Lord through persecution and suffering, and to turn away from worldly distractions for the sake of the godliness that his faith made appealing. His understanding of God as the Father and the Son as the Redeemer might not have been greater than that of the unclean spirits; but while that knowledge brought them deeper condemnation, for Peter, it was a path to salvation.—Abridged from The Articles of Faith.[Pg 188]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[380] John 8:48.
[383] Gen. 33:19; and Josh. 24:32.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Gen. 33:19; and Josh. 24:32.
[384] Acts 8:5; 9:31; 15:3.
[387] John 2:23, 24.
[401] Mark 9:25.
CHAPTER 14.
CONTINUATION OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY IN GALILEE.
A LEPER MADE CLEAN.
Early in the morning following that eventful Sabbath in Capernaum, our Lord arose "a great while before day" and went in quest of seclusion beyond the town. In a solitary place He gave Himself to prayer, thus demonstrating the fact that, Messiah though He was, He was profoundly conscious of His dependence upon the Father, whose work He had come to do. Simon Peter and other disciples found the place of His retirement, and told Him of the eager crowds who sought Him. Soon the people gathered about Him, and urged that He remain with them; but "he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent."[405] And to the disciples He said: "Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth."[406] Thence He departed, accompanied by the few whom He had already closely associated with Himself, and ministered in many towns of Galilee, preaching in the synagogs, healing the sick, and casting out devils.
Early the morning after that significant Sabbath in Capernaum, our Lord woke up "a great while before day" and went looking for some peace and quiet outside the town. In a secluded spot, He dedicated Himself to prayer, showing that even though He was the Messiah, He was fully aware of His reliance on the Father, whose work He had come to fulfill. Simon Peter and other disciples found Him where He had gone to rest and informed Him about the eager crowds looking for Him. Soon, people gathered around Him, urging Him to stay with them; but He replied, "I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for that is why I was sent."[405] He then told the disciples, "Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for that is why I came out."[406] From there, He left, accompanied by the few who had already become close to Him, and ministered in many towns of Galilee, preaching in the synagogues, healing the sick, and casting out demons.
Among the afflicted seeking the aid that He alone could give came a leper,[407] who knelt before Him, or bowed with his face to the ground, and humbly professed his faith, saying: "If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." The petition implied in the words of this poor creature was pathetic; the confidence he expressed is inspiring. The question in his mind was not—Can Jesus heal me? but—Will He heal me?[Pg 189] In compassionate mercy Jesus laid His hand upon the sufferer, unclean though he was, both ceremonially and physically, for leprosy is a loathsome affliction, and we know that this man was far advanced in the disease since we are told that he was "full of leprosy." Then the Lord said: "I will: be thou clean." The leper was immediately healed. Jesus instructed him to show himself to the priest, and make the offerings prescribed in the law of Moses for such cases as his.[408]
Among those suffering and looking for help that only He could provide was a leper,[407] who knelt before Him, or bowed with his face to the ground, and humbly expressed his faith, saying: "If you want to, you can make me clean." The request behind his words was heart-wrenching; the confidence he showed is uplifting. The question in his mind wasn't—Can Jesus heal me? but—Will He heal me?[Pg 189] In compassionate mercy, Jesus placed His hand on the suffering man, unclean as he was, both ceremonially and physically, as leprosy is a dreadful disease, and we know this man was far along in it since it is said he was "full of leprosy." Then the Lord said: "I will: be clean." The leper was instantly healed. Jesus instructed him to present himself to the priest and make the offerings required by the law of Moses for such cases as his.[408]
In this instruction we see that Christ had not come to destroy the law, but, as He affirmed at another time, to fulfil it;[409] and at this stage of His work the fulfilment was incomplete. Moreover, had the legal requirements been disregarded in as serious a matter as that of restoring an outcast leper to the society of the community from which he had been debarred, priestly opposition, already waxing strong and threatening against Jesus, would have been augmented, and further hindrance to the Lord's work might have resulted. There was to be no delay in the man's compliance with the Master's instruction; Jesus "straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away." Furthermore He explicitly directed the man to tell nobody of the manner of his healing. There was perhaps good reason for this injunction of silence, aside from the very general course of our Lord in discountenancing undesirable notoriety; for, had word of the miracle preceded the man's appearing before the priest, obstacles might have been thrown in the way of his Levitical recognition as one who was clean. The man, however, could not keep the good word to himself, but went about "and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter."[410]
In this instruction, we see that Christ didn’t come to eliminate the law, but, as He stated at another time, to fulfill it; and at this point in His work, that fulfillment was not yet complete. Moreover, if the legal requirements had been ignored in a serious situation like restoring an outcast leper to the community from which he had been excluded, the growing opposition from the priests against Jesus would have intensified, potentially blocking His work even further. There was no delay in the man following the Master’s instructions; Jesus “strictly warned him and immediately sent him away.” He also specifically told the man not to tell anyone about how he was healed. There was likely a valid reason for this directive for silence, aside from Jesus generally avoiding unwanted fame; if news of the miracle had spread before the man presented himself to the priest, it could have created obstacles to his recognition as being clean. However, the man couldn’t keep this good news to himself and started to spread it widely, to the extent that Jesus could no longer enter the city openly but had to stay in remote places, with people coming to Him from all directions.
A PALSIED MAN HEALED AND FORGIVEN.
It must be borne in mind that no one of the evangelists attempts to give a detailed history of all the doings of Jesus, nor do all follow the same order in relating the incidents with which they associate the great lessons of the Master's teachings. There is much uncertainty as to the actual sequence of events.
It’s important to remember that none of the evangelists tries to provide a complete history of everything Jesus did, nor do they all follow the same order when telling the stories that highlight the major lessons of the Master's teachings. There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the exact sequence of events.
"Some days" after the healing of the leper, Jesus was again in Capernaum. The details of His employment during the interval are not specified; but, we may be sure that His work continued, for His characteristic occupation was that of going about doing good.[411] His place of abode in Capernaum was well known, and word was soon noised about that He was in the house.[412] A great throng gathered, so that there was no room to receive them; even the doorway was crowded, and later comers could not get near the Master. To all who were within hearing Jesus preached the gospel. A little party of four approached the house bearing a litter or pallet on which lay a man afflicted with palsy, a species of paralysis which deprived the subject of the power of voluntary motion and usually of speech; the man was helpless. His friends, disappointed at finding themselves unable to reach Jesus because of the press, resorted to an unusual expedient, which exhibited in an unmistakable way their faith in the Lord as One who could rebuke and stay disease, and their determination to seek the desired blessing at His hands.
"Some days" after healing the leper, Jesus was back in Capernaum. The specifics of what he did during that time aren't mentioned, but we can be certain that his work continued, as his main focus was going around doing good.[411] Everyone knew where he stayed in Capernaum, and soon word spread that he was in the house.[412] A huge crowd gathered, so much so that there was no room for anyone else; even the doorway was jammed, and latecomers couldn't get close to the Master. Jesus preached the gospel to everyone who could hear him. A group of four friends came to the house carrying a mat with a man on it who was paralyzed, a condition that left him unable to move on his own and usually unable to speak; he was helpless. His friends, frustrated that they couldn't get to Jesus because of the crowd, decided to take an unconventional approach that clearly showed their faith in the Lord as someone who could heal and their determination to seek the help they needed from him.
By some means they carried the afflicted man to the flat roof of the house, probably by an outside stairway or by the use of a ladder, possibly by entering an adjoining house, ascending the stairs to its roof and crossing therefrom to the house within which Jesus was teaching. They broke away part of the roof, making an opening, or enlarging that of the[Pg 191] trapdoor such as the houses of that place and time were usually provided with; and, to the surprize of the assembled crowd, they then let down through the tiling the portable couch upon which the palsied sufferer lay. Jesus was deeply impressed by the faith and works[413] of those who had thus labored to place a helpless paralytic before Him; doubtless, too, He knew of the trusting faith in the heart of the sufferer; and, looking compassionately upon the man, He said: "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee."
By some means, they got the afflicted man up to the flat roof of the house, likely using an outside staircase or a ladder, or maybe they entered a neighboring house, went up to its roof, and crossed over to the house where Jesus was teaching. They broke part of the roof to create an opening, or they enlarged the existing trapdoor that houses of that time typically had; and to the surprise of the gathered crowd, they then lowered the portable couch with the paralyzed man down through the tiles. Jesus was really moved by the faith and efforts of those who had worked to bring the helpless paralytic before Him; undoubtedly, He recognized the trusting faith in the heart of the sufferer as well; and, looking at the man with compassion, He said: "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Among the people there assembled were scribes, Pharisees, and doctors of the law, not only representatives of the local synagog but some who had come from distant towns in Galilee, and some from Judea, and even from Jerusalem. The official class had opposed our Lord and His works on earlier occasions, and their presence in the house at this time boded further unfriendly criticism and possible obstruction. They heard the words spoken to the paralytic, and were angered thereat. In their hearts they accused Jesus of the awful offense of blasphemy, which consists essentially in claiming for human or demon power the prerogatives of God, or in dishonoring God by ascribing to Him attributes short of perfection.[414] These unbelieving scholars, who incessantly wrote and talked of the coming of the Messiah, yet rejected Him when He was there present, murmured in silence, saying to themselves: "Who can forgive sins but God only?" Jesus knew their inmost thoughts,[415] and made reply thereto, saying: "Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?" And then to emphasize, and to put beyond question His possession of divine authority, He added: "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive[Pg 192] sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house." The man arose, fully restored; and, taking up the mattress upon which he had been brought, walked out before them. The amazement of the people was mingled with reverence, and many glorified God, of whose power they were witnesses.
Among the people gathered were scribes, Pharisees, and legal experts, not just representatives from the local synagogue but also some who had traveled from distant towns in Galilee, Judea, and even Jerusalem. The officials had previously opposed our Lord and His actions, and their presence in the house at this moment suggested more unfriendly criticism and possible interference. They listened to the words spoken to the paralyzed man and were angered by them. In their hearts, they accused Jesus of the serious crime of blasphemy, which essentially involves claiming divine powers for humans or demons or dishonoring God by attributing to Him characteristics that are less than perfect.[414] These cynical scholars, who constantly wrote and spoke about the coming of the Messiah, rejected Him when He was actually there, silently muttering to themselves: "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Jesus knew their innermost thoughts,[415] and replied, saying: "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is easier to say to the paralyzed man, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, take your mat, and walk'?" And to emphasize His divine authority, He added: "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, I say to you—He said to the paralyzed man—'Get up, take your mat, and go home.'" The man got up, completely healed; and, taking the mat he had been brought on, walked out in front of them all. The crowd was amazed and filled with reverence, and many praised God for the power they had witnessed.
The incident demands our further study. According to one of the accounts, the Lord's first words to the afflicted one were: "Son, be of good cheer;" followed directly by the comforting and authoritative assurance: "Thy sins be given thee."[416] The man was probably in a state of fear; he may have known that his ailment was the result of wicked indulgences; nevertheless, though he may have considered the possibility of hearing only condemnation for his transgression, he had faith to be brought. In this man's condition there was plainly a close connection between his past sins and his present affliction; and in this particular his case is not unique, for we read that Christ admonished another, whom He healed, to sin no more lest a worse thing befall him.[417] We are not warranted, however, in assuming that all bodily ills are the result of culpable sin; and against such a conception stands the Lord's combined instruction and rebuke to those who, in the case of a man born blind, asked who had sinned, the man or his parents to bring so grievous an affliction upon him, to which inquiry our Lord replied that the man's blindness was due neither to his own sin nor to that of his parents.[418]
The incident needs further examination. According to one account, the Lord's first words to the suffering man were: "Son, take heart;" followed right after by the comforting and authoritative assurance: "Your sins are forgiven."[416] The man was likely fearful; he might have known that his condition resulted from wrongdoing; yet, even though he may have expected only condemnation for his faults, he had the faith to come forward. In this man's situation, there was clearly a strong connection between his past sins and his current suffering; and in this regard, his case is not unique, as we see that Christ advised another person He healed to sin no more, or something worse might happen to him.[417] However, we cannot assume that all physical ailments are the result of personal sin; and against such an idea stands the Lord's combined instruction and correction to those who, in the case of a man born blind, asked who had sinned – the man or his parents – to cause such a serious affliction, to which our Lord responded that the man's blindness was neither due to his sin nor that of his parents.[418]
In many instances, however, disease is the direct result of individual sin. Whatever may have been the measure of past offense on the part of the man suffering from palsy, Christ recognized his repentance together with the faith that accompanied it, and it was the Lord's rightful prerogative[Pg 193] to decide upon the man's fitness to receive remission of his sins and relief from his bodily affliction. The interrogative response of Jesus to the muttered criticism of the scribes, Pharisees, and doctors, has been interpreted in many ways. He inquired which was easier, to say, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," or to say, "Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk." Is it not a rational explanation that, when spoken authoritatively by Him, the two expressions were of allied meaning? The circumstance should have been a sufficient demonstration to all who heard, that He, the Son of Man, claimed and possessed the right and the power to remit both physical and spiritual penalties, to heal the body of visible disease, and to purge the spirit of the no less real malady of sin. In the presence of people of all classes Jesus thus openly asserted His divinity, and affirmed the same by a miraculous manifestation of power.
In many cases, though, illness is a direct result of personal sin. No matter what the past mistakes of the man with palsy were, Christ acknowledged his repentance along with the faith that came with it. It was the Lord's right[Pg 193] to determine the man's readiness to receive forgiveness for his sins and relief from his physical suffering. Jesus responded to the quiet criticism of the scribes, Pharisees, and doctors in various ways. He asked which was easier: to say, "Your sins are forgiven," or to say, "Get up, take your bed, and walk." Is it not reasonable to believe that, when spoken with authority by Him, the two statements held similar significance? This situation should have clearly shown everyone present that He, the Son of Man, claimed and had the power to forgive both physical and spiritual consequences, to heal visible illnesses, and to cleanse the spirit from the very real issue of sin. In front of all kinds of people, Jesus boldly declared His divinity and confirmed it through a miraculous display of power.
The charge of blasphemy, which the rabbinical critics formulated in their minds against the Christ, was not to end as a mental conception of theirs, nor to be nullified by our Lord's later remarks. It was through perjured testimony that He finally received unrighteous condemnation and was sent to His death.[419] Already, in that house at Capernaum, the shadow of the cross had fallen athwart the course of His life.
The accusation of blasphemy that the rabbinical critics cooked up against Christ didn't just stay as a thought in their minds, nor could it be dismissed by our Lord's later comments. It was through false testimony that He ultimately faced unfair condemnation and was sentenced to death.[419] Even then, in that house in Capernaum, the shadow of the cross had already cast a dark mark on the path of His life.
PUBLICANS AND SINNERS.
From the house Jesus repaired to the seaside, whither the people followed Him; there He taught them again. At the close of His discourse He walked farther and saw a man named Levi, one of the publicans[420] or official collectors of taxes, sitting at the custom-house where the tariff levied under Roman law had to be paid. This man was known also as Matthew, a name less distinctively Jewish than is[Pg 194] Levi.[421] He afterward became one of the Twelve and the author of the first of the evangelical Gospels. To him Jesus said, "Follow me." Matthew left his place and followed the Lord. Some time later the new disciple provided a great feast at his house, in honor of the Master; and other disciples were present. So obnoxious to the Jews was the power of Rome to which they were subject, that they regarded with aversion all officials in Roman employ. Particularly humiliating to them was the system of compulsory taxation, by which they, the people of Israel, had to pay tribute to an alien nation, which in their estimation was wholly pagan and heathen.
From the house, Jesus went to the seaside, where the people followed Him; there He taught them again. After finishing His speech, He walked further and saw a man named Levi, one of the tax collectors, sitting at the customs office where the taxes mandated by Roman law had to be paid. This man was also known as Matthew, a name that feels less distinctly Jewish than Levi. He later became one of the Twelve and the author of the first of the Gospels. Jesus said to him, "Follow me." Matthew left his position and followed the Lord. Some time later, the new disciple threw a big feast at his house in honor of the Master, and other disciples were there. The Jews were very resentful of the Roman power they were subjected to, and they looked down on all officials in Roman jobs. The system of mandatory taxation was especially humiliating for them, as they, the people of Israel, had to pay tribute to a foreign nation they considered entirely pagan and heathen.
Naturally, the collectors of these taxes were abhorred; and they, known as publicans, probably resented the discourteous treatment by inconsiderate enforcement of the tax requirements, and, as affirmed by historians, often inflicted unlawful extortion upon the people. If publicans in general were detested, we can readily understand how bitter would be the contempt in which the Jews would hold one of their own nation who had accepted appointment as such an official. In this unenviable status was Matthew when Jesus called him. The publicans formed a distinct social class, for from the community in general they were practically ostracized. All who associated with them were made to share in the popular odium, and "publicans and sinners" became a common designation for the degraded caste. To Matthew's feast many of his friends and some of his fellow officials were invited, so that the gathering was largely made up of these despized "publicans and sinners." And to such an assemblage went Jesus with His disciples.
Naturally, the tax collectors were hated; they were known as publicans and likely felt bitterness toward the rude treatment they received from the harsh enforcement of tax laws. Historians have noted that they often took advantage of the people through illegal extortion. If publicans were generally despised, it’s easy to see how deeply the Jews would look down on one of their own who took a job as one of these officials. Matthew held this undesirable position when Jesus called him. Publicans were a separate social class, as they were practically shunned by the community. Anyone who associated with them also faced public scorn, and "publicans and sinners" became a common label for this disdained group. At Matthew's feast, many of his friends and some fellow officials were invited, making the gathering mostly filled with those hated "publicans and sinners." Jesus attended this gathering with His disciples.
The scribes and Pharisees could not let pass such an opportunity for faultfinding and caustic criticism. They hesitated to address themselves directly to Jesus, but of the disciples they asked in disdain: "Why eateth your Master[Pg 195] with publicans and sinners?" The Master heard, and replied with edifying incisiveness mingled with splendid irony. Citing one of the common aphorisms of the day, He said: "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." To this He added: "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." The hypercritical Pharisees were left to make their own application of the rejoinder, which some may have understood to mean that their self-righteousness was arraigned and their claims to superiority derided. Aside from the veiled sarcasm in the Master's words, they ought to have perceived the wisdom enshrined in His answer and to have profited thereby. Is not the physician's place among the afflicted ones? Would he be justified in keeping aloof from the sick and the suffering? His profession is that of combating disease, preventing when possible, curing when necessary, to the full extent of his ability. If the festive assembly at Matthew's house really did comprize a number of sinners, was not the occasion one of rare opportunity for the ministrations of the Physician of Souls? The righteous need no call to repentance; but are the sinners to be left in sin, because those who profess to be spiritual teachers will not condescend to extend a helping hand?
The scribes and Pharisees couldn’t miss the chance for criticism. They hesitated to talk directly to Jesus, but they asked His disciples in disdain, "Why does your Master[Pg 195] eat with tax collectors and sinners?" Jesus heard them and responded with a sharp yet ironic remark. Quoting a popular saying of the time, He said, "Those who are healthy don’t need a doctor, but those who are sick do." He added, "I didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." The overly critical Pharisees were left to interpret His reply, which some may have taken to mean that their self-righteousness was being challenged and their claims to superiority mocked. Beyond the underlying sarcasm in His words, they should have recognized the wisdom in His answer and learned from it. Isn't the doctor’s place among those who are suffering? Would it be right for him to stay away from the sick? His job is to fight disease, prevent it when possible, and cure it when necessary, to the best of his abilities. If the celebration at Matthew’s house truly included many sinners, wasn’t this a unique opportunity for the Doctor of Souls? The righteous don’t need a call to repentance; but should sinners be left in their sin just because those who claim to be spiritual leaders refuse to lend a helping hand?
THE OLD AND THE NEW.
Shortly after the entertainment provided by Matthew, the Pharisees were ready with another criticism, and in this they were associated with some of the Baptist's adherents. John was in prison; but many of those who had been drawn to his baptism, and had professed discipleship to him, still clung to his teachings, and failed to see that the Greater One of whom he had testified was then ministering amongst them. The Baptist had been a scrupulous observer of the law; his strict asceticism vied with the rigor of Pharisaic profession.[Pg 196] His non-progressive disciples, now left without a leader, naturally fell in with the Pharisees. Some of John's disciples came to Jesus, and questioned Him concerning His seeming indifference in the matter of fasting. They propounded a plain question: "Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?"[422] To the friends of the now imprisoned Baptist our Lord's reply must have brought memories of their beloved leader's words, when he had compared himself to the Bridegroom's friend, and had plainly told them who was the real Bridegroom.[423] "Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days."[424]
Shortly after Matthew's entertainment, the Pharisees were ready with another criticism, joined by some of the Baptist's followers. John was in prison, but many who had come to him for baptism and claimed to be his disciples still held onto his teachings. They failed to recognize that the Greater One he had talked about was ministering among them. The Baptist had strictly followed the law, and his intense ascetic lifestyle matched the strictness of the Pharisees. His non-progressive followers, now leaderless, naturally aligned with the Pharisees. Some of John's disciples approached Jesus and asked Him why His disciples did not fast like those of John and the Pharisees. They posed a straightforward question: "Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?" To the friends of the imprisoned Baptist, Jesus' reply likely reminded them of their beloved leader's words, when he compared himself to the Bridegroom's friend and made it clear who the real Bridegroom was. "Jesus said to them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days."
If the questioners were able to comprehend the true import of this reply, they could not fail to find therein an implied abrogation of purely ceremonial observances comprized in the code of rabbinical rules and the numerous traditions associated with the law. But to make the subject clearer to their biased minds, Jesus gave them illustrations, which may be classed as parabolic. "No man also," said He, "seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles."[425]
If the questioners were able to understand the real meaning of this reply, they would have definitely noticed an implied rejection of purely ceremonial practices included in the rabbinical rules and the many traditions tied to the law. To clarify things for their biased minds, Jesus gave them examples that could be considered parables. "No one," He said, "sews a piece of new cloth onto an old garment; otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one puts new wine into old bottles; otherwise, the new wine will burst the bottles, the wine will spill, and the bottles will be ruined; instead, new wine must be put into new bottles."[425]
In such wise did our Lord proclaim the newness and completeness of His gospel. It was in no sense a patching up of Judaism. He had not come to mend old and torn garments; the cloth He provided was new, and to sew it on[Pg 197] the old would be but to tear afresh the threadbare fabric and leave a more unsightly rent than at first. Or to change the figure, new wine could not safely be entrusted to old bottles. The bottles here referred to were really bags, made of the skins of animals, and of course they deteriorated with age. Just as old leather splits or tears under even slight strain, so the old bottle-skins would burst from the pressure of fermenting juice, and the good wine would be lost. The gospel taught by Christ was a new revelation, superseding the past, and marking the fulfilment of the law; it was no mere addendum, nor was it a reenactment of past requirements; it embodied a new and an everlasting covenant. Attempts to patch the Judaistic robe of traditionalism with the new fabric of the covenant could result in nothing more sightly than a rending of the fabric. The new wine of the gospel could not be held in the old time-worn containers of Mosaic libations. Judaism would be belittled and Christianity perverted by any such incongruous association.[426]
In this way, our Lord proclaimed the freshness and completeness of His gospel. It was not just a simple improvement on Judaism. He didn't come to patch up old, torn garments; the cloth He offered was new, and trying to sew it onto the old would only further tear the worn-out fabric and create an even bigger hole than before. To use another metaphor, new wine couldn't safely be put into old bottles. The bottles mentioned were actually bags made from animal skins, which, of course, deteriorated with age. Just like old leather cracks or tears under slight pressure, the old skin bags would burst from the pressure of fermenting juice, and the good wine would be lost. The gospel that Christ preached was a new revelation, replacing the past and fulfilling the law; it wasn't just an addition nor a repeat of old requirements; it represented a new and everlasting covenant. Trying to patch the traditional Judaistic robe with the new fabric of the covenant would only result in a tearing of the fabric. The new wine of the gospel couldn't be contained in the old, timeworn vessels of Mosaic practices. Judaism would be diminished and Christianity distorted by such an inappropriate association.[Pg 197]
FISHERS OF MEN.
It is improbable that the disciples who followed Jesus in the early months of His ministry had remained with Him continuously down to the time now under consideration. We find that some of those who were later called to the apostleship were following their vocation as fishermen even while Jesus was actively engaged as a Teacher in their own neighborhood. One day, as the Lord stood by the lake or sea of Galilee, the people pressed about Him in great numbers, eager to hear more of the wondrous words He was wont to speak.[427] Near the place were two fishing boats drawn in upon the beach; the owners were close by, washing and mending their nets. One of the boats belonged to Simon Peter, who had already become identified with the Master's[Pg 198] work; this boat Jesus entered, and then asked Simon to thrust out a little from the land. Seating Himself, as teachers of that time usually did in delivering discourses, the Lord preached from this floating pulpit to the multitude on shore. The subject of the address is not given us.
It’s unlikely that the disciples who followed Jesus in the early months of His ministry stayed with Him continuously until now. Some of those who were later called to be apostles were still working as fishermen while Jesus was teaching in their area. One day, as the Lord stood by the Sea of Galilee, a crowd gathered around Him, eager to hear the amazing words He often spoke.[427] Nearby, there were two fishing boats pulled up on the beach, and the owners were washing and repairing their nets. One of the boats belonged to Simon Peter, who had already been connected with the Master’s[Pg 198] work; Jesus got into this boat and asked Simon to push it out a little from the shore. After sitting down, as teachers at that time usually did when giving lectures, He preached from this floating platform to the crowd on the shore. The topic of the address isn’t specified.
When the sermon was ended, Jesus directed Simon to launch out into deep water and then let down the nets for a draught. Presumably Andrew was with his brother and possibly other assistants were in the boat. Simon replied to Jesus: "Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net." It was soon filled with fishes; so great was the haul that the net began to break, and the busy fishermen signalled to those in the other boat to come to their assistance. The catch filled both boats so that they appeared to be in danger of sinking. Simon Peter was overcome with this new evidence of the Master's power, and, falling at the feet of Jesus, he exclaimed: "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord." Jesus answered graciously and with promise: "Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men."[428] The occupants of the second boat were Zebedee and his two sons James and John, the last named being he who with Andrew had left the Baptist to follow Jesus at the Jordan.[429] Zebedee and his sons were partners with Simon in the fishing business. When the two boats were brought to land, the brothers Simon and Andrew, and Zebedee's two sons James and John, left their boats and accompanied Jesus.
When the sermon was over, Jesus told Simon to head out into deep water and drop the nets for a catch. Andrew was likely with his brother, and there might have been other helpers in the boat as well. Simon replied to Jesus: "Master, we've worked hard all night and caught nothing; but because you say so, I’ll drop the net." It quickly filled with fish; the catch was so large that the net started to break, and the busy fishermen signaled to the others in the other boat to come help them. Both boats were filled to the point they seemed like they might sink. Simon Peter was amazed by this new demonstration of the Master's power, and falling at Jesus' feet, he said: "Leave me; for I am a sinful man, Lord." Jesus responded kindly and promised: "Don't be afraid; from now on you will catch people." The people in the second boat were Zebedee and his two sons, James and John, the last of whom had left the Baptist to follow Jesus at the Jordan. Zebedee and his sons were partners with Simon in the fishing business. When the two boats reached the shore, the brothers Simon and Andrew, along with Zebedee’s sons James and John, left their boats and followed Jesus.
The foregoing treatment is based on Luke's record; the briefer and less circumstantial accounts given by Matthew and Mark omit the incident of the miraculous draught of fishes, and emphasize the calling of the fishermen. To Simon and Andrew Jesus said: "Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." The contrast thus[Pg 199] presented between their former vocation and their new calling is strikingly forceful. Theretofore they had caught fish, and the fate of the fish was death; thereafter they were to draw men—to a life eternal. To James and John the call was no less definite; and they too left their all to follow the Master.
The previous discussion is based on Luke's account; the shorter, less detailed versions by Matthew and Mark leave out the story of the miraculous catch of fish and focus on the fishermen's calling. Jesus said to Simon and Andrew, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." The contrast between their old job and their new mission is really striking. Before, they caught fish, which meant death for the fish; now they were to bring people to eternal life. The call to James and John was equally clear; they also left everything behind to follow the Master.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 14.
1. Leprosy.—In Biblical usage this name is applied to several diseases, all, however having some symptoms in common, at least in the earlier stages of the malady. The real leprosy is a scourge and a plague in many oriental lands to-day. Zenos, in Standard Bible Dict., says: "True leprosy, as known in modern times, is an affection characterized by the appearance of nodules in the eye-brows, the cheeks, the nose, and the lobes of the ears, also in the hands and feet, where the disease eats into the joints, causing the falling off of fingers and toes. If nodules do not appear, their place is taken by spots of blanched or discolored skin (Mascular leprosy). Both forms are based upon a functional degeneration of the nerves of the skin. Its cause was discovered by Hansen in 1871 to be a specific bacillus. Defective diet, however, seems to serve as a favorable condition for the culture of the bacillus. Leprosy was one of the few abnormal conditions of the body which the Levitical law declared unclean. Elaborate provision was therefore made for testing its existence and for the purification of those who were cured of it."
1. Leprosy.—In the Bible, this term refers to several diseases, all of which share some symptoms, especially in the early stages. True leprosy is still a serious issue in many parts of the East today. Zenos, in Standard Bible Dict., states: "The true form of leprosy, as known in modern times, is characterized by the presence of lumps in the eyebrows, cheeks, nose, and earlobes, as well as in the hands and feet, where the disease damages the joints, leading to the loss of fingers and toes. If lumps do not appear, they are replaced by patches of pale or discolored skin (Mascular leprosy). Both types are linked to a breakdown of the nerves in the skin. Hansen discovered in 1871 that the cause is a specific bacillus. Poor nutrition appears to create conditions that support the growth of the bacillus. Leprosy was one of the few abnormal bodily conditions labeled unclean by Levitical law. Therefore, detailed procedures were established for diagnosing its presence and for the purification of those who recovered from it.”
Deems, Light of the Nations, p. 185, summing up the conditions incident to the advanced stages of the dread disease, writes: "The symptoms and the effects of this disease are very loathsome. There comes a white swelling or scab, with a change of the color of the hair on the part from its natural hue to yellow; then the appearance of a taint going deeper than the skin, or raw flesh appearing in the swelling. Then it spreads and attacks the cartilaginous portions of the body. The nails loosen and drop off, the gums are absorbed, and the teeth decay and fall out; the breath is a stench, the nose decays; fingers, hands, feet, may be lost, or the eyes eaten out. The human beauty has gone into corruption, and the patient feels that he is being eaten as by a fiend, who consumes him slowly in a long remorseless meal that will not end until he be destroyed. He is shut out from his fellows. As they approach he must cry, 'Unclean! unclean!' that all humanity may be warned from his precincts. He must abandon wife and child. He must go to live with other lepers, in disheartening view of miseries similar to his own. He must dwell in dismantled houses or in the tombs. He is, as Trench says, a dreadful parable of death. By the laws of Moses (Lev. 13:45; Numb. 6:9; Ezek. 24:17) he was compelled, as if he were mourning[Pg 200] for his own decease, to bear about him the emblems of death, the rent garments; he was to keep his head bare and his lip covered, as was the custom with those who were in communion with the dead. When the Crusaders brought the leprosy from the East, it was usual to clothe the leper in a shroud, and to say for him the masses for the dead.... In all ages this indescribably horrible malady has been considered incurable. The Jews believed that it was inflicted by Jehovah directly, as a punishment for some extraordinary perversity or some transcendent act of sinfulness, and that only God could heal it. When Naaman was cured, and his flesh came back like that of a little child, he said, 'Now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel,' (2 Kings 5:14, 15.)"
Deems, Light of the Nations, p. 185, summarizing the conditions associated with the later stages of this terrible disease, writes: "The symptoms and effects of this disease are very repulsive. It starts with a white swelling or scab, changing the hair color in that area from its natural shade to yellow; then a deeper taint appears under the skin, or raw flesh becomes visible in the swelling. It spreads and attacks the cartilage in the body. The nails loosen and fall off, the gums recede, and the teeth decay and drop out; the breath has a foul odor, the nose deteriorates; fingers, hands, feet might be lost, or the eyes may be destroyed. Human beauty turns into decay, and the patient feels as if a monster is devouring him slowly in a relentless feast that will go on until he is completely destroyed. He is isolated from others. As people come near, he must shout, 'Unclean! unclean!' so that everyone stays away from him. He has to abandon his wife and children. He must live among other lepers, confronting similar hardships. He resides in dilapidated houses or in graves. He is, as Trench states, a terrifying symbol of death. By the laws of Moses (Lev. 13:45; Numb. 6:9; Ezek. 24:17), he was forced, as if mourning for his own death, to carry symbols of death, such as torn clothes; he had to keep his head bare and his lip covered, like those who are in contact with the dead. When the Crusaders brought leprosy from the East, it was common to dress the leper in a shroud and say masses for the dead on his behalf.... Throughout history, this indescribably horrible disease has been seen as incurable. The Jews believed it was a punishment from Jehovah for some extreme wickedness or a significant sin, and that only God could heal it. When Naaman was healed, and his skin became as smooth as a child’s, he said, 'Now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel,' (2 Kings 5:14, 15.)"
The fact that leprosy is not ordinarily communicable by mere outward contact is accentuated by Trench, Notes on the Miracles, pp. 165-168, and the isolation of lepers required by the Mosaic law is regarded by him as an intended object lesson and figure to illustrate spiritual uncleanness. He says: "I refer to the mistaken assumption that leprosy was catching from one person to another; and that the lepers were so carefully secluded from their fellowmen lest they might communicate the disease to others, as in like manner that the torn garment, the covered lip, the cry, 'Unclean, unclean' (Lev. 13:45) were warnings to all that they should keep aloof, lest unawares touching a leper, or drawing unto too great a nearness, they should become partakers of this disease. So far from any danger of the kind existing, nearly all who have looked closest into the matter agree that the sickness was incommunicable by ordinary contact from one person to another. A leper might transmit it to his children, or the mother of a leper's children might take it from him; but it was by no ordinary contact communicable from one person to another. All the notices in the Old Testament, as well as in other Jewish books, confirm the statement that we have here something very much higher than a mere sanitary regulation. Thus, when the law of Moses was not observed, no such exclusion necessarily found place; Naaman the leper commanded the armies of Syria (2 Kings 5:1); Gehazi, with his leprosy that never should be cleansed, (2 Kings 5:27) talked familiarly with the king of apostate Israel (2 Kings 8:5).... How, moreover, should the Levitical priests, had the disease been this creeping infection, have ever themselves escaped it, obliged as they were by their very office to submit the leper to actual handling and closest examination?... Leprosy was nothing short of a living death, a corrupting of all the humors, a poisoning of the very springs, of life; a dissolution, little by little, of the whole body, so that one limb after another actually decayed and fell away. Aaron exactly describes the appearance which the leper presented to the eyes of the beholders, when, pleading for Miriam, he says, 'Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.' (Numb. 12:12.) The disease, moreover, was incurable by the art and skill of man; not that the leper might not return to health; for, however rare,[Pg 201] such cases are contemplated in the Levitical law.... The leper, thus fearfully bearing about the body the outward and visible tokens of sin in the soul, was treated throughout as a sinner, as one in whom sin had reached its climax, as one dead in trespasses and sins. He was himself a dreadful parable of death. He bore about him the emblems of death (Lev. 13:45); the rent garments, mourning for himself as one dead; the head bare as they were wont to have it who were defiled by communion with the dead (Numb. 6:9; Ezek. 24:27); and the lip covered (Ezek. 24:17).... But the leper was as one dead, and as such was shut out of the camp (Lev. 13:46; Numb. 5:2-4). and the city (2 Kings 7:3), this law being so strictly enforced that even the sister of Moses might not be exempted from it (Numb. 12:14, 15); and kings themselves, as Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:21; 2 Kings 15:5) must submit to it; men being by this exclusion taught that what here took place in a figure, should take place in the reality with every one who was found in the death of sin."
The fact that leprosy isn't usually spread just through physical contact is emphasized by Trench in his *Notes on the Miracles*, pp. 165-168. He views the isolation of lepers required by Mosaic law as a lesson and a symbol to illustrate spiritual uncleanness. He points out, "I refer to the mistaken belief that leprosy was contagious from one person to another, and that lepers were kept apart from others to avoid spreading the disease, similar to how the torn garment, covered lip, and the cry 'Unclean, unclean' (Lev. 13:45) served as warnings for everyone to stay away, to avoid accidentally touching a leper or getting too close and becoming part of the illness. In reality, most people who have studied the matter agree that the disease couldn’t be spread through ordinary contact. A leper might pass it to his children, or the mother of a leper's children might get it from him, but it wasn’t transmitted through regular contact. All references in the Old Testament and other Jewish texts support the idea that this is about something far deeper than just health regulations. When Moses' law wasn't followed, there wasn't necessarily a need for exclusion; Naaman the leper commanded the armies of Syria (2 Kings 5:1); Gehazi, with his leprosy that would never be cured (2 Kings 5:27), spoke casually with the king of apostate Israel (2 Kings 8:5).... Moreover, if the disease were truly contagious, how could the Levitical priests have avoided it when they were required by their role to handle and closely examine lepers?... Leprosy was essentially a living death, decaying all the bodily fluids, poisoning the very essence of life; it slowly consumed the entire body, causing limbs to decay and fall off. Aaron accurately describes the appearance of a leper to those watching when, pleading for Miriam, he says, 'Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb.' (Numb. 12:12.) The disease was also untreatable by human skill; this does not mean a leper couldn't regain health, as rare instances of recovery are indeed considered in the Levitical law.... The leper, who carried the visible signs of sin in his body, was treated throughout as a sinner, as one in whom sin had reached its peak, as one dead in sins and trespasses. He was a living symbol of death. He bore the signs of death (Lev. 13:45); the torn clothes, mourning for himself as though he were dead; his head bare like those who were defiled by contact with the dead (Numb. 6:9; Ezek. 24:27); and his lip covered (Ezek. 24:17).... The leper was considered as good as dead and was excluded from the camp (Lev. 13:46; Numb. 5:2-4) and the city (2 Kings 7:3). This rule was enforced so strictly that even Moses’ sister wasn't exempt (Numb. 12:14, 15); kings like Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:21; 2 Kings 15:5) had to comply as well; this exclusion showed people that what happened in symbol here would also happen in reality to anyone found in the death of sin."
For the elaborate ceremonies incident to the cleansing of a recovered leper see Lev. chap. 14.
For the detailed rituals involved in the cleansing of a healed leper, see Lev. chap. 14.
2. Blasphemy.—The essence of the deep sin of blasphemy lies not, as many suppose, in profanity alone, but as Dr. Kelso, Stand. Bible Dict., summarizes: "Every improper use of the divine name (Lev. 24:11), speech derogatory to the Majesty of God (Matt. 26:65), and sins with a high hand—i.e. premeditated transgressions of the basal principles of the theocracy (Numb. 9:13; 15:30; Exo. 31:14)—were regarded as blasphemy; the penalty was death by stoning (Lev. 24:16)." Smith's Bible Dict. states: "Blasphemy, in its technical English sense, signifies the speaking evil of God, and in this sense it is found in Psalm 74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24, etc.... On this charge both our Lord and Stephen were condemned to death by the Jews. When a person heard blasphemy he laid his hand on the head of the offender, to symbolize his sole responsibility for the guilt, and rising on his feet, tore his robe, which might never again be mended." (See Matt. 26:65.)
2. Blasphemy.—The true nature of the serious sin of blasphemy isn't just about swearing, as many believe. Dr. Kelso, in the Stand. Bible Dict., summarizes: "Any improper use of God's name (Lev. 24:11), disrespectful speech towards God's greatness (Matt. 26:65), and willful violations of the core principles of the theocracy (Num. 9:13; 15:30; Exo. 31:14) were considered blasphemy; the punishment was death by stoning (Lev. 24:16)." Smith's Bible Dict. explains: "Blasphemy, in its specific English meaning, refers to speaking ill of God, which is found in Psalm 74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24, etc.... Both our Lord and Stephen were sentenced to death by the Jews for this charge. When someone heard blasphemy, they would lay their hand on the offender's head to show their sole responsibility for the guilt, and then, standing up, they would tear their robe, which could never be repaired." (See Matt. 26:65.)
3. Publican.—"A word originally meaning a contractor for public works or supplies, or a farmer of public lands, but later applied to Romans who bought from the government the right to collect taxes in a given territory. These buyers, always knights (senators were excluded by their rank), became capitalists and formed powerful stock companies, whose members received a percentage on the capital invested. Provincial capitalists could not buy taxes, which were sold in Rome to the highest bidders, who to recoup themselves sublet their territory (at a great advance on the price paid the government) to the native (local) publicans, who in their turn had to make a profit on their purchase money, and being assessors of property as well as collectors of taxes, had abundant opportunities for oppressing the people, who hated them both for that reason and also because the tax itself was the mark of their subjection to foreigners."—J. R. Sterrett in Stand. Bible Dict.[Pg 202]
3. Publican.—"Originally, this term referred to a contractor for public works or supplies, or someone who farmed public lands. It later came to describe Romans who purchased the right from the government to collect taxes in a specific area. These purchasers, who were always knights (senators were excluded due to their status), became capitalists and created powerful stock companies, with members earning a percentage on their investments. Provincial capitalists couldn’t buy tax rights, as they were sold in Rome to the highest bidders, who then leased their territories (for a significant markup from what they paid the government) to local publicans. These publicans had to turn a profit from their purchases, and since they were both property assessors and tax collectors, they had plenty of chances to exploit the people, who despised them for that reason and also because the tax itself was a symbol of their subjugation to outsiders."—J. R. Sterrett in Stand. Bible Dict.[Pg 202]
4. Fishers of Men.—"Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men," said Jesus to fishermen who afterward became His apostles (Matt. 4:19). Mark's version is nearly the same (1:17), while that of Luke (5:10) reads: "From henceforth thou shalt catch men." The correct translation is, as commentators practically agree, "From henceforth thou shalt take men alive." This reading emphasizes the contrast given in the text—that between capturing fish to kill them and winning men to save them. Consider in this connection the Lord's prediction through Jeremiah (16:16), that in reaching scattered Israel, "Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them;" etc.
4. Fishers of Men.—"Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men," Jesus told the fishermen who later became His apostles (Matt. 4:19). Mark's version is very similar (1:17), while Luke’s says: "From now on you will catch men" (5:10). The accurate translation, as most commentators agree, is "From now on you will take men alive." This interpretation highlights the contrast in the text—between catching fish to kill them and winning men to save them. In this context, consider the Lord's prediction through Jeremiah (16:16) that in reaching out to scattered Israel, "Behold, I will send for many fishers, says the Lord, and they shall fish for them;" etc.
5. "Thy Sins Be Forgiven Thee."—The following commentary by Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i, pp. 505, 506) on the incident under consideration is instructive: "In this forgiveness of sins He presented His person and authority as divine, and He proved it such by the miracle of healing which immediately followed. Had the two been inverted, [i.e. had Christ first healed the man and afterward told him that his sins were forgiven] there would have been evidence, indeed, of His power, but not of His divine personality, nor of His having authority to forgive sins; and this, not the doing of miracles, was the object of His teaching and mission, of which the miracles were only secondary evidence. Thus the inward reasoning of the scribes, which was open and known to Him who readeth all thoughts, issued in quite the opposite of what they could have expected. Most unwarranted, indeed, was the feeling of contempt which we trace in their unspoken words, whether we read them: 'Why does this one thus speak blasphemies?' or, according to a more correct transcript of them: 'Why does this one speak thus? He blasphemeth!' Yet from their point of view they were right, for God alone can forgive sins; nor has that power ever been given or delegated to man. But was He a mere man, like even the most honored of God's servants? Man, indeed; but 'the Son of Man.' ... It seemed easy to say: 'Thy sins have been forgiven.' But to Him, who had authority to do so on earth, it was neither more easy nor more difficult than to say: 'Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.' Yet this latter, assuredly, proved the former, and gave it in the sight of all men unquestioned reality. And so it was the thoughts of these scribes, which, as applied to Christ, were 'evil'—since they imputed to Him blasphemy—that gave occasion for offering real evidence of what they would have impugned and denied. In no other manner could the object alike of miracles and of this special miracle have been so attained as by the 'evil thoughts' of these scribes, when, miraculously brought to light, they spoke out the inmost possible doubt, and pointed to the highest of all questions concerning the Christ. And so it was once more the wrath of man which praised Him."[Pg 203]
5. "Your Sins Are Forgiven."—The following commentary by Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i, pp. 505, 506) on the incident in question is enlightening: "In forgiving sins, He demonstrated His divine nature and authority, which was confirmed by the healing miracle that followed. If the order had been reversed, [i.e., if Christ had first healed the man and then told him that his sins were forgiven] there would have been proof of His power, but not of His divine identity or authority to forgive sins; and this, not merely performing miracles, was the purpose of His teaching and mission, with miracles serving as secondary evidence. Thus, the inner reasoning of the scribes, which was fully known to Him who understands all thoughts, led them to unexpected conclusions. The contempt we notice in their unvoiced words, whether we read them as: 'Why does this man speak such blasphemies?' or a more accurate version: 'Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming!' was indeed unfounded. From their perspective, they were justified, for only God can forgive sins; that power is never granted to man. But was He just an ordinary man, even among the most esteemed of God’s servants? Indeed, He was a man; but 'the Son of Man.' ... It may seem easy to say: 'Your sins are forgiven.' But for Him, who had the authority to do so on earth, it was neither easier nor harder than saying: 'Get up, pick up your bed, and walk.' Yet the latter clearly confirmed the former and gave it unchallenged authenticity in the eyes of all. Therefore, the thoughts of these scribes, which were 'evil'—as they accused Him of blasphemy—delivered the proof of what they sought to deny. No other approach could have accomplished the goal associated with miracles and this particular miracle as effectively as the 'evil thoughts' of these scribes, which, when miraculously exposed, voiced the deepest doubts and raised the most significant question about the Christ. And once again, it was the anger of man that glorified Him."[Pg 203]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[405] Luke 4:42-44.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 4:42-44.
[406] Mark 1:38.
[409] Matt. 5:17.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 5:17.
[410] Mark 1:45.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 1:45.
[411] Acts 10:38.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 10:38.
[413] Compare James 2:14-18.
[418] John 9:1-3.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 9:1-3.
[424] Mark 2:19, 20.
[425] Mark 2:21, 22.
[426] See "The Great Apostasy" 7:5.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See "The Great Apostasy" 7:5.
CHAPTER 15.
LORD OF THE SABBATH.
THE SABBATH DISTINCTIVELY SACRED TO ISRAEL.
The observance of the Sabbath as a holy day was prominent among the Lord's requirements of His people, Israel, from a very early period in their history as a nation. Indeed, the keeping of the Sabbath as a day of surcease from ordinary toil was a national characteristic, by which the Israelites were distinguished from pagan peoples, and rightly so, for the holiness of the Sabbath was made a mark of the covenant between the chosen people and their God. The sanctity of the Sabbath had been prefigured in the account of the creation, antedating the placing of man upon the earth, as shown by the fact that God rested after the six periods or days of creative work, and blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.[430] In the course of Israel's exodus, the seventh day was set apart as one of rest, upon which it was not allowed to bake, seethe, or otherwise cook food. A double supply of manna had to be gathered on the sixth day, while on other days the laying-by of a surplus of this daily bread sent from heaven was expressly forbidden. The Lord observed the sacredness of the holy day by giving no manna thereon.[431]
The observance of the Sabbath as a holy day was important among the Lord's requirements for His people, Israel, from very early in their history as a nation. In fact, keeping the Sabbath as a day of rest was a distinguishing feature that set the Israelites apart from pagan peoples, and rightly so, because the holiness of the Sabbath was made a symbol of the covenant between the chosen people and their God. The sanctity of the Sabbath was foreshadowed in the creation account, even before humans were placed on the earth, as evidenced by God resting after six periods or days of creative work, blessing the seventh day, and making it holy.[430] During Israel's exodus, the seventh day was designated as a day of rest, during which it was prohibited to bake, boil, or cook food in any way. A double portion of manna had to be collected on the sixth day, while gathering extra on other days was strictly forbidden. The Lord respected the sacredness of the holy day by providing no manna on that day.[431]
The commandment to celebrate the Sabbath in strictness was made definite and explicit in the decalog, written by the hand of God amidst the awful glory of Sinai; and the injunction was kept before the people through frequent proclamation.[432] It was unlawful to kindle a fire on that day; and record is made of a man who was put to death for gathering[Pg 204] sticks on the seventh day.[433] Under the administration of later prophets, the holiness of the Sabbath, the blessings promised to those who sanctified the day unto themselves, and the sin of Sabbath desecration were reiterated in words of inspired forcefulness.[434] Nehemiah admonished and reproved in the matter, and attributed the affliction of the nation to the forfeiture of Jehovah's favor through Sabbath violation.[435] By the mouth of Ezekiel the Lord affirmed that the institution of the Sabbath was a sign of the covenant between Himself and the people of Israel; and with stern severity He upbraided those who heeded not the day.[436] To the separate branch of the Israelitish nation that had been colonized on the western hemisphere, regard for the sanctity of the Sabbath was no less an imperative requirement.[437]
The command to observe the Sabbath strictly was clearly laid out in the Ten Commandments, written by God's hand in the awe-inspiring setting of Sinai; and the instruction was kept in front of the people through regular announcements.[432] It was forbidden to start a fire on that day, and there's a record of a man who was executed for gathering[Pg 204] sticks on the seventh day.[433] Under the guidance of later prophets, the importance of the Sabbath, the blessings promised to those who honored the day, and the sin of breaking the Sabbath were reiterated with inspired strength.[434] Nehemiah warned and corrected the people, saying that the suffering of the nation was due to losing God's favor through breaking the Sabbath.[435] Through Ezekiel, the Lord stated that the Sabbath was a sign of the covenant between Him and the people of Israel; and He strongly criticized those who disregarded the day.[436] For the part of the Israelite nation that had settled in the western hemisphere, respect for the Sabbath's sanctity was just as necessary.[437]
The observance demanded, however, was the very opposite of affliction and burden; the Sabbath was consecrated to rest and righteous enjoyment, and was to be a day of spiritual feasting before the Lord. It was not established as a day of abstinence; all might eat, but both mistress and maid were to be relieved from the work of preparing food; neither master nor man was to plow, dig or otherwise toil; and the Weekly day of rest was as much the boon of the cattle as of their owners.
The observance required, however, was the complete opposite of hardship and duty; the Sabbath was set apart for rest and joyful enjoyment, meant to be a day of spiritual celebration before the Lord. It wasn’t meant to be a day of fasting; everyone could eat, but both the lady of the house and her servants were to be free from the tasks of cooking; neither the owner nor the workers were to plow, dig, or do any other hard labor; and the weekly day of rest was as much a blessing for the animals as it was for their owners.
In addition to the weekly Sabbath, the Lord in mercy prescribed also a sabbatic year; in every seventh year the land was to rest, and thereby its fertility was enhanced.[438] After seven times seven years had passed, the fiftieth was to be celebrated throughout as a year of jubilee, during which the people should live on the accumulated increase of the preceding seasons of plenty, and rejoice in liberality by[Pg 205] granting to one another redemption from mortgage and bond, forgiveness of debt, and general relief from burdens—all of which had to be done in mercy and justice.[439] The Sabbaths established by the Lord, whether of days, of years, or of weeks of years, were to be times of refreshing, relief, blessing, bounty, and worship.
Along with the weekly Sabbath, the Lord graciously set aside a sabbatical year; every seventh year, the land was to rest, which improved its fertility.[438] After seven cycles of seven years, the fiftieth year would be celebrated as a year of jubilee, during which people would enjoy the surplus from previous seasons of abundance and generously offer each other relief from mortgages, forgiveness of debts, and overall support—all to be done with compassion and fairness.[439] The Sabbaths established by the Lord, whether they were days, years, or weeks of years, were meant to be times of refreshment, relief, blessings, generosity, and worship.
To the many who profess to regard the necessity of toil as a part of the curse evoked through Adam's fall, the Sabbath should appeal as a day of temporary reprieve, a time of exemption from labor, and as affording blessed opportunity of closer approach to the Presence from which mankind has been shut out through sin. And to those who take the higher view of life, and find in work both happiness and material blessing, the periodical relief brings refreshment and gives renewed zest for the days that follow.
To those who believe that work is a part of the curse brought about by Adam's fall, the Sabbath should be seen as a day of temporary relief, a break from labor, and a precious opportunity to connect more closely with the Presence that sin has distanced humanity from. For those who view life more positively and find joy and material rewards in their work, this regular break offers rejuvenation and sparks renewed enthusiasm for the days ahead.
But long before the advent of Christ, the original purpose of the Sabbath had come to be largely ignored in Israel; and the spirit of its observance had been smothered under the weight of rabbinical injunction and the formalism of restraint. In the time of the Lord's ministry, the technicalities prescribed as rules appended to the law were almost innumerable; and the burden thus forced upon the people had become well nigh unbearable. Among the many wholesome requirements of the Mosaic law, which the teachers and spiritual rulers of the Jews had made thus burdensome, that of Sabbath observance was especially prominent. The "hedge," which by unwarranted assumption they professedly set about the law,[440] was particularly thorny in the sections devoted to the Jewish Sabbath. Even trifling infractions of traditional rules were severely punished, and the capital penalty was held before the eyes of the people as a supreme threat for extreme desecration.[441]
But long before Christ arrived, the original purpose of the Sabbath had mostly been overlooked in Israel; and the true spirit of observing it had been buried under a mountain of rabbinical rules and formal restrictions. During the time of the Lord's ministry, the technical rules added to the law were nearly endless; and the burden placed on the people had become almost unbearable. Among the many reasonable requirements of the Mosaic law, which the teachers and spiritual leaders of the Jews had made so heavy, the observance of the Sabbath stood out. The “hedge,” which they unjustly claimed to have built around the law,[440] was especially thorny in the parts related to the Jewish Sabbath. Even minor violations of traditional rules were harshly punished, and the death penalty was presented to the people as the ultimate threat for serious desecration.[441]
THE HEALING OF A CRIPPLE ON THE SABBATH.
In view of these conditions, we are not surprized to find our Lord confronted with charges of Sabbath violation relatively early in the course of His public work. An instance attended with many great developments is recorded by John,[442] whose narrative covers the incident of a very impressive miracle. Jesus was again in Jerusalem at the time of one of the Jewish festivals.[443] There was a pool of water, called Bethesda, near the sheep market in the city. From the recorded description, we may understand this to have been a natural spring; possibly the water was rich in dissolved solids or gases, or both, making it such as we would call today a mineral spring; for we find that the water was reputed to possess curative virtues, and many afflicted folk came to bathe therein. The spring was of the pulsating variety; at intervals its waters rose with bubbling disturbance, and then receded to the normal level. Mineral springs of this kind are known today in many parts of the world. Some believed that the periodical upwelling of the Bethesda waters was the result of supernatural agency; and it was said that "whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." The Bethesda pool was wholly or partly enclosed; and five porches had been built for the shelter of those who waited at the spring for the intermittent bubbling up of the water.
Given these conditions, it’s not surprising that our Lord faced accusations of breaking the Sabbath early in His public ministry. One notable incident, which led to significant developments, is recorded by John,[442] who narrates an impressive miracle. Jesus was again in Jerusalem during one of the Jewish festivals.[443] There was a pool of water called Bethesda, located near the sheep market in the city. From the description provided, we can understand this as a natural spring; the water was probably rich in dissolved solids or gases, or both, making it what we would today call a mineral spring. It was believed that the water had healing properties, and many sick people came to bathe in it. The spring was of the pulsating type; its waters would rise with bubbling activity at intervals, then recede to their normal level. Such mineral springs are known in many parts of the world today. Some believed that the periodic rising of the Bethesda waters was due to supernatural forces; it was said that "whoever stepped in first after the water was stirred would be cured of whatever disease they had." The Bethesda pool was either entirely or partially enclosed, and there were five porches built for the shelter of those waiting for the water to bubble up.
On a certain Sabbath day, Jesus visited the pool and saw many afflicted folk thus waiting. Among them lay a man who for thirty-eight years had been grievously afflicted. From the man's statement of his helplessness we may infer that his malady was paralysis, or possibly an extreme form of rheumatism; whatever his affliction, it was so disabling[Pg 207] as to give him little chance of getting into the pool at the critical time, for others less crippled crowded him away; and, according to the legends regarding the curative properties of the spring, only the first to enter the pool after the agitation of the water might expect to be healed.
On a certain Sabbath, Jesus went to the pool and found many suffering people waiting. Among them was a man who had been seriously ill for thirty-eight years. From what this man said about his helplessness, we can conclude that he probably had paralysis or a severe form of rheumatism; whatever his condition was, it was so debilitating[Pg 207] that he had little chance of getting into the pool at the right moment, as others who were less disabled pushed him aside. According to the legends about the healing powers of the spring, only the first person to enter the pool after the water was stirred could hope to be cured.
Jesus recognized in the man a fit subject for blessing, and said to him: "Wilt thou be made whole?" The question was so simple as almost to appear superfluous. Of course the man wanted to be made well, and on the small chance of being able to reach the water at the right moment was patiently yet eagerly waiting. There was purpose, however, in these as in all other words of the Master. The man's attention was drawn to Him, fixed upon Him; the question aroused in the sufferer's heart renewed yearning for the health and strength of which he had been bereft since the days of his youth. His answer was pitiful, and revealed his almost hopeless state of mind; he thought only of the rumored virtues of Bethesda pool as he said: "Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me." Then spake Jesus: "Rise, take up thy bed, and walk." Immediately strength returned to the man, who for nearly four decades had been a helpless invalid; he obeyed the Master, and, taking up the little mattress or pallet on which he had rested, walked away.
Jesus saw that the man was a good candidate for a blessing and asked him, "Do you want to be healed?" The question was so straightforward that it almost seemed unnecessary. Obviously, the man wanted to be well, and he was waiting patiently yet eagerly for the chance to reach the water at the right moment. However, there was a purpose behind every word of the Master. The man’s attention was focused on Him; the question stirred up in the sufferer a renewed desire for the health and strength he had lost since his youth. His response was heartbreaking and showed his almost hopeless mindset; he only thought of the alleged healing powers of the Bethesda pool as he said, "Sir, I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I'm trying to get there, someone else steps in ahead of me." Jesus replied, "Get up, pick up your mat, and walk." Immediately, strength returned to the man, who had been a helpless invalid for nearly forty years; he followed the Master’s command, picked up the small mattress he had been lying on, and walked away.
He had not gone far, before the Jews, that is to say, some of the official class, for so the evangelist John employs the term, saw him carrying his bed; and it was the Sabbath day. To their peremptory reprimand he replied out of the gratitude and honest simplicity of his heart, that He who had healed him had told him to take up his bed and walk. The interest of the inquisitors was instantly turned from the man toward Him who had wrought the miracle; but the erstwhile cripple could not name his Benefactor, as he had lost sight of Jesus in the crowd before he had found opportunity for question[Pg 208] or thanks. The man who had been healed went to the temple, possibly impelled by a desire to express in prayer his gratitude and joy. There Jesus found him, and said unto him: "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."[444] The man had probably brought about his affliction through his own sinful habits. The Lord decided that he had suffered enough in body, and terminated his physical suffering with the subsequent admonition to sin no more.
He hadn't gone far when some of the Jewish officials noticed him carrying his bed, and it was the Sabbath. When they scolded him about it, he honestly replied, out of gratitude, that the one who had healed him told him to take up his bed and walk. Their interest quickly shifted from the man to the one who performed the miracle, but the former cripple couldn’t name his healer because he had lost sight of Jesus in the crowd before he had the chance to ask or to thank Him. The man who had been healed went to the temple, likely driven by a desire to express his gratitude and joy in prayer. There, Jesus found him and said, "Look, you are healed; sin no more, or something worse may happen to you." The man had probably caused his own suffering through his sinful habits. The Lord decided he had suffered enough and ended his physical pain with the warning not to sin again.
The man went and told the rulers who it was that had healed him. This he may have done with a desire to honor and glorify the Giver of his boon; we are not justified in ascribing to him any unworthy purpose, though by his act he was instrumental in augmenting the persecution of his Lord. So intense was the hatred of the priestly faction that the rulers sought a means of putting Jesus to death, under the specious pretense of His being a Sabbath-breaker. We may well ask of what act they could possibly have hoped to convict Him, even under the strictest application of their rules. There was no proscription against speaking on the Sabbath; and Jesus had but spoken to heal. He had not carried the man's bed, nor had He attempted even the lightest physical labor. By their own interpretation of the law they had no case against Him.
The man went and told the authorities who had healed him. He might have done this out of a desire to honor and praise the one who gave him this gift; we can’t assume he had any selfish motives, even though his actions contributed to the persecution of his Lord. The priests were so filled with hatred that the authorities looked for a way to put Jesus to death, pretending it was because He violated the Sabbath. We might wonder what act they could have possibly used to convict Him, even under their strictest rules. There was no rule against speaking on the Sabbath, and Jesus had only spoken to heal. He hadn’t carried the man’s bed, nor had He done even the slightest physical work. By their own interpretation of the law, they had no case against Him.
OUR LORD'S REPLY TO THE ACCUSING JEWS.
Nevertheless, the Jewish officials confronted Jesus with accusations. Whether the interview took place within the temple walls, on the open street, at the market place, or in the judgment hall, matters not. His reply to their charges is not confined to the question of Sabbath observance; it stands as the most comprehensive sermon in scripture on the vital subject of the relationship between the Eternal Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.[Pg 209]
Nevertheless, the Jewish officials confronted Jesus with accusations. Whether the interview happened within the temple, out on the street, at the marketplace, or in the judgment hall doesn’t matter. His response to their charges goes beyond just the issue of Sabbath observance; it serves as the most comprehensive sermon in scripture on the crucial topic of the relationship between the Eternal Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.[Pg 209]
His first sentence added to the already intense anger of the Jews. Referring to the work He had done on the holy day, He said: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." This remark they construed to be a blasphemy.[445] "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." To their spoken or unuttered protest, Jesus replied, that He, the Son, was not acting independently, and in fact could do nothing except what was in accordance with the Father's will, and what He had seen the Father do; that the Father so loved the Son as to show unto Him the Father's works.
His first statement only fueled the already intense anger of the Jews. Referring to the work He had done on the holy day, He said, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." They interpreted this remark as blasphemy.[445] "So the Jews were even more determined to kill Him because not only had He broken the Sabbath, but He also claimed that God was His Father, making Himself equal to God." In response to their spoken or unspoken objections, Jesus explained that He, the Son, was not acting independently and could do nothing except what was in line with the Father's will and what He had seen the Father do; that the Father loved the Son so much that He showed Him all of His works.
Be it observed that Jesus in no way attempted to explain away their construction of His words; on the contrary He confirmed their deductions as correct. He did associate Himself with the Father, even in a closer and more exalted relationship than they had conceived. The authority given to Him by the Father was not limited to the healing of bodily infirmities; He had power even to raise the dead—"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." Moreover, the judgment of men had been committed unto Him; and no one could honor the Father except by honoring the Son. Then followed this incisive declaration: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."
It's important to note that Jesus didn't try to downplay their interpretation of His words; rather, He affirmed that their conclusions were right. He connected Himself with the Father in an even deeper and more significant way than they had imagined. The authority given to Him by the Father wasn't just for healing physical ailments; He had the power to raise the dead—"For as the Father raises up the dead and makes them alive, so the Son makes alive whom He will." Additionally, judgment has been entrusted to Him; no one can truly honor the Father unless they honor the Son. Then came this powerful statement: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned but has crossed over from death to life."
Christ's realm was not bounded by the grave; even the dead were wholly dependent upon Him for their salvation; and to the terrified ears of His dumbfounded accusers He proclaimed the solemn truth, that even then the hour was near in which the dead should hear the voice of the Son of[Pg 210] God. Ponder His profound affirmation: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." The murderous rage of the Jews was rebuffed by the declaration that without His submission they could not take His life: "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." Another utterance was equally portentous: "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." He, the Son of the exalted and glorified Man of Holiness and now Himself a mortal Man,[446] was to be the judge of men.
Christ's kingdom wasn't limited by the grave; even the dead relied completely on Him for their salvation. To the shocked ears of His stunned accusers, He declared the serious truth that the time was coming when the dead would hear the voice of the Son of God. Think about His deep statement: "Truly, truly, I tell you, the time is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." The furious anger of the Jews was countered by the reminder that they couldn’t take His life without His consent: "For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself." Another significant statement was: "And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man." He, the Son of the exalted and glorified Man of Holiness and now a mortal Man, was to be the judge of humanity.
No wonder they marveled; such doctrine they had never before heard nor read; it was not of the scribes nor of the rabbis, of neither the Pharisaic nor Sadducean schools. But He reproved their amazement, saying: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."[447]
No wonder they were amazed; they had never heard or read such teachings before. It wasn't from the scribes or the rabbis, nor from the Pharisees or Sadducees. But He corrected their astonishment, saying: "Don’t be surprised by this: the time is coming when everyone in the graves will hear His voice and come out; those who have done good will rise to life, and those who have done evil will rise to judgment." [447]
This enunciation of the resurrection, so plainly made that the most unlettered could understand, must have offended any Sadducees present, for they emphatically denied the actuality of the resurrection. The universality of a resurrection is here unquestionably affirmed; not only the righteous but even those who merit condemnation are to come forth from their graves in their bodies of flesh and bones.[448]
This clear statement about the resurrection was so straightforward that anyone could get it, and it likely upset any Sadducees who were there because they strongly rejected the idea of resurrection. Here, the idea of a universal resurrection is firmly established; not just the righteous but even those who deserve punishment will rise from their graves in their flesh and bone bodies.[448]
Then, renewing His solemn asseveration of the unity of His Father's will and His own, Christ discussed the matter of witnesses to His work. He admitted what was a recognized tenet of the time, that no man's unsupported witness of himself was sufficient; but, He added: "There is another[Pg 211] that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true." He cites John the Baptist, and reminds them that they had sent a delegation to him, and that John had answered them by bearing testimony of the Messiah; and John had been a burning and a shining light, in whose illuminating ministry many had temporarily rejoiced. The hostile Jews were left to see that the witness of John was valid under their strictest construction of the rules of evidence; "But," He continued, "I receive not testimony from man ... But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me."
Then, reaffirming the unity of His will with His Father's, Christ talked about the witnesses to His work. He acknowledged a common belief of the time: that no one’s own testimony was enough on its own. But He added, “There is another[Pg 211] who testifies about me, and I know that his testimony is true.” He mentioned John the Baptist and reminded them that they had sent a group to him, and John had responded by testifying about the Messiah. John had been a powerful and bright light, and many had rejoiced in his enlightening ministry. The hostile Jews were forced to recognize that John's testimony was valid even by their strictest standards of evidence. “But,” He went on, “I do not accept testimony from man... Yet I have a greater witness than John’s: the works that the Father has given me to complete, the same works that I do, testify about me, that the Father has sent me. And the Father Himself, who sent me, has testified about me.”
Then in terms of unqualified condemnation, He told them they were devoid of the Father's word, for they refused to accept Himself whom the Father had sent. With humiliating directness He admonished these learned men of the law, these interpreters of the prophets, these professional expounders of sacred writ, to betake themselves to reading and study. "Search the scriptures," said He, "for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." Convictingly He continued—that they who admitted and taught that in the scriptures lay the way to eternal life, refused to come to Him, of whom those same scriptures testified, though by coming they might obtain eternal life. "I receive not honour from men," He added, "But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you." They knew that they sought for honor among men, received honors from one another, were made rabbis and doctors, scribes and teachers, by the bestowal of titles and degrees—all of men; but they rejected Him who came in the name of One infinitely greater than all their schools or societies—He had come in the supreme name of the Father. The cause of their spiritual ignorance was pointed out—they relied upon[Pg 212] the honors of men, and sought not the honor of real service in the cause of God.
Then, in a straightforward way, He told them they were without the Father's word because they rejected Him, the one the Father sent. With blunt honesty, He urged these knowledgeable men of the law—those who interpreted the prophets and explained sacred texts—to focus on studying. "Look into the scriptures," He said, "because you believe they give you eternal life, and they are what testify about me." He powerfully pointed out that while they claimed the scriptures held the path to eternal life, they refused to come to Him, the one those same scriptures talked about, even though by coming they could find eternal life. "I don’t seek honor from people," He added, "but I know you don't have the love of God in you." They were aware that they sought honor from others, earned accolades from each other, and were made rabbis and teachers through titles and degrees—all granted by people. Yet, they rejected Him, who came in the supreme name of the Father, greater than any of their schools or groups. The reason for their spiritual ignorance was clear—they focused on human honor and did not seek the honor that comes from genuinely serving God.
He had spoken of the authority of judgment that had been committed to Himself; now He explained that they should not think He would accuse them before the Father; a lesser one than He would accuse, even Moses, another of His witnesses in whom they professed such trust—Moses whom they all were said to believe—and, driving home the full effect of His powerful arraignment, the Lord continued: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" Such was the illuminating instruction combined with burning denunciation that these men had called forth by their futile attempt to convict Jesus on the charge of Sabbath desecration. This was but one of many evil machinations by which they so determinedly plotted, and strove to attach the stigma and invoke the penalty of Sabbath-breaking upon the very One who had ordained the Sabbath and was in truth and verity the one and only Lord thereof.
He had talked about the authority of judgment that had been given to Him; now He clarified that they shouldn’t think He would accuse them before the Father; a lesser being than Him would accuse them, even Moses, another witness in whom they claimed to place their trust—Moses, whom they all said they believed—and to emphasize His powerful point, the Lord continued: “If you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, for he wrote about me. But if you don’t believe his writings, how can you believe my words?” This was the enlightening teaching mixed with strong condemnation that these men provoked by their pointless attempt to blame Jesus for breaking the Sabbath. This was just one of many wicked schemes they persistently plotted, trying to label the very One who established the Sabbath with the shame and consequences of Sabbath-breaking, who was, in truth, the one and only Lord of it.
THE DISCIPLES CHARGED WITH SABBATH-BREAKING.
We may profitably consider in this connection other instances of good work done by our Lord on Sabbath days; and this we may do without undue regard to the order of the events in time. We again find Jesus in Galilee, whether prior to or after His visit to Jerusalem at the time of the unidentified feast, on which occasion He wrought the miracle of healing at the Bethesda pool, matters not. On a certain Sabbath, He and the disciples walked through a field of grain,[449] and, being hungry, the disciples began to pluck some of the ripening ears; rubbing out the kernels between their hands, they ate. There was no element of theft in what they[Pg 213] did, for the Mosaic law provided that in passing through another's vineyard or corn field one might pluck grapes or corn to relieve hunger; but it was forbidden to use a sickle in the field, or to carry away any of the grapes in a vessel.[450] The permission extended only to the relief of present need. When the disciples of Jesus availed themselves of this lawful privilege, there were Pharisees on the watch, and these came at once to the Master, saying: "Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day." The accusers doubtless had in mind the rabbinical dictum that rubbing out an ear of grain in the hands was a species of threshing; that blowing away the chaff was winnowing; and that it was unlawful to thresh or winnow on the Sabbath. Indeed, some learned rabbis had held it to be a sin to walk on grass during the Sabbath, inasmuch as the grass might be in seed, and the treading out of the seed would be as the threshing of grain.
We can use this opportunity to look at other examples of good work done by Jesus on the Sabbath, and we can do this without worrying too much about the order of events. We find Jesus in Galilee again, whether it was before or after His trip to Jerusalem during the unidentified feast when He performed the miracle of healing at the Bethesda pool is not important. One Sabbath, He and His disciples were walking through a grain field, and since they were hungry, the disciples started to pluck some of the ripening ears, rubbing the kernels between their hands to eat. There was no theft involved in what they did because the Mosaic law allowed someone to pluck grapes or grain to satisfy hunger when passing through another’s vineyard or field; however, it was forbidden to use a sickle in the field or carry any of the grapes away in a container. The permission was only for immediate need. When Jesus’ disciples took advantage of this lawful privilege, some Pharisees were watching and immediately approached Jesus, saying, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” The accusers likely thought of the rabbinical rule that rubbing grain in their hands was a form of threshing, and blowing away the chaff was winnowing, both of which were not allowed on the Sabbath. In fact, some knowledgeable rabbis believed it was a sin to walk on grass during the Sabbath since the grass might have seeds, and stepping on the seeds would be like threshing grain.
Jesus defended the disciples by citing a precedent applicable to the case, and of much greater import. The instance was that of David, who with a small company of men had asked bread of the priest Ahimelech; for they were hungry and in haste. The priest had none but consecrated bread, the loaves of shewbread which were placed in the sanctuary at intervals, and which none but the priests were allowed to eat. In view of the condition of urgent need the priest had given the shewbread to the hungry men.[451] Jesus also reminded the critical Pharisees that the priests in the temple regularly did much work on the Sabbath in the slaughtering of sacrificial victims and in altar service generally, yet were held blameless because of the higher requirements of worship which rendered such labor necessary; and added with solemn emphasis: "But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple." He cited the word of God[Pg 214] spoken through Hosea, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,"[452] and reproved at once their ignorance and their unrighteous zeal by telling them that had they known what that scripture meant they would not have condemned the guiltless. Be it remembered, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."[453]
Jesus defended the disciples by referencing a relevant example with much greater significance. The example was David, who, along with a small group of men, had asked the priest Ahimelech for bread because they were hungry and in a hurry. The priest only had consecrated bread, the loaves of showbread kept in the sanctuary at intervals, which only the priests were permitted to eat. Given their urgent need, the priest provided the showbread to the hungry men.[451] Jesus also pointed out to the critical Pharisees that the priests in the temple regularly performed a lot of work on the Sabbath, such as slaughtering sacrificial animals and overseeing altar services, yet they were considered blameless because those acts of worship made such labor necessary. He added with serious emphasis: "But I say to you that there is something greater than the temple here." He quoted God's word[Pg 214] spoken through Hosea, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice,"[452] and challenged their ignorance and misguided zeal by telling them that if they had understood the meaning of that scripture, they would not have condemned the innocent. Remember, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."[453]
His reproof was followed by the affirmation of His personal supremacy: "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day!" What can we gather from that declaration but that He, Jesus, there present in the flesh, was the Being through whom the Sabbath had been ordained, that it was He who had given and written in stone the decalog, including "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy," and, "the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God"?
His rebuke was followed by His confirmation of personal authority: "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day!" What can we take away from that statement other than that He, Jesus, who was physically present, was the one through whom the Sabbath had been established; that it was He who had given and inscribed in stone the commandments, including "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy," and, "the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God"?
A PHARISAICAL PLOT.
Again on a Sabbath, Jesus went into a synagog, and saw in the congregation a man whose right hand was withered.[454] There were Pharisees present, and they watched to see whether Jesus would heal the man, their purpose being to accuse Him if He did so. The Pharisees asked: "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?" Our Lord countered their poorly veiled purpose by asking: "Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days?" and extended the question, "or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?" They held their peace, for the question was double-edged. To reply in the affirmative would have been to justify the work of healing; a negative answer would have stultified them. He put another question: "What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep?"
Once again on a Sabbath, Jesus entered a synagogue and noticed a man in the crowd whose right hand was shriveled.[454] The Pharisees were present and watched to see if Jesus would heal the man, hoping to accuse Him if He did. They asked, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" Jesus responded to their veiled intent by asking, "Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath?" He then continued, "Or to do evil? To save a life or to kill?" They remained silent because the question was difficult. Answering yes would justify healing, while saying no would make them look foolish. He posed another question: "Which of you, if you had a single sheep and it fell into a pit on the Sabbath, wouldn’t grab it and pull it out? How much more valuable is a person than a sheep?"
As the Pharisees could not or would not reply, He summed up the whole matter thus: "Wherefore it is lawful[Pg 215] to do well on the sabbath days." He called upon the man with the withered hand to stand forth before the congregation. Grief and anger were mingled in His penetrating and sweeping glance; but, turning with compassion toward the afflicted one, He commanded him to stretch forth his hand; the man obeyed, and lo! the hand "was restored whole, like as the other."
As the Pharisees couldn’t or wouldn’t respond, He summarized the entire issue this way: "So it’s okay to do good on the Sabbath." He asked the man with the withered hand to come forward before the crowd. His intense gaze mixed grief and anger, but then, showing compassion toward the suffering man, He told him to stretch out his hand; the man did, and suddenly, his hand "was restored completely, just like the other."
The discomfited Pharisees were furious, "filled with madness" Luke says; and they went out to plot anew against the Lord. So bitter was their hatred that they allied themselves with the Herodians, a political party generally unpopular among the Jews.[455] The rulers of the people were ready to enter into any intrigue or alliance to accomplish their avowed purpose of bringing about the death of the Lord Jesus. Aware of the wicked determination against Him, Jesus withdrew Himself from the locality. Other accusations of Sabbath-breaking, brought against Christ by Jewish casuists, will be considered later.[456]
The frustrated Pharisees were furious, "filled with rage," Luke says; and they went out to plot again against the Lord. Their hatred was so intense that they teamed up with the Herodians, a political group that was generally unpopular among the Jews.[455] The leaders of the people were willing to engage in any scheme or alliance to achieve their stated goal of getting Jesus killed. Aware of their malicious intent against Him, Jesus withdrew from the area. Other accusations of breaking the Sabbath, made against Christ by Jewish legal experts, will be addressed later.[456]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 15.
1. Rabbinical Requirements Concerning Sabbath Observance.—"No feature of the Jewish system was so marked as their extraordinary strictness in the outward observance of the Sabbath, as a day of entire rest. The Scribes had elaborated from the command of Moses, a vast array of prohibitions and injunctions, covering the whole of social, individual, and public life, and carried it to the extreme of ridiculous caricature. Lengthened rules were prescribed as to the kinds of knots which might legally be tied on the Sabbath. The camel-driver's knot and the sailor's were unlawful, and it was equally illegal to tie or to loose them. A knot which could be untied with one hand might be undone. A shoe or sandal, a woman's cup, a wine or oil-skin, or a flesh-pot might be tied. A pitcher at a spring might be tied to the body-sash, but not with a cord.... To kindle or extinguish a fire on the Sabbath was a great desecration of the day, nor was even sickness allowed to violate Rabbinical rules. It was forbidden to give an emetic on the Sabbath—to set a broken bone, or put back a dislocated joint, though some Rabbis, more liberal, held that whatever endangered life made the Sabbath law void, 'for the commands were given to Israel only that they might live by them.' One who was buried under ruins on the Sabbath,[Pg 216] might be dug for and taken out, if alive, but, if dead, he was to be left where he was, till the Sabbath was over."—Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, chap. 38.
1. Rabbinical Requirements Concerning Sabbath Observance.—"No aspect of the Jewish system was more prominent than their remarkable strictness in the outward observance of the Sabbath as a day of complete rest. The Scribes developed a vast number of prohibitions and regulations based on Moses' command, covering all areas of social, personal, and public life, even taking it to absurd extremes. Extensive rules were established regarding the types of knots that could be legally tied on the Sabbath. The camel-driver's knot and the sailor's knot were not allowed, and it was also forbidden to untie them. However, a knot that could be undone with one hand was permissible. A shoe or sandal, a woman's cup, a wine or oil-skin, or a flesh-pot could be tied. A pitcher at a spring could be tied to the body-sash, but not with a cord.... Igniting or putting out a fire on the Sabbath was considered a serious violation of the day, and even illness was not permitted to break Rabbinical rules. It was prohibited to administer an emetic on the Sabbath, to set a broken bone, or to reposition a dislocated joint, although some Rabbis, taking a more lenient view, believed that anything endangering life made the Sabbath laws inapplicable, 'for the commands were given to Israel only that they might live by them.' One who was trapped under debris on the Sabbath[Pg 216] could be dug out and rescued if alive, but if dead, they were to be left where they were until the Sabbath was over."—Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, chap. 38.
2. The Unnamed Feast.—There has been no little discussion as to the particular festival referred to in John 5:1, at the time of which Jesus healed the cripple at the pool of Bethesda. Many writers hold that it was the Passover, others that it was the feast of Purim, or some other Jewish celebration. The only semblance of importance attaching to the question is the possibility of learning from the fact, if it could be proved, something of the chronological order of events at this period of our Lord's life. We are not told which feast this was, neither the year nor the time of the year when it occurred. The miracle wrought on the occasion, and the doctrinal discourse delivered as a result thereof, depend for their value in no degree on the determination of date.
2. The Unnamed Feast.—There's been quite a bit of debate about the specific festival mentioned in John 5:1, during which Jesus healed the cripple at the pool of Bethesda. Some writers believe it was the Passover, while others think it was the feast of Purim or another Jewish celebration. The only real significance of this question lies in the potential to learn more about the chronological order of events in this part of our Lord's life, if it could be established. We're not told which feast it was, nor the year or the season when it took place. The miracle performed on that occasion and the doctrinal teaching that followed hold no less value regardless of the exact date.
3. Shewbread.—The name means "bread of the presence," signifying that it was placed in the presence of Jehovah. The bread so sanctified consisted of twelve loaves, made without leaven. They were to be deposited in the Holy Place in two columns of six loaves each. Zenos, in Stand. Bible Dict. writes: "They were allowed to remain there for a whole week, at the end of which period they were removed, and eaten by the priest upon holy ground, i.e. within the precincts of the sanctuary. For other persons than priests to eat of the loaves of the shewbread was regarded as sacrilegious, for they were 'holy.'" See Exo. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Sam. 21:1-6.
3. Shewbread.—The name means "bread of the presence," indicating that it was placed in the presence of Jehovah. This sacred bread consisted of twelve loaves, made without any leaven. They were to be arranged in the Holy Place in two stacks of six loaves each. Zenos, in Stand. Bible Dict. writes: "They were allowed to stay there for an entire week, after which they were removed and eaten by the priest on holy ground, meaning within the sanctuary area. It was considered sacrilegious for anyone other than priests to eat the loaves of the shewbread, as they were 'holy.'" See Exo. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Sam. 21:1-6.
4. The Sabbath Was Made for Man and Not Man for the Sabbath.—Edersheim (vol. i, pp. 57, 58) says: "When on his flight from Saul, David had, 'when an hungered,' eaten of the shewbread and given it to his followers, although, by the letter of the Levitical law, it was only to be eaten by the priests. Jewish tradition vindicated his conduct on the plea that 'danger to life superseded the Sabbath law,' and hence, all laws connected with it.... In truth, the reason why David was blameless in eating the shewbread was the same as that which made the Sabbath labor of the priests lawful. The Sabbath law was not one merely of rest, but of rest for worship. The service of the Lord was the object in view. The priests worked on the Sabbath, because this service was the object of the Sabbath; and David was allowed to eat of the shewbread, not [solely] because there was danger to life from starvation, but because he pleaded that he was on the service of the Lord, and needed this provision. The disciples, when following the Lord, were similarly on the service of the Lord; ministering to Him was more than ministering in the temple, for He was greater than the temple. If the Pharisees had believed this, they would not have questioned their conduct, nor in so doing have themselves infringed that higher law which enjoined mercy, not sacrifice."[Pg 217]
4. The Sabbath Was Made for Man and Not Man for the Sabbath.—Edersheim (vol. i, pp. 57, 58) says: "When David was fleeing from Saul, he was 'hungry' and ate the showbread, giving some to his followers, even though, according to the Levitical law, it was meant only for the priests. Jewish tradition defended his actions by claiming that 'danger to life took precedence over the Sabbath law,' and therefore all laws related to it.... In reality, the reason David was justified in eating the showbread was the same as the reason the priests' work was permitted on the Sabbath. The Sabbath law wasn't just about rest; it was about rest for worship. The purpose was the service of the Lord. The priests performed their duties on the Sabbath because that was the purpose of the Sabbath; and David was allowed to eat the showbread, not just because he was at risk of starving, but because he argued that he was serving the Lord and needed the provision. Similarly, the disciples, while following the Lord, were also engaged in the service of the Lord; serving Him was even more significant than serving in the temple because He was greater than the temple. If the Pharisees had understood this, they wouldn’t have questioned their actions, nor would they have violated the higher law that called for mercy, not sacrifice."[Pg 217]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[430] Gen. 2:3.
[431] Exo. 16:16-31.
[433] Exo. 35:3; Numb. 15:32-36.
[434] Isa. 56:2; 58:13; Jer. 17:21-24.
[435] Neh. 8:9-12; 13:15-22.
[436] Ezek. 20:12-24.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ezek. 20:12-24.
[439] Lev. 25:10-55.
[442] John, chapter 5.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 5.
[450] Deut. 23:24, 25.
[452] Hos. 6:6; compare Micah 6:6-9.
CHAPTER 16.
THE CHOSEN TWELVE.
THEIR CALL AND ORDINATION.[457]
The night preceding the morn on which the Twelve Apostles were called and ordained was spent by the Lord in solitary seclusion; He had "continued all night in prayer to God."[458] Then, when day had come, and while many people were gathering to hear more of the new and wonderful gospel of the kingdom, He called to come closer some who had theretofore been devotedly associated together as His disciples or followers, and from among them He chose twelve, whom he ordained and named apostles.[459] Prior to that time none of these had been distinguished by any special delegation of authority or appointment; they had been numbered with the disciples in general, though, as we have seen, seven had received a preliminary call, and had promptly responded thereto by abandoning wholly or in part their business affairs, and had followed the Master. These were Andrew, John, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael, James, and Levi Matthew. Prior to this eventful day, however, none of the Twelve had been ordained or set apart to their sacred office.
The night before the morning when the Twelve Apostles were called and ordained, the Lord spent time in solitude; He had "continued all night in prayer to God."[458] Then, when day broke and many people gathered to hear more about the new and amazing gospel of the kingdom, He called some of His devoted followers closer to Him, and from among them, He chose twelve, whom he ordained and named apostles.[459] Before this, none of them had received any special authority or appointment; they had been counted among the disciples in general, although, as we have seen, seven had received an initial call and had quickly responded by leaving behind their business matters to follow the Master. These were Andrew, John, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael, James, and Levi Matthew. However, before this significant day, none of the Twelve had been ordained or set apart for their sacred role.
The three Gospel-writers who make record of the organization of the Twelve place Simon Peter first and Judas Iscariot last in the category; they agree also in the relative position of some but not of all the others. Following the order given by Mark, and this may be the most convenient since he names as the first three those who later became most prominent, we have the following list: Simon Peter,[Pg 218] James (son of Zebedee), John (brother of the last-named), Andrew (brother of Simon Peter), Philip, Bartholomew (or Nathanael), Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alpheus), Judas (also known as Lebbeus or Thaddeus), Simon (distinguished by his surname Zelotes, also known as the Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot.
The three Gospel writers who record the organization of the Twelve place Simon Peter first and Judas Iscariot last in the list; they also agree on the relative positions of some, but not all, of the others. Following the order given by Mark, which may be the most convenient since he lists first those who later became the most prominent, we have the following list: Simon Peter,[Pg 218] James (son of Zebedee), John (brother of James), Andrew (brother of Simon Peter), Philip, Bartholomew (or Nathanael), Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alpheus), Judas (also known as Lebbeus or Thaddeus), Simon (identified by his surname Zelotes, also known as the Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot.
TWELVE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.
Simon, named as the first apostle, is more commonly known as Peter—the appellation given him by the Lord on the occasion of their first meeting, and afterward confirmed.[460] He was the son of Jona, or Jonas, and by vocation was a fisherman. He and his brother Andrew were partners with James and John, the sons of Zebedee; and apparently the fishing business was a prosperous one with them, for they owned their boats and gave employment to other men.[461] Peter's early home had been at the little fishery town of Bethsaida,[462] on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee; but about the time of his first association with Jesus, or soon thereafter, he, with others of his family, removed to Capernaum, where he appears to have become an independent householder.[463] Simon Peter was a married man before his call to the ministry. He was well to do in a material way; and when he once spoke of having left all to follow Jesus, the Lord did not deny that Peter's sacrifice of temporal possessions was as great as had been implied. We are not justified in regarding him as unlettered or ignorant. True, both he and John were designated by the council of rulers as "unlearned and ignorant men,"[464] but this was spoken of them as indicating their lack of training in the schools of the rabbis; and it is worthy of note, that the members of that same[Pg 219] council were amazed at the wisdom and power manifested by the two apostles, whom they professed to despize.
Simon, known as the first apostle, is more commonly referred to as Peter—the name given to him by the Lord during their first meeting and later reaffirmed.[460] He was the son of Jona, or Jonas, and worked as a fisherman. He and his brother Andrew partnered with James and John, the sons of Zebedee, and it seems they had a successful fishing business, owning their own boats and employing others.[461] Peter's early home was in the small fishing town of Bethsaida,[462] located on the west side of the Sea of Galilee; but around the time he first met Jesus, or shortly after, he and his family moved to Capernaum, where he seems to have become an independent homeowner.[463] Simon Peter was married before he was called to ministry. He was financially stable, and when he once mentioned leaving everything to follow Jesus, the Lord did not dispute that Peter’s sacrifice of material possessions was significant. We shouldn't think of him as uneducated or ignorant. Certainly, both he and John were labeled by the ruling council as "unlearned and ignorant men,"[464] but this referred to their lack of formal education in rabbinic schools; it's noteworthy that the same members of that council were astonished by the wisdom and power displayed by the two apostles they claimed to look down on.
In temperament Peter was impulsive and stern, and, until trained by severe experience, was lacking in firmness. He had many human weaknesses, yet in spite of them all he eventually overcame the temptations of Satan and the frailties of the flesh, and served his Lord as the appointed and acknowledged leader of the Twelve. Of the time and place of his death the scriptures do not speak; but the manner thereof was prefigured by the resurrected Lord,[465] and in part was foreseen by Peter himself.[466] Tradition, originating in the writings of the early Christian historians other than the apostles, states that Peter met death by crucifixion as a martyr during the persecution incident to the reign of Nero, probably between A.D. 64 and 68. Origen states that the apostle was crucified with his head downward. Peter, with James and John, his associates in the presidency of the Twelve, has ministered as a resurrected being in the present dispensation, in restoring to earth the Melchizedek Priesthood, including the Holy Apostleship, which had been taken away because of the apostasy and unbelief of men.[467]
In personality, Peter was impulsive and strict, and until he was shaped by harsh experiences, he struggled with being resolute. He had many human flaws, yet despite them all, he eventually resisted the temptations of Satan and the weaknesses of the flesh, serving as the chosen and recognized leader of the Twelve. The scriptures don't specify the time or circumstances of his death, but the risen Lord hinted at it,[465] and Peter himself partially foresaw it.[466] Tradition, coming from the writings of early Christian historians other than the apostles, suggests that Peter died as a martyr by crucifixion during the persecution that occurred under Nero, likely between A.D. 64 and 68. Origen mentions that the apostle was crucified with his head down. Alongside James and John, his fellow leaders of the Twelve, Peter has ministered as a resurrected being in the current dispensation, helping to restore the Melchizedek Priesthood, including the Holy Apostleship, which had been lost due to the apostasy and disbelief of people.[467]
James and John, brothers by birth, partners in business as fishermen, brethren in the ministry, were associated together and with Peter in the apostolic calling. The Lord bestowed upon the pair a title in common—Boanerges, or Sons of Thunder[468]—possibly with reference to the zeal they developed in His service, which, indeed, at times had to be restrained, as when they would have had fire called from heaven to destroy the Samaritan villagers who had refused hospitality to the Master.[469] They and their mother aspired to the highest honors of the kingdom, and asked that the two be given places, one on the right the other on the left of[Pg 220] Christ in His glory. This ambition was gently reproved by the Lord, and the request gave offense to the other apostles.[470] With Peter these two brothers were witnesses of many of the most important incidents in the life of Jesus; thus, the three were the only apostles admitted to witness the raising of the daughter of Jairus from death to life;[471] they were the only members of the Twelve present at the transfiguration of Christ;[472] they were nearest the Lord during the period of His mortal agony in Gethsemane;[473] and, as heretofore told, they have ministered in these modern days in the restoration of the Holy Apostleship with all its ancient authority and power of blessing.[474] James is commonly designated in theological literature as James I, to distinguish him from the other apostle bearing the same name. James, the son of Zebedee, was the first of the apostles to meet a martyr's violent death; he was beheaded by order of the king, Herod Agrippa.[475] John had been a disciple of the Baptist, and had demonstrated his confidence in the latter's testimony of Jesus by promptly turning from the forerunner and following the Lord.[476] He became a devoted servant, and repeatedly refers to himself as the disciple "whom Jesus loved."[477] At the last supper John sat next to Jesus leaning his head upon the Master's breast;[478] and next day as he stood beneath the cross he received from the dying Christ the special charge to care for the Lord's mother;[479] and to this he promptly responded by conducting the weeping Mary to his own house. He was the first to recognize the risen Lord on the shores of Galilee, and received from His immortal lips encouragement of his hope that his life would be continued in the body, in order that he might minister among men[Pg 221] until the Christ shall come in His glory.[480] The realization of that hope has been attested by revelation in modern days.[481]
James and John, brothers by birth, business partners as fishermen, and fellow ministers, worked together with Peter in their mission as apostles. The Lord gave them a shared title—Boanerges, or Sons of Thunder[468]—likely referring to the passion they showed in His service, which sometimes needed to be tempered, like the time they wanted to call down fire from heaven to destroy the Samaritan villagers who wouldn't show hospitality to the Master.[469] They, along with their mother, sought the highest positions in the kingdom, asking for one brother to sit on the right and the other on the left of[Pg 220] Christ in His glory. The Lord gently reproved this ambition, and the request upset the other apostles.[470] Along with Peter, these two brothers witnessed many key moments in Jesus' life; they were the only apostles present for the raising of Jairus's daughter from the dead;[471] they were the only members of the Twelve at Christ's transfiguration;[472] they were closest to the Lord during His suffering in Gethsemane;[473] and, as previously mentioned, they have served in these modern times in the restoration of the Holy Apostleship with all its ancient authority and power of blessing.[474] James is often referred to in theological literature as James I, to distinguish him from the other apostle with the same name. James, the son of Zebedee, was the first apostle to die a violent martyr's death; he was beheaded by order of King Herod Agrippa.[475] John had been a disciple of the Baptist and showed his trust in the Baptist's testimony of Jesus by immediately turning away from the forerunner and following the Lord.[476] He became a devoted follower, often referring to himself as the disciple "whom Jesus loved."[477] At the Last Supper, John sat next to Jesus, resting his head on the Master's chest;[478] and the next day, standing under the cross, he received from the dying Christ the special task of caring for the Lord's mother;[479] and he quickly took her to his own home. He was the first to recognize the risen Lord on the shores of Galilee and received encouragement from His immortal words that his life would continue in the body so he could serve among people[Pg 221] until Christ comes again in His glory.[480] The fulfillment of that hope has been confirmed through revelation in modern times.[481]
Andrew, son of Jona and brother of Simon Peter, is mentioned less frequently than the three already considered. He had been one of the Baptist's followers, and with John, the son of Zebedee, left the Baptist to learn from Jesus; and having learned he went in search of Peter, solemnly averred to him that the Messiah had been found, and brought his brother to the Savior's feet.[482] He shared with Peter in the honor of the call of the Lord on the sea shore, and in the promise "I will make you fishers of men."[483] In one instance we read of Andrew as present with Peter, James and John, in a private interview with the Lord;[484] and he is mentioned in connection with the miraculous feeding of the five thousand,[485] and as associated with Philip in arranging an interview between certain inquiring Greeks and Jesus.[486] He is named with others in connection with our Lord's ascension.[487] Tradition is rife with stories about this man, but of the extent of his ministry, the duration of his life, and the circumstances of his death, we have no authentic record.
Andrew, son of Jona and brother of Simon Peter, is mentioned less often than the three already discussed. He had been a follower of the Baptist and, along with John, the son of Zebedee, left the Baptist to learn from Jesus. After learning, he went to find Peter and confidently told him that the Messiah had been found, bringing his brother to the Savior. [482] He shared with Peter the honor of being called by the Lord on the shore, along with the promise "I will make you fishers of men." [483] In one instance, we see Andrew present with Peter, James, and John during a private meeting with the Lord; [484] he is also mentioned in relation to the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, [485] and he is noted for working with Philip to arrange a meeting between some curious Greeks and Jesus. [486] He is listed with others in connection with our Lord's ascension. [487] There are many stories about this man in tradition, but we have no verified records regarding the extent of his ministry, how long he lived, or the circumstances of his death.
Philip may have been the first to receive the authoritative call "Follow me" from the lips of Jesus, and we find him immediately testifying that Jesus was the long expected Messiah. His home was in Bethsaida, the town of Peter, Andrew, James, and John. It is said that Jesus found him,[488] whereas the others concerned in that early affiliation seem to have come of themselves severally to Christ. We find brief mention of him at the time the five thousand were fed, on which occasion Jesus asked him "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" This was done to test and[Pg 222] prove him, for Jesus knew what would be done. Philip's reply was based on a statement of the small amount of money at hand, and showed no expectation of miraculous intervention.[489] It was to him the Greeks applied when they sought a meeting with Jesus as noted in connection with Andrew. He was mildly reproved for his misunderstanding when he asked Jesus to show to him and the others the Father—"Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?"[490] Aside from incidental mention of his presence as one of the Eleven after the ascension, the scriptures tell us nothing more concerning him.
Philip might have been the first to hear the direct call “Follow me” from Jesus, and we find him quickly proclaiming that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. He lived in Bethsaida, the hometown of Peter, Andrew, James, and John. It’s said that Jesus found him,[488] while the others involved in that early connection seemed to have come to Christ on their own. We see a brief reference to him when the five thousand were fed, when Jesus asked him, “Where can we buy bread for these people to eat?” This was meant to test him, as Jesus already knew what would happen. Philip responded by pointing out the small amount of money available and showed no belief in a miraculous solution.[489] It was to him that the Greeks reached out when they wanted to meet Jesus, as noted alongside Andrew. He was gently corrected for his confusion when he asked Jesus to show him and the others the Father—“Have I been with you all this time, and yet you still don’t know me, Philip?”[490] Other than a few mentions of him as one of the Eleven after the ascension, the scriptures don’t provide any more information about him.
Bartholomew is mentioned in scripture by this name only in connection with his ordination to the apostleship, and as one of the Eleven after the ascension. The name means son of Tolmai. It is practically certain, however, that he is the man called Nathanael in John's Gospel—the one whom Christ designated as "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile."[491] He is named again as among those who went fishing with Peter after the resurrection of Christ.[492] His home was in Cana of Galilee. The reasons for assuming that Bartholomew and Nathanael are the same persons are these: Bartholomew is named in each of the three synoptic Gospels as an apostle, but Nathanael is not mentioned. Nathanael is named twice in John's Gospel, and Bartholomew not at all; Bartholomew and Philip, or Nathanael and Philip, are mentioned together.
Bartholomew is mentioned in scripture by this name only when talking about his appointment as an apostle and as one of the Eleven after the ascension. The name means son of Tolmai. However, it’s practically certain that he is the same person referred to as Nathanael in John's Gospel—the one whom Christ called "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile."[491] He is also listed among those who went fishing with Peter after Christ's resurrection.[492] He lived in Cana of Galilee. The reasons for believing that Bartholomew and Nathanael are the same person are these: Bartholomew is named as an apostle in all three synoptic Gospels, while Nathanael is not mentioned. Nathanael appears twice in John's Gospel, and Bartholomew isn’t mentioned at all; Bartholomew and Philip, or Nathanael and Philip, are listed together.
Matthew, or Levi, son of Alpheus, was one of the seven who received a call to follow Christ before the ordination of the Twelve. He it was who gave a feast, for attending which Jesus and the disciples were severely criticized by the Pharisees,[493] on the charge that it was unseemly for Him to eat with publicans and sinners. Matthew was a publican;[Pg 223] he so designates himself in the Gospel he wrote;[494] but the other evangelists omit the mention when including him with the Twelve. His Hebrew name, Levi, is understood by many as an indication of priestly lineage. Of his ministry we have no detailed account; though he is the author of the first Gospel, he refrains from special mention of himself except in connection with his call and ordination. He is spoken of by other than scriptural writers as one of the most active of the apostles after Christ's death, and as operating in lands far from Palestine.
Matthew, also known as Levi, son of Alpheus, was one of the seven who got called to follow Christ before the Twelve were officially chosen. He hosted a feast that Jesus and the disciples attended, which led to strong criticism from the Pharisees,[493] who claimed it was inappropriate for Him to eat with tax collectors and sinners. Matthew was a tax collector; he identifies himself as such in the Gospel he wrote;[Pg 223] however, the other Gospel writers don't mention this when listing him among the Twelve. His Hebrew name, Levi, is seen by many as a sign of priestly heritage. We don't have a detailed account of his ministry; even though he's the author of the first Gospel, he doesn't highlight himself much except in relation to his calling and ordination. Other historical writers note that he was one of the most active apostles after Christ's death, working in regions far from Palestine.
Thomas, also known as Didymus, the Greek equivalent of his Hebrew name, meaning "a twin," is mentioned as a witness of the raising of Lazarus. His devotion to Jesus is shown by his desire to accompany the Lord to Bethany, though persecution in that region was almost certain. To his fellow apostles Thomas said: "Let us also go, that we may die with him."[495] Even as late in his experience as the night before the crucifixion, Thomas had failed to comprehend the impending necessity of the Savior's sacrifice; and when Jesus referred to going away and leaving the others to follow, Thomas asked how they could know the way. For his lack of understanding he stood reproved.[496] He was absent when the resurrected Christ appeared to the assembled disciples in the evening of the day of His rising; and on being informed by the others that they had seen the Lord, he forcefully expressed his doubt, and declared he would not believe unless he could see and feel for himself the wounds in the crucified body. Eight days later the Lord visited the apostles again, when, as on the earlier occasion, they were within closed doors; and to Thomas the Lord said: "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side." Then Thomas, no longer doubting but with love and reverence filling his soul,[Pg 224] exclaimed "My Lord and my God." The Lord said unto him: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."[497] Of Thomas no further record appears in the New Testament aside from that of his presence with his fellows after the ascension.
Thomas, also known as Didymus, which is the Greek equivalent of his Hebrew name meaning "a twin," is noted as a witness to the raising of Lazarus. His loyalty to Jesus is evident in his wish to go with the Lord to Bethany, even though persecution in that area was nearly guaranteed. He told his fellow apostles, "Let’s go too, that we may die with him."[495] Even just before the crucifixion, Thomas still didn’t grasp the urgent need for the Savior's sacrifice. When Jesus mentioned leaving and the others to follow, Thomas asked how they could know the way. For his misunderstanding, he was corrected.[496] He was not present when the resurrected Christ appeared to the gathered disciples on the evening of His resurrection, and when the others told him they had seen the Lord, he expressed his doubt adamantly, stating he wouldn’t believe unless he could see and touch the wounds of the crucified body. Eight days later, the Lord visited the apostles again, and once more they were behind closed doors; the Lord said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put your hand here, and put it into my side." Then, with his doubts vanished and filled with love and reverence, Thomas exclaimed, "My Lord and my God." The Lord replied, "Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."[497] There's no further mention of Thomas in the New Testament except for his presence with the other apostles after the ascension.
James, son of Alpheus, is mentioned in the Gospels only in the matter of his ordination to the apostleship; and but once elsewhere in the New Testament by the appellation "son of Alpheus."[498] In writings other than scriptural he is sometimes designated as James II to avoid confusing him with James the son of Zebedee. There is acknowledged uncertainty concerning the identity of James the son of Alpheus as the James or one of the James's referred to in the Acts and the Epistles;[499] and a plenitude of controversial literature on the subject is extant.[500]
James, the son of Alpheus, is mentioned in the Gospels only regarding his appointment as an apostle; and he is referred to just once elsewhere in the New Testament as "son of Alpheus."[498] In non-biblical writings, he is sometimes called James II to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee. There is recognized uncertainty about whether James the son of Alpheus is the same as or one of the James's mentioned in the Acts and the Epistles;[499] and there is a wealth of controversial literature on the topic.[500]
Judas is called Lebbeus Thaddeus by Matthew, Thaddeus by Mark, and Judas the brother of James by Luke.[501] The only other specific reference to this apostle is made by John, and is incident to the last long interview between Jesus and the apostles, when this Judas, "not Iscariot," asked how or why Jesus would manifest Himself to His chosen servants and not to the world at large. The man's[Pg 225] question shows that the really distinguishing character of the apostleship was not fully comprehended by him at that time.
Judas is referred to as Lebbeus Thaddeus by Matthew, Thaddeus by Mark, and Judas the brother of James by Luke.[501] The only other specific mention of this apostle comes from John, during the last long conversation between Jesus and the apostles. In this moment, this Judas, "not Iscariot," asked why Jesus would reveal Himself to His chosen followers but not to the wider world. His question[Pg 225] shows that he didn't fully understand what being an apostle really meant at that time.
Simon Zelotes, so designated in Acts,[502] and as Simon called Zelotes in Luke's Gospel, is distinguished by both Matthew and Mark as the Canaanite. The last designation has no reference to the town of Cana, nor to the land of Canaan, neither is it in any sense of geographical signification; it is the Syro-Chaldaic equivalent of the Greek word which is rendered in the English translation "Zelotes." The two names, therefore, have the same fundamental meaning, and each refers to the Zealots, a Jewish sect or faction, known for its zeal in maintaining the Mosaic ritual. Doubtless Simon had learned moderation and toleration from the teachings of Christ; otherwise he would scarcely have been suited to the apostolic ministry. His zealous earnestness, properly directed, may have developed into a most serviceable trait of character. This apostle is nowhere in the scriptures named apart from his colleagues.
Simon Zelotes, as mentioned in Acts,[502] and referred to as Simon called Zelotes in Luke's Gospel, is identified by both Matthew and Mark as the Canaanite. This last term has no connection to the town of Cana or the land of Canaan, nor does it carry any geographical meaning; it is the Syro-Chaldaic equivalent of the Greek word that translates to "Zelotes" in English. Thus, the two names have the same fundamental meaning and both refer to the Zealots, a Jewish sect known for their dedication to following the Mosaic law. It's likely that Simon learned moderation and tolerance from Christ's teachings; otherwise, he wouldn't have been suited for the apostolic ministry. His passionate devotion, when properly guided, may have become a valuable character trait. This apostle is never mentioned separately from his fellow apostles in the scriptures.
Judas Iscariot is the only Judean named among the Twelve; all the others were Galileans. He is generally understood to have been a resident of Kerioth, a small town in the southerly part of Judea, but a few miles west from the Dead Sea, though for this tradition, as also for the signification of his surname, we lack direct authority. So too we are uninformed as to his lineage, except that his father's name was Simon.[503] He served as treasurer or agent of the apostolic company, receiving and disbursing such offerings as were made by disciples and friends, and purchasing supplies as required.[504] That he was unprincipled and dishonest in the discharge of this trust is attested by John. His avaricious and complaining nature revealed itself in his murmuring against what he called a waste of costly spikenard,[Pg 226] in the anointing of the Lord by Mary but a few days before the crucifixion; he hypocritically suggested that the precious ointment could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor.[505] The crowning deed of perfidy in the career of Iscariot was his deliberate betrayal of his Master to death; and this the infamous creature did for a price, and accomplished the foul deed with a kiss. He brought his guilty life to a close by a revolting suicide and his spirit went to the awful fate reserved for the sons of perdition.[506]
Judas Iscariot is the only Judean among the Twelve; the rest were Galileans. He is usually believed to have come from Kerioth, a small town in the southern part of Judea, just a few miles west of the Dead Sea, though there isn't direct evidence for this tradition or the meaning of his surname. We also don't know much about his ancestry, except that his father's name was Simon.[503] He served as the treasurer or agent for the group of apostles, collecting and distributing donations from disciples and friends, and buying supplies as needed.[504] John confirms that he was deceitful and dishonest in this role. His greedy and critical nature showed when he complained about the use of expensive spikenard during the anointing of the Lord by Mary just days before the crucifixion; he hypocritically claimed that the valuable ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor.[505] The ultimate act of betrayal in Iscariot's life was his intentional betrayal of his Master leading to his death; he did this for money and carried out the treacherous act with a kiss. He ended his guilty life with a disgusting suicide, and his spirit faced the terrible fate meant for the sons of perdition.[506]
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TWELVE.
A survey of the general characteristics and qualifications of this body of twelve men reveals some interesting facts. Before their selection as apostles they had all become close disciples of the Lord; they believed in Him; several of them, possibly all, had openly confessed that He was the Son of God; and yet it is doubtful that any one of them fully understood the real significance of the Savior's work. It is evident by the later remarks of many of them, and by the instructions and rebuke they called forth from the Master, that the common Jewish expectation of a Messiah who would reign in splendor as an earthly sovereign after He had subdued all other nations, had a place even in the hearts of these chosen ones. After long experience, Peter's concern was: "Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?"[507] They were as children to be trained and taught; but they were mostly willing pupils, receptive of soul, and imbued with a sincere eagerness to serve. To Jesus they were His little ones, His children, His servants, and His friends, as they merited.[508] They were all of the common people, not rabbis, scholars, nor priestly officials. Their inner natures, not their outward accomplishments,[Pg 227] were taken into prime account in the Lord's choosing. The Master chose them; they did not choose themselves; by Him they were ordained,[509] and they could in consequence rely the more implicitly upon His guidance and support. To them much was given; much of them was required. With the one black exception they all became shining lights in the kingdom of God, and vindicated the Master's selection. He recognized in each the characteristics of fitness developed in the primeval world of spirits.[510]
A survey of the general characteristics and qualifications of this group of twelve men reveals some interesting facts. Before they were chosen as apostles, they had all become close disciples of the Lord; they believed in Him; several of them, possibly all, had openly admitted that He was the Son of God; and yet it’s likely that none of them fully grasped the true meaning of the Savior's mission. It's clear from their later comments and from the guidance and corrections they received from the Master that the common Jewish expectation of a Messiah who would reign gloriously as an earthly king after defeating all other nations was also held by these chosen ones. After a long time learning from Jesus, Peter expressed concern: "Look, we have left everything and followed you; what will we get out of it?"[507] They were like children to be educated and nurtured; but they were mostly eager students, open-hearted, and genuinely enthusiastic to serve. To Jesus, they were His little ones, His children, His servants, and His friends, as they had proven themselves to be.[508] They all came from everyday backgrounds, not from rabbis, scholars, or religious leaders. Their inner qualities, not their external achievements,[Pg 227] were the main factors in the Lord's selection. The Master chose them; they didn’t choose themselves; through Him they were appointed,[509] which allowed them to rely more fully on His guidance and support. Much was given to them; much was expected in return. With one exception, they all became beacons of light in the kingdom of God, validating the Master’s choice. He recognized in each of them the qualities needed that had been formed in the ancient world of spirits.[510]
DISCIPLES AND APOSTLES.
Discipleship is general; any follower of a man or devotee to a principle may be called a disciple. The Holy Apostleship is an office and calling belonging to the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood, at once exalted and specific, comprizing as a distinguishing function that of personal and special witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ as the one and only Redeemer and Savior of mankind.[511] The apostleship is an individual bestowal, and as such is conferred only through ordination. That the Twelve did constitute a council or "quorum" having authority in the Church established by Jesus Christ, is shown by their ministrations after the Lord's resurrection and ascension. Their first official act was that of filling the vacancy in their organization occasioned by the apostasy and death of Judas Iscariot; and in connection with this procedure, the presiding apostle, Peter, set forth the essential qualifications of the one who would be chosen and ordained, which comprized such knowledge of Jesus, His life, death, and resurrection, as would make the new apostle one with the Eleven as special witnesses of the Lord's work.[512]
Discipleship is broad; anyone who follows a person or is committed to a principle can be called a disciple. The Holy Apostleship is a position and calling that belongs to the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood, which is both exalted and specific, distinguishing itself by being a personal and unique witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ as the one and only Redeemer and Savior of humanity.[511] The apostleship is an individual appointment and, as such, is granted only through ordination. The fact that the Twelve formed a council or "quorum" with authority in the Church established by Jesus Christ is evident from their activities after the Lord's resurrection and ascension. Their first official act was to fill the vacancy created by the betrayal and death of Judas Iscariot; during this process, the presiding apostle, Peter, outlined the essential qualifications for the person who would be chosen and ordained, which included knowledge of Jesus, His life, death, and resurrection, ensuring that the new apostle would stand alongside the Eleven as special witnesses of the Lord's work.[512]
The ordination of the Twelve Apostles marked the inauguration[Pg 228] of an advanced epoch in the earthly ministry of Jesus, an epoch characterized by the organization of a body of men invested with the authority of the Holy Priesthood, upon whom would rest, more particularly after the Lord's departure, the duty and responsibility of continuing the work He had begun, and of building up the Church established by Him.
The ordination of the Twelve Apostles marked the beginning[Pg 228] of a significant phase in Jesus' earthly ministry, a phase defined by the formation of a group of men given the authority of the Holy Priesthood. After the Lord's departure, this group would have the duty and responsibility to carry on the work He started and to build up the Church He established.
The word "apostle" is an Anglicized form derived from the Greek apostolos, meaning literally "one who is sent," and connoting an envoy or official messenger, who speaks and acts by the authority of one superior to himself. In this sense Paul afterward applied the title to Christ as one specially sent and commissioned of the Father.[513]
The term "apostle" is an Anglicized version of the Greek apostolos, which literally means "one who is sent" and implies an envoy or official messenger who speaks and acts with the authority of someone higher up. In this context, Paul later used the title for Christ as someone who was specifically sent and commissioned by the Father.[513]
The Lord's purpose in choosing and ordaining the Twelve is thus enunciated by Mark: "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils."[514] For a season following their ordination the apostles remained with Jesus, being specially trained and instructed by Him for the work then before them; afterward they were specifically charged and sent forth to preach and to administer in the authority of their priesthood, as shall be hereafter considered.
The Lord's purpose in choosing and ordaining the Twelve is clearly stated by Mark: "And he appointed twelve, so they would be with him, and that he could send them out to preach, and to have the power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out demons."[514] For a time after their ordination, the apostles stayed with Jesus, receiving special training and guidance from Him for the work that lay ahead; afterward, they were specifically instructed and sent out to preach and to act in the authority of their priesthood, as will be detailed later.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 16.
1. Judas Lebbeus Thaddeus.—This Judas (not Iscariot) is designated in the authorized version of Luke 6:16, and Acts 1:13, as "the brother of James." That the words "the brother" are an addition to the original text is indicated by italics. The revised version of these passages reads in each instance "the son of James," with italics of corresponding significance. The original reads "Judas of James." We are uninformed as to which James is referred to, and as to whether the Judas here mentioned was the son, the brother, or some other relative of the unidentified James.
1. Judas Lebbeus Thaddeus.—This Judas (not Iscariot) is referred to in the authorized version of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 as "the brother of James." The phrase "the brother" is an addition to the original text, as shown by the italics. The revised version of these passages states in each case "the son of James," with italics having the same significance. The original text says "Judas of James." We do not know which James is being referenced, nor whether the Judas mentioned here was the son, the brother, or some other relative of the unnamed James.
2. The Meaning of "Apostle."—"The title 'Apostle' is likewise one of special significance and sanctity; it has been given of God, and belongs only to those who have been called and[Pg 229] ordained as 'special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world, thus differing from other officers in the Church in the duties of their calling' (Doc. and Cov. 107:23). By derivation the word 'apostle' is the English equivalent of the Greek apostolos, indicating a messenger, an ambassador, or literally 'one who is sent'. It signifies that he who is rightly so called, speaks and acts not of himself, but as the representative of a higher power whence his commission issued; and in this sense the title is that of a servant, rather than that of a superior. Even the Christ, however, is called an Apostle with reference to His ministry in the flesh (Hebrews 3:1), and this appellation is justified by His repeated declaration that He came to earth to do not His own will but that of the Father by whom He was sent.
2. The Meaning of "Apostle."—"The title 'Apostle' carries special meaning and importance; it has been given by God and is reserved for those who are called and[Pg 229] ordained as 'special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world, distinguishing them from other leaders in the Church in the responsibilities of their role' (Doc. and Cov. 107:23). The word 'apostle' comes from the Greek apostolos, which means a messenger, an ambassador, or literally 'one who is sent'. It implies that the person who holds this title speaks and acts not on their own authority, but as a representative of a greater power from which their mission originates; hence, this title is more about being a servant than a leader. Even Christ is referred to as an Apostle in relation to His earthly ministry (Hebrews 3:1), and this title is validated by His constant assertion that He came to earth not to fulfill His own will but that of the Father who sent Him.
"Though an apostle is thus seen to be essentially an envoy, or ambassador, his authority is great, as is also the responsibility associated therewith, for he speaks in the name of a power greater than his own—the name of Him whose special witness he is. When one of the Twelve is sent to minister in any stake, mission or other division of the Church, or to labor in regions where no Church organization has been effected, he acts as the representative of the First Presidency, and has the right to use his authority in doing whatever is requisite for the furtherance of the work of God. His duty is to preach the Gospel, administer the ordinances thereof, and set in order the affairs of the Church, wherever he is sent. So great is the sanctity of this special calling, that the title 'Apostle' should not be used lightly as the common or ordinary form of address applied to living men called to this office. The quorum or council of the Twelve Apostles as existent in the Church to-day may better be spoken of as the 'Quorum of the Twelve,' the 'Council of the Twelve,' or simply as the 'Twelve,' than as the 'Twelve Apostles,' except as particular occasion may warrant the use of the more sacred term. It is advized that the title 'Apostle' be not applied as a prefix to the name of any member of the Council of the Twelve; but that such a one be addressed or spoken of as 'Brother ——,' or 'Elder ——,' and when necessary or desirable, as in announcing his presence in a public assembly, an explanatory clause may be added, thus, 'Elder ——, one of the Council of the Twelve,'"—From "The Honor and Dignity of Priesthood," by the author, Improvement Era, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 409-410.
"Although an apostle is fundamentally seen as an envoy or ambassador, he holds significant authority and carries a substantial responsibility because he speaks on behalf of a power greater than himself—the name of Him whose special witness he is. When one of the Twelve is sent to serve in any stake, mission, or other part of the Church, or to work in areas where no Church organization exists, he acts as the representative of the First Presidency and has the right to use his authority to do whatever is necessary for the advancement of God's work. His duty is to preach the Gospel, administer its ordinances, and manage the affairs of the Church wherever he is assigned. The sanctity of this special calling is so profound that the title 'Apostle' should not be used casually as a common form of address for living individuals called to this office. The quorum or council of the Twelve Apostles currently existing in the Church should better be referred to as the 'Quorum of the Twelve,' the 'Council of the Twelve,' or simply as the 'Twelve,' rather than the 'Twelve Apostles,' unless the situation specifically calls for the use of the more sacred term. It is advised that the title 'Apostle' not be used as a prefix to the name of any member of the Council of the Twelve; instead, such a person should be addressed or referred to as 'Brother ——' or 'Elder ——,' and when needed, for instance, during public announcements, an explanatory phrase can be added, such as 'Elder ——, one of the Council of the Twelve.'"—From "The Honor and Dignity of Priesthood," by the author, Improvement Era, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 409-410.
3. "Of Alpheus;" or "Son of Alpheus."—In all Bible passages specifying "James son of Alpheus" (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13) the word son has been supplied by the translators, and therefore properly appears in Italics. The phrase in the Greek reads "James of Alpheus." This fact must not be given undue weight in support of the thought that the James spoken of was not the son of Alpheus; for the word son has been similarly added in the translation of other passages, in all of which Italics are used to indicate the words supplied, e.g. "James the son of Zebedee" (Matt. 10:2; see also Mark 3:17). Read in this connection Note 1 on the opposite page.[Pg 230]
3. "Of Alpheus;" or "Son of Alpheus."—In all Bible passages mentioning "James son of Alpheus" (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), the word son was added by the translators, which is why it appears in Italics. The original Greek phrase is "James of Alpheus." This detail shouldn't be overly emphasized to suggest that the James referred to was not the son of Alpheus; the word son has also been added in other translations, indicated by Italics, like in "James the son of Zebedee" (Matt. 10:2; see also Mark 3:17). For more context, refer to Note 1 on the opposite page.[Pg 230]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[458] Luke 6:12.
[460] John 1:42; compare Matt. 16:18.
[461] Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:10.
[462] John 1:44; 12:21.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 1:44; 12:21.
[464] Acts 4:13.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 4:13.
[465] John 21:18, 19.
[466] 2 Peter 1:14.
2 Peter 1:14.
[468] Mark 3:17.
[470] Mark 10:35-41; compare Matt. 20:20-24.
[471] Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51.
[472] Matt. 17:1-2; Luke 9:28-29.
[473] Matt. 26:36, 37.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 26:36, 37.
[475] Acts 12:1, 2.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 12:1, 2.
[477] John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2.
[478] John 13:23, 25.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 13:23, 25.
[479] John 19:25-27.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 19:25-27.
[480] John 21:7, 21-23.
John 21:7, 21-23.
[482] John 1:35-40.
[483] Matt. 4:18, 19.
[484] Mark 13:3.
[485] John 6:8.
[486] John 12:20-22.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 12:20-22.
[487] Acts 1:13.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 1:13.
[488] John 1:43-45.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 1:43-45.
[489] John 6:5-7.
John 6:5-7.
[490] John 14:8, 9.
[492] John 21:2, 3.
[494] Matt. 10:3.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 10:3.
[495] John 11:16.
John 11:16.
[496] John 14:1-7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 14:1-7.
[500] Concerning the James's mentioned in the New Testament, the opinion of Bible scholars is divided, the question being as to whether two or three individuals are indicated. Those who hold that there were three men of this name distinguish them as follows: (1) James the son of Zebedee and brother of John the apostle; all scriptural references to him are explicit; (2) James the son of Alpheus; and (3) James the brother of the Lord (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19). If we accept this classification, the references given in the previous footnote on this page apply to James the Lord's brother. Both the Oxford and Bagster Bible "Helps" treat James the son of Alpheus and James the Lord's brother as one person, the expression "son of" being understood in its general sense only (see page 280). The Bagster designation is: "James II, apostle, son of Alpheus, brother or cousin to Jesus." (See Note 3, end of chapter.) The Nave "Student's Bible" states (page 1327) that the question as to whether James the Lord's brother "is identical with James the son of Alpheus is one of the most difficult questions in the biographical history of the Gospels." Faussett (in his "Cyclopedia Critical and Expository") supports the contention that but one James is meant; and other acknowledged authorities treat the two as one. For detailed consideration of the subject the reader is referred to special works.
[500] Regarding the James mentioned in the New Testament, Bible scholars have differing opinions on whether there are two or three individuals referred to. Those who believe there are three identify them as follows: (1) James the son of Zebedee and brother of John the apostle; all scriptural references to him are clear; (2) James the son of Alpheus; and (3) James the brother of the Lord (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19). If we accept this classification, the references provided in the previous footnote on this page pertain to James the Lord's brother. Both the Oxford and Bagster Bible "Helps" consider James the son of Alpheus and James the Lord's brother as the same person, interpreting "son of" in its general sense (see page 280). The Bagster label is: "James II, apostle, son of Alpheus, brother or cousin to Jesus." (See Note 3, end of chapter.) The Nave "Student's Bible" states (page 1327) that the question of whether James the Lord's brother "is the same as James the son of Alpheus is one of the most challenging issues in the biographical history of the Gospels." Faussett (in his "Cyclopedia Critical and Expository") supports the idea that only one James is being referred to; and other respected authorities also treat the two as the same. For a deeper exploration of the topic, readers are directed to specialized works.
[503] John 6:71; 12:4; 13:26.
[504] John 12:6; 13:29.
[507] Matt. 19:27.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 19:27.
[509] John 15:16.
[512] Acts 1:15-26.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 1:15-26.
[514] Mark 3:14, 15.
CHAPTER 17.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
At some time very near that of the ordination of the Twelve, Jesus delivered a remarkable discourse, which, in reference to the place where it was given, has come to be known as the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew presents an extended account occupying three chapters of the first Gospel; Luke gives a briefer synopsis.[515] Circumstantial variations appearing in the two records are of minor importance;[516] it is the sermon itself to which we may profitably devote attention. Luke introduces in different parts of his writings many of the precious precepts given as parts of the sermon recorded as a continuous discourse in the Gospel written by Matthew. In our present study we shall be guided principally by Matthew's account. Some portions of this comprehensive address were expressly directed to the disciples, who had been or would be called to the apostleship and in consequence be required to renounce all their worldly interests for the labors of the ministry; other parts were and are of general application. Jesus had ascended the mountain side, probably to escape the crowds that thronged Him in or near the towns.[517] The disciples gathered about Him, and there He sat and taught them.[518]
At some point close to when the Twelve were ordained, Jesus gave an incredible speech that’s known as the Sermon on the Mount because of where it was delivered. Matthew provides a detailed account that spans three chapters in the first Gospel, while Luke offers a shorter summary.[515] The differences in the two accounts are not that significant;[516] it’s the sermon itself that we should focus on. Luke includes many of the valuable teachings from the sermon throughout his writings, which are recorded as a continuous discourse in Matthew's Gospel. In our current study, we will mainly follow Matthew's version. Some parts of this extensive address were specifically aimed at the disciples, who were being called to be apostles and would need to give up their worldly interests for ministry work; other parts have a more general message. Jesus climbed the hillside, likely to get away from the crowds that surrounded Him in the towns.[517] The disciples gathered around Him, and there He sat and taught them.[518]
THE BEATITUDES.[519]
The opening sentences are rich in blessing, and the first section of the discourse is devoted to an explanation of what constitutes genuine blessedness; the lesson, moreover, was[Pg 231] made simple and unambiguous by specific application, each of the blessed being assured of recompense and reward in the enjoyment of conditions directly opposite to those under which he had suffered. The blessings particularized by the Lord on this occasion have been designated in literature of later time as the Beatitudes. The poor in spirit are to be made rich as rightful heirs to the kingdom of heaven; the mourner shall be comforted for he shall see the divine purpose in his grief, and shall again associate with the beloved ones of whom he has been bereft; the meek, who suffer spoliation rather than jeopardize their souls in contention, shall inherit the earth; those that hunger and thirst for the truth shall be fed in rich abundance; they that show mercy shall be judged mercifully; the pure in heart shall be admitted to the very presence of God; the peacemakers, who try to save themselves and their fellows from strife, shall be numbered among the children of God; they that suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness shall inherit the riches of the eternal kingdom. To the disciples the Lord spake directly, saying: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."[520]
The opening sentences are full of blessings, and the first part of the speech explains what true blessedness means; the lesson was also made clear and direct by specific examples, with each blessed person being promised reward and joy in conditions completely opposite to those they suffered through. The blessings emphasized by the Lord on this occasion are referred to in later literature as the Beatitudes. The poor in spirit will become rich as rightful heirs to the kingdom of heaven; those who mourn will be comforted as they discover the divine purpose in their grief and will reconnect with their loved ones whom they have lost; the meek, who endure loss rather than compromise their integrity in conflict, will inherit the earth; those who hunger and thirst for truth will be abundantly satisfied; those who show mercy will be judged with mercy; the pure in heart will see God; peacemakers, who strive to protect themselves and others from conflict, will be recognized as children of God; and those who face persecution for the sake of righteousness will receive the treasures of the eternal kingdom. The Lord spoke directly to the disciples, saying: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and say all sorts of false things about you because of me. Rejoice and be very glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way, they persecuted the prophets who were before you."[520]
It is evident that the specified blessings and the happiness comprized therein are to be realized in their fulness only beyond the grave; though the joy that comes from the consciousness of right living brings, even in this world, a rich return. An important element in this splendid elucidation of the truly blessed state is the implied distinction between pleasure and happiness.[521] Mere pleasure is at best but fleeting; happiness is abiding, for in the recollection thereof is joy renewed. Supreme happiness is not an earthly attainment; the promised "fulness of joy" lies beyond death and[Pg 232] the resurrection.[522] While man exists in this mortal state he needs some of the things of the world; he must have food and clothing and provision for shelter; and beside these bare necessities he may righteously desire the facilities of education, the incidentals of advancing civilization, and the things that are conducive to refinement and culture; yet all of these are but aids to achievement, not the end to attain which man was made mortal.
It is clear that the specific blessings and the happiness they contain can only be fully experienced after death; however, the joy that comes from knowing you’re living right brings a rich reward even in this life. A key part of this wonderful explanation of a truly blessed state is the implied difference between pleasure and happiness. Mere pleasure is, at most, temporary; happiness is lasting, as remembering it brings renewed joy. True happiness isn’t something we can achieve on earth; the promised “fullness of joy” awaits us beyond death and the resurrection. While we are in this mortal state, we need some worldly things; we must have food, clothing, and shelter. Besides these basic necessities, we may rightfully desire education, the benefits of advancing civilization, and things that promote refinement and culture; however, all of these are merely tools to help us achieve our goals, not the ultimate purpose for which we were made.
The Beatitudes are directed to the duties of mortal life as a preparation for a greater existence yet future. In the kingdom of heaven, twice named in this part of the Lord's discourse, are true riches and unfailing happiness to be found. The kingdom of heaven was the all-comprizing text of this wonderful sermon; the means of reaching the kingdom and the glories of eternal citizenship therein are the main divisions of the treatise.
The Beatitudes focus on the responsibilities of life on Earth as a way to prepare for a better existence to come. In the kingdom of heaven, mentioned twice in this part of the Lord's teachings, you can find true wealth and lasting happiness. The kingdom of heaven is the central theme of this amazing sermon; how to attain the kingdom and the blessings of everlasting citizenship there are the main sections of the discussion.
DIGNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE MINISTRY.[523]
The Master next proceeded to instruct with particular directness those upon whom would devolve the responsibility of the ministry as His commissioned representatives. "Ye are the salt of the earth," said He. Salt is the great preservative; as such it has had practical use since very ancient times. Salt was prescribed as an essential addition to every meat offering under the Mosaic law.[524] Long before the time of Christ, the use of salt had been accorded a symbolism of fidelity, hospitality, and covenant.[525] To be of use salt must be pure; to be of any saving virtue as salt, it must be salt indeed, and not the product of chemical alteration or of earthy admixture, whereby its saltiness or "savor" would be[Pg 233] lost;[526] and, as worthless stuff, it would be fit only to be thrown away. Against such change of faith, against such admixture with the sophistries, so-called philosophies, and heresies of the times, the disciples were especially warned. Then, changing the figure, Jesus likened them to the light of the world, and enjoined upon them the duty of keeping their light before the people, as prominently as stands a city built upon a hill, to be seen from all directions, a city that cannot be hid. Of what service would a lighted candle be if hidden under a tub or a box? "Let your light so shine before men," said He, "that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
The Master then directly taught those who would take on the responsibility of ministry as His chosen representatives. "You are the salt of the earth," He said. Salt is a great preservative; it has been used practically since ancient times. Salt was required as an essential part of every meat offering under the Mosaic law.[524] Long before Christ's time, salt symbolized fidelity, hospitality, and covenant.[525] For salt to be useful, it must be pure; to have any saving quality as salt, it must truly be salt and not altered chemically or mixed with impurities that would cause it to lose its saltiness or "flavor,"[Pg 233].[526] If it loses its value, it is only fit to be thrown away. The disciples were specifically warned against such changes in their faith and mixtures with the philosophies and heresies of the time. Then, changing the analogy, Jesus compared them to the light of the world and emphasized their duty to let their light shine before others, just like a city set on a hill that can be seen from all around and cannot be hidden. What good would a lit candle be if it were hidden under a tub or a box? "Let your light shine before others," He said, "so they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."
That they should make no error as to the relationship of the ancient law and the gospel of the kingdom which He was elucidating, Jesus assured them that He had not come to destroy the law nor to nullify the teachings and predictions of the prophets, but to fulfil such and to establish that for which the developments of the centuries gone had been but preparatory. The gospel may be said to have destroyed the Mosaic law only as the seed is destroyed in the growth of the new plant, only as the bud is destroyed by the bursting forth of the rich, full, and fragrant flowers, only as infancy and youth pass forever as the maturity of years develops. Not a jot or a tittle of the law was to be void. A more effective analogy than the last could scarcely have been conceived; the jot or yod, and the tittle, were small literary marks in the Hebrew script; for present purposes we may regard them as equivalent to the dot of an "i" or the cross of a "t"; with the first, the jot, our English word "iota," signifying a trifle, is related. Not even the least commandment could be violated without penalty; but the disciples were admonished to take heed that their keeping of the commandments was not after the manner of the scribes and Pharisees, whose observance was that of ceremonial externalism, lacking[Pg 234] the essentials of genuine devotion; for they were assured that by such an insincere course they could "in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
That they should make no mistake about the connection between the ancient law and the gospel of the kingdom that He was explaining, Jesus assured them that He had not come to abolish the law or to invalidate the teachings and predictions of the prophets, but to fulfill them and to establish what the developments of past centuries had only prepared for. The gospel may be said to have replaced the Mosaic law only as a seed is transformed in the growth of a new plant, just as a bud is transformed by the blooming of rich, full, and fragrant flowers, and just as childhood and youth pass away as one matures. Not a single letter or mark of the law was to be rendered void. A more effective analogy than this could hardly be found; the jot or yod, and the tittle were small characters in the Hebrew script; for our purposes, we can think of them as equivalent to the dot of an "i" or the cross of a "t"; with the first, the jot, our English word "iota," meaning a tiny amount, is connected. Not even the smallest commandment could be broken without consequence; however, the disciples were warned to ensure that their adherence to the commandments was not like that of the scribes and Pharisees, whose observance was merely ceremonial and external, lacking the essentials of true devotion; for they were assured that through such insincerity they could "in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
THE LAW SUPERSEDED BY THE GOSPEL.[527]
The next section of the sermon deals with the superiority of the gospel of Christ over the law of Moses, and contrasts the requirements of the two in particular instances. Whereas the law forbade murder, and provided a just penalty for the crime, Christ taught that one's giving way to anger, which might possibly lead to violence or even murder, was of itself a sin. To maliciously use an offensive epithet such as "Raca" laid one liable to punishment under the decree of the council, and to call another a fool placed one "in danger of hell fire." These objectionable designations were regarded at that time as especially opprobrious and were therefore expressive of hateful intent. The murderer's hand is impelled by the hatred in his heart. The law provided penalty for the deed; the gospel rebuked the evil passion in its incipiency. To emphasize this principle, the Master showed that hatred was not to be atoned by a material sacrifice; and that if one came to make an offering at the altar, and remembered that he was at enmity with his brother, he should first go to that brother and be reconciled, even though such a course involved the interruption of the ceremonial, which was a particularly grievous incident according to the judgment of the priests. Differences and contentions were to be adjusted without delay.
The next section of the sermon discusses how the gospel of Christ is better than the law of Moses and compares the requirements of both in specific situations. While the law prohibited murder and had a fair punishment for it, Christ taught that simply giving in to anger, which could lead to violence or murder, is a sin in itself. Using a derogatory term like "Raca" made someone subject to punishment by the council, and calling someone a fool put them "in danger of hell fire." These insulting terms were particularly offensive at that time and showed a deep-seated hatred. A murderer’s actions are driven by the hatred in their heart. The law imposed a penalty for the act; the gospel, however, condemned the harmful feeling from the start. To highlight this point, the Master explained that hatred couldn't be fixed with a material sacrifice. If someone went to make an offering at the altar and remembered that they were at odds with their brother, they should first go to that brother and make peace, even if it meant interrupting the ceremony, which the priests deemed very serious. Disagreements and conflicts needed to be resolved right away.
The law forbade the awful sin of adultery; Christ said that the sin began in the lustful glance, the sensual thought; and He added that it was better to become blind than to look with evil eye; better to lose a hand than to work iniquity therewith. Touching the matter of divorcement, in which great laxity prevailed in that day, Jesus declared that except[Pg 235] for the most serious offense of infidelity to marriage vows, no man could divorce his wife without becoming himself an offender, in that she, marrying again while still a wife not righteously divorced, would be guilty of sin, and so would be the man to whom she was so married.
The law prohibited the terrible sin of adultery; Christ taught that the sin starts with a lustful glance or a sinful thought. He added that it’s better to be blind than to look with evil intentions; better to lose a hand than to commit wrongdoing with it. Regarding divorce, which was handled very loosely at that time, Jesus stated that except for the serious offense of being unfaithful to marriage vows, no man could divorce his wife without becoming guilty himself, as she would be committing sin by marrying again while still being married, and the man she married would also be guilty of sin.
Of old it had been forbidden to swear or take oaths except in solemn covenant before the Lord; but in the gospel dispensation the Lord forbade that men swear at all; and the heinousness of wanton oaths was expounded. Grievously sinful indeed it was and is to swear by heaven, which is the abode of God; or by earth, which is His creation and by Him called His footstool; or by Jerusalem, which was regarded by those who swore as the city of the great King; or by one's own head, which is part of the body God has created. Moderation in speech, decision and simplicity were enjoined, to the exclusion of expletives, profanity and oaths.
In the past, it was forbidden to swear or make oaths except in a serious promise before the Lord; but in the gospel era, the Lord prohibited swearing altogether; and the seriousness of careless oaths was explained. It was, and still is, incredibly sinful to swear by heaven, which is where God dwells; or by earth, which is His creation and is referred to by Him as His footstool; or by Jerusalem, which was seen by those who swore as the city of the great King; or by one’s own head, which is part of the body that God created. Being moderate in speech, making thoughtful decisions, and being simple were encouraged, with the exclusion of expletives, profanity, and oaths.
Of old the principle of retaliation had been tolerated, by which one who had suffered injury could exact or inflict a penalty of the same nature as the offense. Thus an eye was demanded for the loss of an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.[528] In contrast, Christ taught that men should rather suffer than do evil, even to the extent of submission without resistance under certain implied conditions. His forceful illustrations—that if one were smitten on one cheek he should turn the other to the smiter; that if a man took another's coat by process of law, the loser should allow his cloak to be taken also; that if one was pressed into service to carry another's burden a mile, he should willingly go two miles; that one should readily give or lend as asked—are not to be construed as commanding abject subserviency to unjust demands, nor as an abrogation of the principle of self-protection. These instructions were directed primarily to the apostles, who would be professedly devoted to the work of[Pg 236] the kingdom to the exclusion of all other interests. In their ministry it would be better to suffer material loss or personal indignity and imposition at the hands of wicked oppressors, than to bring about an impairment of efficiency and a hindrance in work through resistance and contention. To such as these the Beatitudes were particularly applicable—Blessed are the meek, the peace-makers, and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake.
In the past, the idea of retaliation was accepted, where someone who was wronged could seek to punish the offender in a similar way. So, for example, a person would demand an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or a life for a life. In contrast, Christ taught that people should choose to endure suffering instead of doing wrong, even to the point of not resisting under certain circumstances. His powerful examples included turning the other cheek if someone strikes you, allowing a cloak to be taken if your coat is taken through legal means, going the extra mile if pressed into service, and being willing to give or lend when asked. These teachings shouldn’t be seen as promoting complete submissiveness to unfair demands or a rejection of self-defense. These messages were mainly for the apostles, who would be fully committed to the work of the kingdom above all else. During their ministry, it would be more beneficial to accept material losses or personal mistreatment from wicked oppressors than to compromise their effectiveness and mission by resisting or arguing. The Beatitudes were especially relevant for them—Blessed are the meek, the peacemakers, and those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake.
Of old it had been said: "Love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy";[529] but the Lord now taught: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." This was a new doctrine. Never before had Israel been required to love their foes. Friendship for enemies had found no place in the Mosaic code: indeed the people had grown to look upon Israel's enemies as God's enemies; and now Jesus required that tolerance, mercy, and even love be meted out to such! He supplemented the requirement by an explanation—through the course indicated by Him men may become children of God, like unto their Heavenly Father to the extent of their obedience; for the Father is kind, long-suffering and tolerant, causing His sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sending rain for the sustenance of both just and unjust.[530] And further, what excellence has the man who gives only as he receives, acknowledges only those who salute him with respect, loves only as he is loved? Even the publicans[531] did that much. Of the disciples of Christ much more was expected. The admonition closing this division of the discourse is an effective and comprehensive summary of all that had preceded: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."[532]
In the past, it was said: "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy";[529] but now the Lord taught: "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat and persecute you." This was a new teaching. Israel had never been asked to love their enemies before. There was no place for friendship with enemies in the Mosaic law; in fact, people had come to see Israel's enemies as God's enemies. Now Jesus asked for tolerance, mercy, and even love to be shown to them! He added an explanation—by following His guidance, people could become children of God, like their Heavenly Father, as much as they obey; because the Father is kind, patient, and tolerant, allowing His sun to shine on both the good and the evil, and sending rain for the benefit of both the just and the unjust.[530] Moreover, what is so great about a person who only gives as they receive, acknowledges only those who greet them with respect, and loves only those who love them back? Even tax collectors[531] do that much. Much more was expected from Christ's disciples. The closing admonition of this part of the discourse serves as an effective and comprehensive summary of everything that came before: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."[532]
SINCERITY OF PURPOSE.[533]
In the matter of alms-giving the Master warned against, and inferentially denounced, ostentation and hypocritical display. To give to the needy is praiseworthy; but to give for the purpose of winning the praise of men is rank hypocrisy. The tossing of alms to a beggar, the pouring of offerings into the temple treasure chests, to be seen of men,[534] and similar displays of affected liberality, were fashionable among certain classes in the time of Christ; and the same spirit is manifest today. Some there be now who cause a trumpet to be sounded, through the columns of the press perchance, or by other means of publicity, to call attention to their giving, that they may have glory of men—to win political favor, to increase their trade or influence, to get what in their estimation is worth more than that from which they part. With logical incisiveness the Master demonstrated that such givers have their reward. They have received what they bid for; what more can such men demand or consistently expect? "But" said the Lord, "when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly!"
In regards to charity, the Master cautioned against, and indirectly condemned, showiness and insincere displays. Giving to those in need is commendable; however, giving just to gain the approval of others is pure hypocrisy. Tossing money to a beggar or making a show of donating to the temple's collection boxes to be noticed by others, and similar acts of false generosity, were popular among certain groups during Christ's time; and that same attitude is present today. There are some now who make sure to announce their donations, perhaps through the media or other means, to draw attention to themselves, seeking admiration from others—to gain political favor, to boost their business or influence, or to obtain something they consider more valuable than what they are giving away. The Master clearly pointed out that such givers have already received their reward. They got what they aimed for; what more can they ask for or reasonably expect? "But," said the Lord, "when you give to the needy, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing: so that your giving may be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you openly!"
In the same spirit did the Preacher denounce hypocritical prayers—the saying of prayers in place of praying. There were many who sought places of public resort, in the synagogs, and even on the street-corners, that they might be seen and heard of men when saying their prayers. They secured the publicity they sought; what more could they ask? "Verily I say unto you, They have their reward," He who would really pray—pray as nearly as possible as Christ prayed, pray in actual communion with God to whom the prayer is addressed—will seek privacy, seclusion, isolation;[Pg 238] if opportunity permits he will retire to his chamber, and will shut the door, that none may intrude; there he may pray indeed, if the spirit of prayer be in his heart; and this course was commended by the Lord. Wordy supplications, made up largely of iterations and repetitions such as the heathen use, thinking that their idol deities will be pleased with their much speaking, were forbidden.
In the same way, the Preacher criticized hypocritical prayers—just saying prayers instead of truly praying. Many people went to public places like synagogues and street corners to be seen and heard by others when they prayed. They got the attention they wanted; what more could they ask for? "Truly, I tell you, they have their reward." Those who truly want to pray—who want to pray as closely as possible to how Christ prayed, in real connection with God—will seek privacy, solitude, and isolation; if they have the chance, they will go to their room and close the door so no one can interrupt. There, they can genuinely pray if the spirit of prayer is in their heart; this practice was encouraged by the Lord. Lengthy prayers filled with repetition, like those used by the pagans who think their false gods will be pleased by their many words, were discouraged.
It is well to know that prayer is not compounded of words, words that may fail to express what one desires to say, words that so often cloak inconsistencies, words that may have no deeper source than the physical organs of speech, words that may be spoken to impress mortal ears. The dumb may pray, and that too with the eloquence that prevails in heaven. Prayer is made up of heart throbs and the righteous yearnings of the soul, of supplication based on the realization of need, of contrition and pure desire. If there lives a man who has never really prayed, that man is a being apart from the order of the divine in human nature, a stranger in the family of God's children. Prayer is for the uplifting of the suppliant. God without our prayers would be God; but we without prayer cannot be admitted to the kingdom of God. So did Christ instruct: "your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him."
It's important to understand that prayer isn't just about words—words that might fail to convey what you really want to express, words that often hide inconsistencies, words that might only come from our physical ability to speak, or words that are used to impress others. Even those who can't speak can pray, with a depth that resonates in heaven. Prayer is composed of heartfelt emotions and the genuine longings of the soul, of requests that stem from recognizing need, of remorse and pure intent. If there's someone who has never truly prayed, that person is separate from the divine nature of humanity, an outsider in God's family. Prayer is meant to elevate the one who is seeking. God would still be God without our prayers, but we, without prayer, cannot enter the kingdom of God. As Christ taught: "your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him."
Then gave He unto those who sought wisdom at His feet, a model prayer, saying: "After this manner therefore pray ye:
Then He gave those who sought wisdom at His feet a model prayer, saying: "Therefore, pray like this:
"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name." In this we acknowledge the relation we bear to our Heavenly Father, and while reverencing His great and holy Name, we avail ourselves of the inestimable privilege of approaching Him, less with the thought of His infinite glory as the Creator of all that is, the Supreme Being above all creation, than with the loving realization that He is Father, and that we are His children. This is the earliest Biblical scripture giving instruction, permission, or warrant, for addressing[Pg 239] God directly as "Our Father". Therein is expressed the reconciliation which the human family, estranged through sin, may attain by the means provided through the well beloved Son. This instruction is equally definite in demonstrating the brotherhood between Christ and humanity. As He prayed so pray we to the same Father, we as brethren and Christ as our Elder Brother.
"Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be your name." In this, we recognize our relationship with our Heavenly Father, and while honoring His great and holy Name, we take advantage of the invaluable privilege of approaching Him, not so much with the thought of His infinite glory as the Creator of everything, the Supreme Being above all creation, but with the loving understanding that He is our Father, and that we are His children. This is the earliest Biblical scripture that gives us the instruction, permission, or basis to address[Pg 239] God directly as "Our Father." It expresses the reconciliation that the human family, separated by sin, can achieve through the means provided by the beloved Son. This instruction clearly shows the brotherhood between Christ and humanity. As He prayed, so we pray to the same Father, with us as siblings and Christ as our Elder Brother.
"Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." The kingdom of God is to be a kingdom of order, in which toleration and the recognition of individual rights shall prevail. One who really prays that this kingdom come will strive to hasten its coming by living according to the law of God. His effort will be to keep himself in harmony with the order of the kingdom, to subject the flesh to the spirit, selfishness to altruism, and to learn to love the things that God loves. To make the will of God supreme on earth as it is in heaven is to be allied with God in the affairs of life. There are many who profess belief that as God is omnipotent, all that is is according to His will. Such a supposition is unscriptural, unreasonable, and untrue.[535] Wickedness is not in harmony with His will; falsehood, hypocrisy, vice and crime are not God's gifts to man. By His will these monstrosities that have developed as hideous deformities in human nature and life shall be abolished, and this blessed consummation shall be reached when by choice, without surrender or abrogation of their free agency, men shall do the will of God.
"Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." The kingdom of God is meant to be a kingdom of order, where tolerance and respect for individual rights flourish. Someone who genuinely prays for this kingdom to arrive will work to bring it about by living according to God's law. Their goal will be to stay in tune with the order of the kingdom, to put the flesh beneath the spirit, selfishness beneath selflessness, and to learn to love what God loves. Making God's will the highest priority on earth, just as it is in heaven, means partnering with God in the matters of life. Many claim to believe that since God is all-powerful, everything happens according to His will. This idea is unsupported by scripture, illogical, and false.[535] Wickedness does not align with His will; lies, hypocrisy, vice, and crime are not gifts from God to humanity. By His will, these horrors that have manifested as ugly distortions in human nature and life will be eradicated, and this blessed outcome will be achieved when, by choice and without giving up their free will, people choose to do God's will.
"Give us this day our daily bread." Food is indispensable to life. As we need it we should ask for it. True, the Father knows our need before we ask, but by asking we acknowledge Him as the Giver, and are made humble, grateful, contrite, and reliant by the request. Though the sun shines and the rain falls alike upon the just and the unjust, the righteous man is grateful for these blessings; the ungodly[Pg 240] man receives the benefits as a matter of course with a soul incapable of gratitude. The capacity to be grateful is a blessing, for the possession of which we should be further grateful. We are taught to pray day by day for the food we need, not for a great store to be laid by for the distant future. Israel in the desert received manna as a daily supply[536] and were kept in mind of their reliance upon Him who gave. The man with much finds it easier to forget his dependence than he who must ask with each succeeding day of need.
"Give us this day our daily bread." Food is essential for life. Since we need it, we should ask for it. Yes, the Father knows what we need before we ask, but by asking, we acknowledge Him as the Giver, which makes us humble, grateful, contrite, and dependent through our request. Although the sun shines and the rain falls on both the good and the bad, the righteous person appreciates these blessings; the ungodly person takes these benefits for granted, lacking any sense of gratitude. The ability to be grateful is a blessing in itself, for which we should also be thankful. We are taught to pray daily for the food we need, rather than asking for a large supply to store up for the far-off future. The Israelites in the desert received manna daily and were reminded of their dependence on Him who provided it. A person with plenty finds it easier to forget their reliance than someone who must ask for help every single day.
"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." He who can thus pray with full intent and unmixed purpose merits forgiveness. In this specification of personal supplication we are taught to expect only as we deserve. The selfish and sinful would rejoice in exemption from their lawful debts, but being selfish and sinful would exact the last farthing from those who owe them.[537] Forgiveness is too precious a pearl to be cast at the feet of the unforgiving;[538] and, without the sincerity that springs from a contrite heart, no man may justly claim mercy. If others owe us, either in actual money or goods as suggested by debts and debtors, or through some infringement upon our rights included under the broader designation as a trespass, our mode of dealing with them will be taken into righteous account in the judgment of our own offenses.
"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive those who owe us." Anyone who can genuinely pray this with a sincere heart deserves forgiveness. This personal request reminds us to expect only what we’ve earned. The selfish and sinful would be glad to be free from their rightful debts, but because they’re selfish and sinful, they’d demand every last penny from those who owe them.[537] Forgiveness is too valuable to be given to the unforgiving;[538] and without the sincerity that comes from a repentant heart, no one can rightfully ask for mercy. If others owe us, whether in actual money or goods as implied by debts and debtors, or through any violation of our rights, categorized as a trespass, how we treat them will be taken into serious consideration when judging our own wrongdoings.
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:" The first part of this petition has occasioned comment and question. We are not to understand that God would ever lead a man into temptation except, perhaps, by way of wise permission, to test and prove him, thereby affording him opportunity of overcoming and so of gaining spiritual strength, which is the only true advancement in man's eternal course of progress. The one purpose of providing[Pg 241] bodies for the preexistent spirits of the race, and of advancing them to the mortal state, was to "prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them."[539] The plan of mortality involved the certainty of temptation. The intent of the supplication appears to be that we be preserved from temptation beyond our weak powers to withstand; that we be not abandoned to temptation without the divine support that shall be as full a measure of protection as our exercize of choice will allow.
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:" The first part of this request has sparked discussion and questions. We should not think that God would ever lead someone into temptation, except maybe through wise permission, to test and prove them, giving them a chance to overcome and gain spiritual strength, which is the only real progress in a person's eternal journey. The main reason for creating physical bodies for the preexistent spirits of humanity and bringing them into the mortal state was to "prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." [539] The purpose of mortality included the certainty of temptation. The aim of the prayer seems to be that we are kept safe from temptation that exceeds our ability to resist; that we are not left to face temptation without the divine support that provides as much protection as our exercise of choice will allow.
How inconsistent then to go, as many do, into the places where the temptations to which we are most susceptible are strongest; for the man beset with a passion for strong drink to so pray and then resort to the dramshop; for the man whose desires are lustful to voice such a prayer and then go where lust is kindled; for the dishonest man, though he say the prayer, to then place himself where he knows the opportunity to steal will be found! Can such souls as these be other than hypocrites in asking God to deliver them from the evils they have sought? Temptation will fall in our way without our seeking, and evil will present itself even when we desire most to do right; for deliverance from such we may pray with righteous expectation and assurance.
How inconsistent is it then to go, as many do, to the places where we're most easily tempted; for someone who struggles with alcohol to pray and then go to the bar; for someone with lustful desires to say such a prayer and then head to where those desires are fueled; for a dishonest person to say a prayer and then put themselves in a situation where they know they can steal! Can people like this really be anything but hypocrites when they ask God to save them from the troubles they've pursued? Temptation will come our way even without us looking for it, and evil will show up even when we most want to do the right thing; for deliverance from those, we can pray with genuine hope and confidence.
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Herein we acknowledge the supremacy of the Being whom we addressed at the beginning as Father. He is the Almighty in whom and through whose provision we live and move and have our existence.[540] To assert independence of God is both sacrilege and blasphemy; to acknowledge Him is a filial duty and a just confession of His majesty and dominion. The Lord's Prayer is closed with a solemn "Amen," set as a seal to the document of the supplication, attesting its genuineness as the true expression of the suppliant's soul; gathering within the compass of a word[Pg 242] the meaning of all that has been uttered or thought. So let it be is the literal signification of Amen.
"For yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." Here, we recognize the authority of the Being we referred to at the start as Father. He is the Almighty in whom and through whose provision we live, move, and have our existence.[540] To claim independence from God is both sacrilege and blasphemy; to acknowledge Him is a duty of a child and a rightful recognition of His greatness and rule. The Lord's Prayer concludes with a solemn "Amen," serving as a seal to the prayer, confirming its authenticity as the true expression of the person's soul; capturing the meaning of everything that has been said or thought within a single word[Pg 242]. So let it be is the literal meaning of Amen.
From the subject of prayer the Master turned to that of fasting, and emphasized the important truth that to be of avail fasting must be a matter between the man and his God, not between man and his kind. It was a common thing in the Master's day to see men parading the fact of their abstinence as an advertisement of their assumed piety.[541] That they might appear haggard and faint, this class of hypocrites disfigured their faces, went with unkempt hair, gazed about with sad countenances. Of these also the Lord said, "Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Believers were admonished to fast secretly, with no outward display, and to fast unto God, who could see in secret and would heed their sacrifice and prayer.
From the topic of prayer, the Master shifted to fasting and highlighted the important truth that for fasting to be meaningful, it should be a personal matter between the individual and God, not between people. In the Master's time, it was common to see individuals flaunting their fasting as a way to show off their supposed piety. Some of these hypocrites would make themselves look haggard and weak, disfiguring their faces, neglecting their hair, and wandering around with sad expressions. To these people, the Lord said, "Truly I say to you, they have their reward." Believers were encouraged to fast in private, without any outward show, and to fast for God, who sees what is done in secret and will acknowledge their sacrifices and prayers.
TREASURES OF EARTH AND OF HEAVEN.[542]
The transitory character of worldly wealth was next contrasted with the enduring riches of eternity. Many there were and many there are whose principal effort in life has been that of amassing treasures of earth, the mere possession of which entails responsibility, care, and disturbing anxiety. Some kinds of wealth are endangered by the ravages of moths, such as silks and velvets, satins and furs; some are destroyed by corrosion and rust—silver and copper and steel; while these and others are not infrequently made the booty of thieves. Infinitely more precious are the treasures of a life well spent, the wealth of good deeds, the account of which is kept in heaven, where the riches of righteous achievement are safe from moth, rust, and robbers. Then followed the trenchant lesson: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."[Pg 243]
The fleeting nature of worldly wealth was contrasted with the lasting riches of eternity. Many have devoted their lives to collecting earthly treasures, which bring about responsibility, worry, and anxiety. Some types of wealth are at risk from the damage caused by moths—like silks, velvets, satins, and furs; others suffer from corrosion and rust—like silver, copper, and steel; while these and others can easily be stolen by thieves. Much more valuable are the treasures from a life well lived, the wealth of good deeds, which are recorded in heaven where the riches of righteous action are protected from moths, rust, and thieves. Then came the powerful lesson: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."[Pg 243]
Spiritual light is shown to be greater than any product of physical illuminants. What does the brightest light avail the man who is blind? It is the bodily eye that discerns the light of the candle, the lamp, or the sun; and the spiritual eye sees by spiritual light; if then man's spiritual eye be single, that is, pure and undimmed by sin, he is filled with the light that shall show him the way to God; whereas if his soul's eye be evil, he will be as one full of darkness. Solemn caution is expressed in the summary, "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Those whom the Master was addressing had received of the light of God; the degree of belief they had already professed was proof of that. Should they turn from the great emprise on which they had embarked, the light would be lost, and the succeeding darkness would be denser than that from which they had been relieved.[543] There was to be no indecision among the disciples. No one of them could serve two masters; if he professed so to do he would be an untrue servant to the one or the other. Then followed another profound generalization: "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."[544]
Spiritual light is shown to be greater than any physical source of light. What good is the brightest light to someone who is blind? It is the physical eye that perceives the light from a candle, a lamp, or the sun; and the spiritual eye sees through spiritual light. If a person's spiritual eye is clear, meaning pure and unhindered by sin, they are filled with the light that will guide them to God. On the other hand, if their spiritual eye is corrupt, they will be filled with darkness. A serious warning is given in the statement, "If the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" Those who were being addressed by the Master had already received God's light; their level of belief was evidence of this. If they turned away from the important journey they had started, they would lose that light, and the resulting darkness would be far worse than what they had escaped from. [543] There was to be no uncertainty among the disciples. None of them could serve two masters; if they claimed to do so, they would be disloyal to one or the other. Then came another important principle: "You cannot serve God and money."[544]
They were told to trust the Father for what they needed, taking no thought of food, drink, clothing, or even of life itself, for all these were to be supplied by means above their power to control. With the wisdom of a Teacher of teachers, the Master appealed to their hearts and their understanding by citing the lessons of nature, in language of such simple yet forceful eloquence that to amplify or condense it is but to mar:
They were encouraged to trust the Father for everything they needed, not worrying about food, drink, clothing, or even life itself, because all of these would be provided in ways beyond their control. With the wisdom of a great Teacher, the Master reached out to their hearts and minds by using examples from nature, in language so straightforward yet impactful that trying to elaborate or shorten it would only spoil it:
"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they[Pg 244] spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
"Look at the birds in the sky: they don’t plant or harvest or store food in barns, yet your Heavenly Father takes care of them. Aren’t you worth much more than they are? Who among you can add even a little bit to your height by worrying? And why worry about clothes? Look at the lilies in the field, how they grow; they don’t work or weave. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these."
The weakness of faith was reproved in the reminder that the Father who cared even for the grass of the field, which one day flourishes and on the next is gathered up to be burned, would not fail to remember His own. Therefore the Master added: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."
The weakness of faith was addressed in the reminder that the Father, who looks after even the grass in the field— which blooms today and is gathered up tomorrow to be burned—would not forget His own. So, the Master added: "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."
HYPOCRISY FURTHER CONDEMNED.[545]
Men are prone to judge their fellows and to praise or censure without due consideration of fact or circumstance. On prejudiced or unsupported judgment the Master set His disapproval. "Judge not, that ye be not judged," He admonished, for, according to one's own standard of judging others, shall he himself be judged. The man who is always ready to correct his brother's faults, to remove the mote from his neighbor's eye so that that neighbor may see things as the interested and interfering friend would have him see, was denounced as a hypocrite. What was the speck in his neighbor's vision to the obscuring beam in his own eye? Have the centuries between the days of Christ and our own time made us less eager to cure the defective vision of those who cannot or will not assume our point of view, and see things as we see them?
Men tend to judge others and offer praise or criticism without really considering the facts or circumstances. The Master disapproved of biased or unfounded judgments. "Judge not, that ye be not judged," He warned, because by the standard we use to judge others, we will be judged ourselves. The person who is quick to point out his brother's faults, to remove the speck from his neighbor's eye so that the neighbor sees things in the way the meddlesome friend wants him to see, was called a hypocrite. What is a speck in his neighbor's vision compared to the glaring beam in his own eye? Have the centuries since Christ's time made us less eager to help those with a flawed perspective who can't or won't see things from our viewpoint?
These disciples, some of whom were soon to minister in the authority of the Holy Apostleship, were cautioned against the indiscreet and indiscriminate scattering of the sacred truths and precepts committed to them. Their duty would be to discern the spirits of those whom they essayed to teach, and to impart unto them in wisdom. The words of the Master were strong: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before, swine, lest they[Pg 245] trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."[546]
These disciples, some of whom would soon minister with the authority of the Holy Apostleship, were warned against carelessly and indiscriminately sharing the sacred truths and teachings entrusted to them. Their responsibility would be to understand the hearts of those they aimed to teach and to share knowledge wisely. The Master's words were clear: "Don’t give what is holy to dogs, and don’t throw your pearls in front of pigs, or they will trample them under their feet and turn around and attack you."[Pg 245][546]
PROMISE AND REASSURANCE[547]
That their supplications would be heard and answered followed as a rich promise. They were to ask and they would receive; they were to knock and the door would be opened. Surely the Heavenly Father would not be less considerate than a human parent; and what father would answer his son's plea for bread by giving him a stone, or who would give a serpent when a fish was desired? With greater certainty would God bestow good gifts upon those who asked according to their need, in faith. "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."
That their requests would be heard and granted came as a generous promise. They were to ask, and they would receive; they were to knock, and the door would be opened. Surely the Heavenly Father would be no less caring than a human parent; what father would respond to his son's request for bread by handing him a stone, or who would give a snake when a fish was wanted? With even greater assurance, God would give good gifts to those who asked according to their needs, in faith. "Therefore, treat others as you want them to treat you: for this is the essence of the law and the prophets."
The straight and narrow way by which man may walk in Godliness was compared with the broad highway leading to destruction. False prophets were to be shunned, such as were then among the people, comparable in their pretense to sheep, and in their reality to ravening wolves. These were to be recognized by their works and the results thereof, even as a tree to be judged as good or bad according to its fruit. A thorn bush does not produce grapes, nor can thistles bear figs. Conversely, it is as truly impossible for a good tree to produce evil fruit as for a useless and corrupt tree to bring forth good fruit.
The straightforward path that people can follow to live righteously is compared to the wide road that leads to destruction. People should avoid false prophets, who were present among the crowd, pretending to be like sheep but actually being like ravenous wolves. These false prophets should be identified by their actions and their outcomes, just like a tree can be judged as good or bad based on its fruit. A thorn bush doesn't produce grapes, and thistles can't grow figs. Similarly, it's just as impossible for a good tree to bear bad fruit as it is for a bad tree to produce good fruit.
Religion is more than the confession and profession of the lips. Jesus averred that in the day of judgment many would pretend allegiance to Him, saying: "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Only by doing[Pg 246] the will of the Father is the saving grace of the Son obtainable. To assume to speak and act in the name of the Lord without the bestowal of authority, such as the Lord alone can give, is to add sacrilege to hypocrisy. Even miracles wrought will be no vindication of the claims of those who pretend to minister in the ordinances of the gospel while devoid of the authority of the Holy Priesthood.[548]
Religion is more than just what you say. Jesus said that on the day of judgment, many will claim to follow Him, saying: "Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name? Didn't we cast out demons in your name? Didn't we do many wonderful works in your name?" And then He will say to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." Only by doing the will of the Father can the saving grace of the Son be attained. To claim to speak and act in the name of the Lord without the authority that only He can give is to mix sacrilege with hypocrisy. Even miracles performed will not justify the claims of those who pretend to serve in the ordinances of the gospel without the authority of the Holy Priesthood.[Pg 246][548]
HEARING AND DOING.[549]
The Sermon on the Mount has stood through all the years since its delivery without another to be compared with it. No mortal man has ever since preached a discourse of its kind. The spirit of the address is throughout that of sincerity and action, as opposed to empty profession and neglect. In the closing sentences the Lord showed the uselessness of hearing alone, as contrasted with the efficacy of doing. The man who hears and acts is likened unto the wise builder who set the foundation of his house upon a rock; and in spite of rain and hurricane and flood, the house stood. He that hears and obeys not is likened unto the foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and when rain fell, or winds blew, or floods came, behold it fell, and great was the fall thereof.
The Sermon on the Mount has stood the test of time since it was delivered, unmatched by anything else. No one has preached a message quite like it since. The essence of this message is one of honesty and action, in contrast to hollow words and neglect. In the final sentences, the Lord highlighted the uselessness of just listening compared to the power of taking action. The person who hears and acts is compared to the wise builder who laid the foundation of his house on a rock; despite rain, storms, and floods, the house remained standing. On the other hand, the one who hears but does not obey is compared to the foolish man who built his house on sand; when the rain fell, the winds blew, and the floods came, it collapsed, and it was a great disaster.
Such doctrines as these astonished the people. For His distinctive teachings the Preacher had cited no authority but His own. His address was free from any array of rabbinical precedents; the law was superseded by the gospel: "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes!"
Such teachings amazed the people. The Preacher based his unique teachings solely on his own authority. His message didn’t rely on any collection of rabbinical traditions; the gospel replaced the law: "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes!"
NOTES TO CHAPTER 17.
1. Time and Place of the Sermon on the Mount.—Matthew gives the address early mention, placing it even before the record of his own call from the seat of custom—which call certainly preceded the ordination of the Twelve as a body—and before his account of many sayings and doings of the Lord already considered in these pages. Luke's partial summary of the sermon[Pg 247] follows his record of the ordination of the apostles. Matthew tells us that Jesus had gone up the mountain and that He sat while speaking; Luke's account suggests the inference that Jesus and the Twelve first descended from the mountain heights to a plain, where they were met by the multitude, and that Jesus preached unto them, standing. Critics who rejoice in trifles, often to the neglect of weightier matters, have tried to make much of these seeming variations. Is it not probable that Jesus spoke at length on the mountain-side to the disciples then present, and from whom He had chosen the Twelve, and that after finishing His discourse to them He descended with them to the plain where a multitude had assembled, and that to these He repeated parts of what He had before spoken? The relative fulness of Matthew's report may be due to the fact that he, as one of the Twelve, was present at the first and more extended delivery.
1. Time and Place of the Sermon on the Mount.—Matthew mentions this address early on, even before the account of his own calling from the tax booth—which definitely happened before the Twelve were ordained as a group—and before his description of many of the Lord’s sayings and actions previously discussed in these pages. Luke’s brief summary of the sermon[Pg 247] comes after his record of the apostles' ordination. Matthew tells us that Jesus went up the mountain and sat down while speaking; Luke's account implies that Jesus and the Twelve first came down from the mountains to a flat area where a crowd gathered, and that Jesus preached to them while standing. Critics who focus on minor details, often overlooking more important issues, have tried to make a big deal out of these apparent differences. Isn't it likely that Jesus spoke for a long time on the mountainside to the disciples present at that moment, from whom He chose the Twelve, and that after finishing His talk with them, He came down to the plain where the crowd had gathered, repeating parts of what He had already shared? The more detailed account from Matthew might be because he, as one of the Twelve, was there for the initial, longer delivery.
2. Pleasure Versus Happiness.—"The present is an age of pleasure-seeking, and men are losing their sanity in the mad rush for sensations that do but excite and disappoint. In this day of counterfeits, adulterations, and base imitations, the devil is busier than he has ever been in the course of human history, in the manufacture of pleasures, both old and new; and these he offers for sale in most attractive fashion, falsely labeled, Happiness. In this soul-destroying craft he is without a peer; he has had centuries of experience and practise, and by his skill he controls the market. He has learned the tricks of the trade, and knows well how to catch the eye and arouse the desire of his customers. He puts up the stuff in bright-colored packages, tied with tinsel string and tassel; and crowds flock to his bargain counters, hustling and crushing one another in their frenzy to buy.
2. Pleasure Versus Happiness.—"We live in a time where people are obsessed with seeking pleasure, and in this frantic chase for thrills, many are losing their grip on reality. In an age filled with fakes, impurities, and cheap imitations, the devil is working harder than ever throughout human history, creating pleasures—both old and new; and he presents these for sale in the most appealing ways, misleadingly labeled Happiness. In this destructive enterprise, he has no equal; he has centuries of experience and practice, and with his expertise, he dominates the market. He knows all the sales tactics and how to grab attention and spark desire in his customers. He packages his products in eye-catching colors, wrapped in shiny strings and tassels; and crowds rush to his clearance racks, pushing and shoving each other in their madness to buy."
"Follow one of the purchasers as he goes off gloatingly with his gaudy packet, and watch him as he opens it. What finds he inside the gilded wrapping? He has expected fragrant happiness, but uncovers only an inferior brand of pleasure, the stench of which is nauseating.
"Follow one of the buyers as he walks away boastfully with his flashy package, and watch him as he opens it. What does he find inside the shiny wrapping? He expected sweet happiness, but uncovers only a cheap kind of pleasure, the smell of which is repulsive."
"Happiness includes all that is really desirable and of true worth in pleasure, and much beside. Happiness is genuine gold, pleasure but gilded brass, which corrodes in the hand, and is soon converted into poisonous verdigris. Happiness is as the genuine diamond, which, rough or polished, shines with its own inimitable luster; pleasure is as the paste imitation that glows only when artificially embellished. Happiness is as the ruby, red as the heart's blood, hard and enduring; pleasure, as stained glass, soft, brittle, and of but transitory beauty.
"Happiness encompasses everything that is genuinely desirable and truly valuable in pleasure, and much more. Happiness is real gold, while pleasure is just tarnished brass that wears away and quickly turns toxic. Happiness is like a genuine diamond, which, whether rough or polished, radiates its own unique shine; pleasure is just a fake that only sparkles when it's artificially enhanced. Happiness is like a ruby, as red as blood, tough and lasting; pleasure is like stained glass, delicate, fragile, and only momentarily beautiful."
"Happiness is true food, wholesome, nutritious and sweet; it builds up the body and generates energy for action, physical, mental and spiritual; pleasure is but a deceiving stimulant which, like spirituous drink, makes one think he is strong when in reality enfeebled; makes him fancy he is well when in fact stricken with deadly malady.
"Happiness is real nourishment, healthy, nutritious, and sweet; it strengthens the body and fuels energy for physical, mental, and spiritual activities. Pleasure is just a misleading stimulant that, like alcohol, tricks you into thinking you're strong when you're actually weakened; it makes you believe you're healthy when you're really suffering from a serious illness."
"Happiness leaves no bad after-taste, it is followed by no[Pg 248] depressing reaction; it calls for no repentance, brings no regret, entails no remorse; pleasure too often makes necessary repentance, contrition, and suffering; and, if indulged to the extreme, it brings degradation and destruction.
"Happiness leaves no bad aftertaste; it’s not followed by any [Pg 248] depressing reactions. It doesn’t require any regrets, brings no remorse, and doesn’t involve any feelings of guilt. On the other hand, pleasure often leads to necessary regret, sorrow, and pain; and if taken too far, it can lead to degradation and ruin."
"True happiness is lived over and over again in memory, always with a renewal of the original good; a moment of unholy pleasure may leave a barbed sting, which, like a thorn in the flesh, is an ever-present source of anguish.
"True happiness is experienced repeatedly in our memories, always refreshing the original joy; a moment of sinful pleasure can leave a painful reminder, which, like a thorn in the skin, is a constant source of suffering."
"Happiness is not akin with levity, nor is it one with light-minded mirth. It springs from the deeper fountains of the soul, and is not infrequently accompanied by tears. Have you never been so happy that you have had to weep? I have." From an article by the author, Improvement Era, vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 172, 173.
"Happiness isn’t the same as being carefree, nor is it just about lighthearted fun. It comes from the deeper parts of the soul and often goes hand in hand with tears. Have you ever been so happy that you couldn’t help but cry? I have." From an article by the author, Improvement Era, vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 172, 173.
3. Salt of the Earth.—Dummelow's Commentary, on Matt. 5:13, states: "Salt in Palestine, being gathered in an impure state, often undergoes chemical changes by which its flavor is destroyed while its appearance remains." Perhaps a reasonable interpretation of the expression, "if the salt have lost his savor," may be suggested by the fact that salt mixed with insoluble impurities may be dissolved out by moisture, leaving the insoluble residue but slightly salty. The lesson of the Lord's illustration is that spoiled salt is of no use as a preservative. The corresponding passage in the sermon delivered by Jesus to the Nephites after His resurrection reads: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the salt of the earth; but if the salt shall lose its savor, wherewith shall the earth be salted? The salt shall be thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." (3 Nephi 12:13.)
3. Salt of the Earth.—Dummelow's Commentary, on Matt. 5:13, says: "Salt in Palestine, usually collected in a mixed state, often undergoes chemical changes that destroy its flavor while its appearance stays the same." A reasonable interpretation of the phrase, "if the salt has lost its flavor," can be seen in the fact that salt combined with insoluble impurities can be dissolved by moisture, leaving a residue that is only slightly salty. The point of the Lord's illustration is that spoiled salt is useless as a preservative. The equivalent passage in the sermon Jesus gave to the Nephites after His resurrection states: "Truly, I say to you, I give you to be the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how will the earth be seasoned? It will be good for nothing except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by people." (3 Nephi 12:13.)
4. Reference to Publicans.—Observe that Matthew, who had been a publican, frankly records this reference (5:46, 47) to his despized class. Luke writes "sinners" instead of "publicans" (6:32-34). Of course, if the accounts of the two writers refer to separate addresses (see Note 1, above), both may be accurate. But we find Matthew's designation of himself as a publican in his list of the apostles (10:3) and the considerate omission of the unenviable title by the other evangelists (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15).
4. Reference to Tax Collectors.—Notice that Matthew, who had been a tax collector, openly mentions this reference (5:46, 47) to his disdained group. Luke uses "sinners" instead of "tax collectors" (6:32-34). Of course, if the accounts of the two writers pertain to different messages (see Note 1, above), both could be correct. However, we see Matthew identify himself as a tax collector in his list of the apostles (10:3) while the other writers omit the undesirable title (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15).
5. Relative Perfection.—Our Lord's admonition to men to become perfect, even as the Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48) cannot rationally be construed otherwise than as implying the possibility of such achievement. Plainly, however, man cannot become perfect in mortality in the sense in which God is perfect as a supremely glorified Being. It is possible, though, for man to be perfect in his sphere in a sense analogous to that in which superior intelligences are perfect in their several spheres; yet the relative perfection of the lower is infinitely inferior to that of the higher. A college student in his freshman or sophomore year may be perfect as freshman or sophomore; his record may possibly be a hundred per cent on the scale of efficiency and achievement; yet the honors of the upper classman are beyond him, and the attainment of graduation is to him remote, but of assured possibility, if he do but continue faithful and devoted to the end.[Pg 249]
5. Relative Perfection.—Our Lord's call for people to become perfect, just as the Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48), can only logically imply that such an achievement is possible. However, it's clear that a person cannot be perfect in this life in the same way that God is perfect as the ultimate glorified Being. Nevertheless, it is possible for a person to be perfect in their own sphere, similar to how higher intelligences are perfect in their respective areas; still, the relative perfection of the lower is infinitely less than that of the higher. A college student in their freshman or sophomore year may be perfect in that context; their performance could be a hundred percent on the scale of efficiency and achievement; yet, the honors of the upperclassman are out of reach for them, and graduation may seem distant but remains a clear possibility if they stay committed and devoted until the end.[Pg 249]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[515] Matt. chaps. 5, 6, 7; Luke 6:20-49. See also the version of the Sermon as delivered by Jesus Christ after His resurrection, to the Nephites on the western continent; B. of M., 3 Nephi, chaps. 12, 13, 14. See also chapter 39 herein.
[515] Matt. chapters 5, 6, 7; Luke 6:20-49. Also, check out the version of the Sermon given by Jesus Christ after His resurrection to the Nephites on the western continent; B. of M., 3 Nephi, chapters 12, 13, 14. See also chapter 39 herein.
[522] Doc. and Cov. 93:33.
[536] Exo. 16:16-21.
[538] Compare Matt. 7:6.
[540] Acts 17:28.
Acts 17:28.
[543] Luke 11:34-36.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 11:34-36.
CHAPTER 18.
AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY.
Matthew's account of the invaluable address, known to us as the Sermon on the Mount, is closed with a forceful sentence of his own, referring to the effect of the Master's words upon the people: "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."[550] A striking characteristic of Christ's ministry was the entire absence of any claim of human authority for His words or deeds; the commission He professed to have was that of the Father who sent Him. His addresses, whether delivered to multitudes or spoken in relative privacy to few, were free from the labored citations in which the teachers of the day delighted. His authoritative "I say unto you" took the place of invocation of authority and exceeded any possible array of precedent commandment or deduction. In this His words differed essentially from the erudite utterances of scribes, Pharisees and rabbis. Throughout His ministry, inherent power and authority were manifest over matter and the forces of nature, over men and demons, over life and death. It now becomes our purpose to consider a number of instances in which the Lord's power was demonstrated in divers mighty works.
Matthew's account of the important speech we know as the Sermon on the Mount ends with a powerful sentence of his own, highlighting the impact of the Master’s words on the people: "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." [550] A striking feature of Christ's ministry was the complete lack of any claim to human authority in His words or actions; the commission He claimed was that of the Father who sent Him. His messages, whether given to large crowds or shared more privately with a few, were free from the tedious citations that the teachers of the time enjoyed. His authoritative "I say to you" replaced the need to invoke authority and overshadowed any possible collection of previous commands or deductions. In this, His words stood in sharp contrast to the learned declarations of scribes, Pharisees, and rabbis. Throughout His ministry, inherent power and authority were evident over matter and the forces of nature, over people and demons, over life and death. Now, we aim to look at several instances where the Lord's power was shown through various mighty works.
THE CENTURION'S SERVANT HEALED.[551]
From the Mount of Beatitudes Jesus returned to Capernaum, whether directly or by a longer way marked by other works of power and mercy is of little importance. There was at that time a Roman garrison in the city. A military officer, a centurion or captain of a hundred men, was stationed there. Attached to the household of this officer was[Pg 250] an esteemed servant, who was ill, "and ready to die." The centurion had faith that Christ could heal his servant, and invoked the intercession of the Jewish elders to beg of the Master the boon desired. These elders implored Jesus most earnestly, and urged the worthiness of the man, who, though a Gentile, loved the people of Israel and out of his munificence had built for them a synagog in the town. Jesus went with the elders, but the centurion, probably learning of the approach of the little company, hastily sent other envoys to say that he did not consider himself worthy to have Jesus enter his home, from which sense of unworthiness he had not ventured to make his request in person.[552] "But," ran the message of supplication, "say in a word, and my servant shall be healed." We may well contrast this man's conception of Christ's power with that of the nobleman of the same town, who had requested Jesus to hasten in person to the side of his dying son.[553]
From the Mount of Beatitudes, Jesus returned to Capernaum. Whether he took a direct route or a longer one marked by other acts of power and compassion doesn’t really matter. At that time, there was a Roman garrison in the city, and a military officer, a centurion in charge of a hundred men, was stationed there. This officer had a valued servant who was sick and "about to die." The centurion believed that Christ could heal his servant and asked the Jewish elders to plead with the Master for this favor. The elders urgently implored Jesus and emphasized the man's worthiness. Although he was a Gentile, he cared for the people of Israel and had generously built a synagogue for them in town. Jesus agreed to go with the elders, but the centurion, probably hearing that the group was approaching, quickly sent other messengers to say he didn’t feel worthy to have Jesus enter his home. Out of this feeling of unworthiness, he hadn’t asked for help in person. His message of supplication stated, "But just say the word, and my servant will be healed." We can clearly see the difference between this man's understanding of Christ's power and that of the nobleman from the same town, who had asked Jesus to come quickly to help his dying son.
The centurion seems to have reasoned in this way: He himself was a man of authority, though under the direction of superior officers. To his subordinates he gave orders which were obeyed. He did not find it necessary to personally attend to the carrying out of his instructions. Surely One who had such power as Jesus possessed could command and be obeyed. Moreover, the man may have heard of the marvelous restoration of the nobleman's dying son, in accomplishing which the Lord spoke the effective word when miles away from the sufferer's bed. That the centurion's trust and confidence, his belief and faith, were genuine, is not to be doubted, since Jesus expressly commended the same. The afflicted one was healed. Jesus is said to have marveled[554] at the centurion's manifestation of faith, and, turning to the people who followed, He thus spake: "I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." This remark[Pg 251] may have caused some of the listeners to wonder; the Jews were unaccustomed to hear the faith of a Gentile so extolled, for, according to the traditionalism of the day, a Gentile, even though an earnest proselyte to Judaism, was accounted essentially inferior to even the least worthy of the chosen people. Our Lord's comment plainly indicated that Gentiles would be preferred in the kingdom of God if they excelled in worthiness. Turning to Matthew's record we find this additional teaching, introduced as usual with "I say unto you"—"That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."[555] This lesson, that the supremacy of Israel can be attained only through excellence in righteousness, is reiterated and enlarged upon in the Lord's teachings, as we shall see.
The centurion seemed to have thought like this: He was a man of authority, though he had superiors to report to. He gave orders to his subordinates, and they followed them. He didn’t feel the need to personally oversee the execution of his commands. Surely, someone with the power Jesus had could give a command and be obeyed. Plus, the centurion might have heard about the incredible healing of the nobleman's dying son, which happened when Jesus spoke a word from miles away. There’s no doubt that the centurion’s trust, confidence, belief, and faith were genuine, as Jesus explicitly praised it. The afflicted man was healed. It’s said that Jesus was amazed[554] by the centurion's show of faith, and turning to the crowd that followed him, He said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel." This statement[Pg 251] likely surprised some of the listeners; the Jews weren’t used to hearing the faith of a Gentile praised, since, according to the customs of the time, a Gentile, even one who sincerely converted to Judaism, was considered fundamentally inferior to even the least worthy of the chosen people. Our Lord's comment clearly suggested that Gentiles would be favored in the kingdom of God if they proved more worthy. Looking at Matthew's account, we find this additional teaching, typically prefaced with "I tell you"—"That many will come from the east and west and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom will be thrown out into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."[555] This lesson, that the supremacy of Israel can only be achieved through exceptional righteousness, is repeated and expanded upon in the Lord's teachings, as we will see.
A YOUNG MAN OF NAIN RAISED FROM THE DEAD.[556]
On the day after that of the miracle last considered, Jesus went to the little town of Nain, and, as usual, many people accompanied Him. This day witnessed what in human estimation was a wonder greater than any before wrought by Him. He had already healed many, sometimes by a word spoken to afflicted ones present, and again when He was far from the subject of His beneficent power; bodily diseases had been overcome, and demons had been rebuked at His command; but, though the sick who were nigh unto death had been saved from the grave, we have no earlier record of our Lord having commanded dread death itself to give back one it had claimed.[557] As Jesus and His followers approached the town, they met a funeral cortege of many people; the[Pg 252] only son of a widow was being borne to the tomb; the body was carried according to the custom of the day on an open bier. Our Lord looked with compassion upon the sorrowing mother, now bereft of both husband and son; and, feeling in Himself[558] the pain of her grief, He said in gentle tone, "Weep not." He touched the stretcher upon which the dead man lay, and the bearers stood still. Then addressing the corpse He said: "Young man, I say unto thee, Arise." And the dead heard the voice of Him who is Lord of all,[559] and immediately sat up and spoke. Graciously Jesus delivered the young man to his mother. We read without wonder that there came a fear on all who were present, and that they glorified God, testifying that a great prophet was amongst them and that God has visited His people. Reports of this miracle were carried throughout the land, and even reached the ears of John the Baptist, who was confined in the prison of Herod. The effect of the information conveyed to John concerning this and other mighty works of Christ, now claims our attention.
The day after the last miracle we discussed, Jesus went to the small town of Nain, and as usual, a lot of people followed Him. That day saw what many would consider an even greater wonder than all He had done before. He had already healed many by simply speaking to those in need, and at times even from a distance; He had cured physical illnesses and cast out demons by His command. However, while He had saved those on the brink of death, there’s no previous record of Him commanding death itself to return someone it had taken. As Jesus and His followers approached the town, they encountered a funeral procession. The only son of a widow was being carried to the tomb, and the body was placed on an open bier, as was the custom. Our Lord felt deep compassion for the grieving mother, who had lost both her husband and her son, and, feeling her sorrow, gently said, "Don’t weep." He touched the stretcher where the dead man lay, and the bearers halted. Then, addressing the corpse, He said, "Young man, I tell you, get up." The dead man heard the voice of the One who is Lord of all and immediately sat up and spoke. Jesus kindly gave the young man back to his mother. Those present were filled with awe and praised God, declaring that a great prophet had appeared among them and that God had come to help His people. News of this miracle spread throughout the region and even reached John the Baptist, who was imprisoned by Herod. The reactions to the news about this and other amazing works of Christ now demand our attention.
JOHN BAPTIST'S MESSAGE TO JESUS.
Even before Jesus had returned to Galilee after His baptism and the forty days of solitude in the wilderness, John the Baptist had been imprisoned by order of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea.[560] During the subsequent months of our Lord's activities, in preaching the gospel, teaching the true significance of the kingdom, reproving sin, healing the afflicted, rebuking evil spirits and even raising the dead to life, His forerunner, the God-fearing, valiant John, had lain a prisoner in the dungeons of Machærus, one of the strongest of Herod's citadels.[561]
Even before Jesus returned to Galilee after His baptism and the forty days of solitude in the wilderness, John the Baptist had been imprisoned by Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and Perea.[560] During the following months of our Lord's work, preaching the gospel, teaching the true meaning of the kingdom, confronting sin, healing the suffering, casting out evil spirits, and even raising the dead, His forerunner, the devout and courageous John, had been a prisoner in the dungeons of Machærus, one of Herod's strongest fortresses.[561]
[Pg 253]The tetrarch had some regard for John, having found him to be a holy man; and many things had Herod done on the direct advice of the Baptist or because of the influence of the latter's general teaching. Indeed, Herod had listened to John gladly, and had imprisoned him through a reluctant yielding to the importunities of Herodias, whom Herod claimed as a wife under cover of an illegal marriage. Herodias had been and legally was still the wife of Herod's brother Philip, from whom she had never been lawfully divorced; and her pretended marriage to Herod Antipas was both adulterous and incestuous under Jewish law. The Baptist had fearlessly denounced this sinful association; to Herod he had said: "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." Though Herod might possibly have ignored this stern rebuke, or at least might have allowed it to pass without punishment, Herodias would not condone. It was she, not the tetrarch, who most hated John; she "had a quarrel against him," and succeeded in inducing Herod to have the Baptist seized and incarcerated as a step toward the consummation of her vengeful plan of having him put to death.[562] Moreover, Herod feared an uprising of the people in the event of John being slain by his order.[563]
[Pg 253]Herod had some respect for John, recognizing him as a holy man; many of Herod's actions were based on John's advice or the influence of his teachings. In fact, Herod listened to John willingly and only imprisoned him after reluctantly giving in to Herodias's demands, who he claimed as a wife through an unlawful marriage. Herodias had been, and was still legally, the wife of Herod's brother Philip, from whom she had never obtained a formal divorce; her supposed marriage to Herod Antipas was considered both adulterous and incestuous according to Jewish law. John had boldly condemned this sinful relationship, telling Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." Although Herod might have brushed off this harsh criticism, or at least let it slide without punishment, Herodias was not willing to overlook it. It was she, not the tetrarch, who held the deepest animosity towards John; she "had a quarrel against him" and managed to convince Herod to have John arrested and imprisoned as part of her vengeful plan to have him killed.[562] In addition, Herod feared a revolt among the people if John was executed on his orders.[563]
In the course of his long imprisonment John had heard much of the marvelous preaching and works of Christ; these things must have been reported to him by some of his disciples and friends who were allowed to visit him.[564] Particularly was he informed of the miraculous raising of the young man at Nain;[565] and forthwith he commissioned two of his disciples to bear a message of inquiry to Jesus.[566] These came to Christ and reported the purpose of their visit thus: "John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come?[Pg 254] or look we for another?" The messengers found Jesus engaged in beneficent ministrations; and, instead of giving an immediate reply in words, He continued His labor, relieving in that same hour many who were afflicted by blindness or infirmities, or who were troubled by evil spirits. Then, turning to the two who had communicated the Baptist's question, Jesus said: "Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me."
During his long imprisonment, John heard a lot about the amazing preaching and works of Christ; these things were likely reported to him by some of his disciples and friends who were allowed to visit him.[564] He was particularly informed about the miraculous raising of the young man at Nain;[565] and immediately, he sent two of his disciples to ask Jesus a question.[566] They approached Christ and explained the purpose of their visit: "John the Baptist has sent us to you, asking, 'Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?'[Pg 254] The messengers found Jesus busy helping others; instead of responding right away, He continued His work, healing many who were suffering from blindness, disabilities, or troubled by evil spirits at that very moment. Then, turning to the two who brought John's question, Jesus said: "Go back and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. And blessed is anyone who does not take offense at me."
The words of John's inquiring disciples were answered by wondrous deeds of beneficence and mercy. When the reply was reported to John, the imprisoned prophet could scarcely have failed to remember the predictions of Isaiah, that by those very tokens of miracle and blessing should the Messiah be known;[567] and the reproof must have been convincing and convicting as he called to mind his own citations of Isaiah's prophecies, when he had proclaimed in fiery, withering eloquence the fulfilment of those earlier predictions in his own mission and in that of the Mightier One to whom he had borne personal testimony.[568]
The words of John's questioning disciples were met with amazing acts of kindness and compassion. When this response was relayed to John, the imprisoned prophet could hardly have failed to remember Isaiah's predictions, that through those very signs of miracles and blessings, the Messiah would be recognized; and the correction must have felt powerful and compelling as he recalled his own references to Isaiah's prophecies, when he passionately proclaimed that those earlier predictions were fulfilled in his own mission and that of the mightier one to whom he had personally testified.
The concluding sentence of our Lord's answer to John was the climax of what had preceded, and a further though yet gentle rebuke of the Baptist's defective comprehension of the Messiah's mission. "Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me," said the Lord. Misunderstanding is the prelude to offense. Gaged by the standard of the then current conception of what the Messiah would be, the work of Christ must have appeared to many as failure; and those who were looking for some sudden manifestation of His power in the conquest of Israel's oppressors and the rehabilitation of the house of David in worldly splendor, grew impatient, then[Pg 255] doubtful; afterward they took offense and were in danger of turning in open rebellion against their Lord. Christ has been an offender to many because they, being out of harmony with His words and works, have of themselves taken offense.[569]
The last sentence of Jesus' response to John was the peak of what came before, and a gentle reminder of the Baptist's misunderstanding of the Messiah's mission. "Blessed is anyone who isn't offended by me," said the Lord. Misunderstanding often leads to offense. Based on the common view of what the Messiah would be like at that time, Christ's work might have seemed like a failure to many. Those who expected a quick display of His power to defeat Israel's oppressors and restore the house of David in a grand way grew impatient, then doubtful; eventually, they were offended and risked openly rebelling against their Lord. Christ has upset many people because, being out of sync with His words and actions, they took offense on their own.
John's situation must be righteously considered by all who assume to render judgment as to his purpose in sending to inquire of Christ, "Art thou he that should come?" John thoroughly understood that his own work was that of preparation; he had so testified and had openly borne witness that Jesus was the One for whom he had been sent to prepare. With the inauguration of Christ's ministry, John's influence had waned, and for many months he had been shut up in a cell, chafing under his enforced inactivity, doubtless yearning for the freedom of the open, and for the locusts and wild honey of the desert. Jesus was increasing while he decreased in popularity, influence, and opportunity; and he had affirmed that such condition was inevitable.[570]
John's situation needs to be fairly judged by everyone who tries to decide his motive for asking Christ, "Are you the one who is to come?" John fully understood that his role was to prepare the way; he had proclaimed this and had clearly testified that Jesus was the One he was meant to prepare for. With the beginning of Christ's ministry, John's influence faded, and for many months he had been locked up in a cell, frustrated by his forced inactivity, likely longing for the freedom of the outdoors, along with the locusts and wild honey of the desert. Jesus was gaining popularity while John was losing his, both in influence and opportunity; he had stated that this situation was unavoidable.[570]
But, left in prison, he may have become despondent, and may have permitted himself to wonder whether that Mightier One had forgotten him. He knew that were Jesus to speak the word of command the prison of Machærus could no longer hold him; nevertheless Jesus seemed to have abandoned him to his fate, which comprized not only confinement but other indignities, and physical torture.[571] It may have been a part of John's purpose to call Christ's attention to his pitiable plight; and in this respect his message was rather a reminder than a plain inquiry based on actual doubt. Indeed, we have good grounds for inference that John's purpose in sending disciples to inquire of Christ was partly, and perhaps largely, designed to confirm in these disciples an[Pg 256] abiding faith in the Christ. The commission with which they were charged brought them into direct communication with the Lord, whose supremacy they could not well fail to comprehend. They were personal witnesses of His power and authority.
But, left in prison, he might have become hopeless and started to wonder if that Greater One had forgotten him. He knew that if Jesus were to command it, the prison of Machærus could no longer hold him; still, it felt like Jesus had left him to face his fate, which included not just confinement but also other humiliations and physical torture.[571] It may have been part of John's intention to draw Christ's attention to his miserable situation; in this sense, his message was more of a reminder than a straightforward question born from real doubt. In fact, we have strong reason to believe that John's purpose in sending his disciples to ask Christ was partly, and maybe mostly, aimed at reinforcing in these disciples a lasting faith in the Christ. The task they were given connected them directly with the Lord, whose authority they couldn’t help but recognize. They were firsthand witnesses of His power and authority.
Our Lord's commentary on John's message indicated that the Baptist had no full understanding of what the spiritual kingdom of God comprized. After the envoys had departed, Jesus addressed Himself to the people who had witnessed the interview. He would not have them underrate the importance of the Baptist's service.[572] He reminded them of the time of John's popularity, when some of those then present, and multitudes of others, had gone into the wilderness to hear the prophet's stern admonition; and they had found him to be no reed, shaken by the wind, but a firm and unbending oak. They had not gone to see a man in fashionable attire; those who wore soft raiment were to be looked for in the court of the king, not in the wilderness, nor in the dungeon where John now lay. They had found in John a prophet indeed, yea, more than a prophet; "For," affirmed the Lord, "I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."[573] What stronger testimony of the Baptist's integrity is needed? Other prophets had told of the Messiah's coming, but John had seen Him, had baptized Him, and had been to Jesus as a body servant to his master. Nevertheless from the day of John's preaching to the time at which Christ then spoke, the kingdom of heaven had been rejected with violence, and this even though all the prophets and even the fundamental law had told of its coming, and though both John and Christ had been abundantly predicted.
Our Lord's commentary on John's message showed that the Baptist didn't fully grasp what the spiritual kingdom of God involved. After the messengers left, Jesus turned to the crowd that had witnessed the conversation. He wanted them to appreciate the significance of the Baptist's role. He reminded them of the time when John was popular, when some of those present, along with many others, had gone into the wilderness to hear the prophet's tough warnings. They discovered he was not like a fragile reed swaying in the wind; he was more like a strong and unyielding oak. They didn't go to see someone dressed in fancy clothes; those in luxurious garments could be found in a king's court, not in the wilderness or in the prison where John was now held. They recognized John as a true prophet, and even more than a prophet; "For," said the Lord, "I tell you, among those born of women, there is no greater prophet than John the Baptist: yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." What stronger proof of the Baptist's integrity could there be? Other prophets had foretold the Messiah's arrival, but John had seen Him, baptized Him, and served Jesus like a servant to his master. Still, from the moment John started preaching until Christ spoke, the kingdom of heaven had been forcefully rejected, despite the fact that all the prophets and the fundamental law had predicted its arrival, and both John and Christ were extensively prophesied.
Concerning John, the Lord continued: "And if ye will[Pg 257] receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."[574] It is important to know that the designation, Elias, here applied by Jesus to the Baptist, is a title rather than a personal name, and that it has no reference to Elijah, the ancient prophet called the Tishbite.[575] Many of those who heard the Lord's eulogy on the Baptist rejoiced, for they had accepted John, and had turned from him to Jesus as from the lesser to the Greater; as from the priest to the great High Priest, as from the herald to the King. But Pharisees and lawyers were present, those of the class that John had so vehemently denounced as of a generation of vipers, and those who had rejected the counsel of God in refusing to heed the Baptist's call to repentance.[576]
Concerning John, the Lord continued: "And if you will[Pg 257] accept it, this is Elijah, who was to come. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear."[574] It’s important to know that the title "Elijah" here used by Jesus for the Baptist, is a title rather than a personal name, and that it doesn’t refer to Elijah, the ancient prophet known as the Tishbite.[575] Many of those who heard the Lord's praise of the Baptist rejoiced, as they had accepted John, and turned from him to Jesus as from the lesser to the Greater; from the priest to the great High Priest, from the herald to the King. However, Pharisees and lawyers were present, those from the class that John had so passionately condemned as a generation of vipers, and those who had rejected the advice of God by refusing to heed the Baptist's call to repentance.[576]
At this point the Master resorted to analogy to make His meaning clearer. He compared the unbelieving and dissatisfied generation to fickle children at play, disagreeing among themselves. Some wanted to enact the pageantry of a mock wedding, and though they piped the rest would not dance; then they changed to a funeral procession and essayed the part of mourners, but the others would not weep as the rules of the game required. Ever critical, ever skeptical, by nature fault-finders and defamers, hard of hearing and of heart, they grumbled. John the Baptist had come amongst them like the eremitic prophets of old, as strict as any Nazarite, refusing to eat with the merry-makers or drink with the convivial, and they had said "He hath a devil." Now came the Son of Man,[577] without austerity or hermit ways, eating and drinking as a normal man would do, a guest at the houses of the people, a participant in the festivities of a marriage party, mingling alike with the publicans and the Pharisees—and they complained again, saying: "Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans[Pg 258] and sinners!" The Master explained that such inconsistency, such wicked trifling with matters most sacred, such determined opposition to truth, would surely be revealed in their true light, and the worthlessness of boasted learning would appear. "But," said He, "wisdom is justified of all her children."
At this point, the Master used an analogy to clarify His meaning. He compared the unbelieving and dissatisfied generation to restless children at play, arguing among themselves. Some wanted to stage a mock wedding, but even though they played music, the others refused to dance; then they switched to a funeral procession and tried to act like mourners, but the others wouldn’t cry as the game required. Constantly critical and skeptical by nature, they were always finding fault and gossiping, hard of hearing and hard-hearted, they grumbled. John the Baptist had come among them like the solitary prophets of old, as strict as any Nazarite, avoiding meals with the joyous or drinks with the party-goers, and they said, "He has a demon." Now came the Son of Man,[577] without the severity or hermit lifestyle, eating and drinking like an ordinary man, a guest in people’s homes, joining in the celebrations at weddings, mingling with both tax collectors and Pharisees—and they complained again, saying: "Look at this glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors[Pg 258] and sinners!" The Master explained that such inconsistency, such wicked trivialization of sacred matters, such determined opposition to truth would eventually be exposed for what it was, and the futility of their claimed knowledge would become clear. "But," He said, "wisdom is shown to be right by all her children."
From reproof for unbelieving individuals He turned to unappreciative communities, and upbraided the cities in which He had wrought so many mighty works, and wherein the people repented not: "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 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: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."[578]
From criticism of nonbelievers, He shifted to ungrateful communities and scolded the cities where He had performed so many incredible works, but the people did not repent: "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! Because if the amazing works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, dressed in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to hell; for if the incredible works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have lasted until this day. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."[578]
Seemingly faint at heart over the unbelief of the people, Jesus sought strength in prayer.[579] With the eloquence of soul for which one looks in vain save in the anguish-laden communion of Christ with His Father, He voiced His reverent gratitude that God had imparted a testimony of the truth to the humble and simple rather than to the learned and great; though misunderstood by men He was known for what He really was by the Father. Turning again to the people, He urged anew their acceptance of Him and His gospel, and His invitation is one of the grandest outpourings of spiritual emotion known to man: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek[Pg 259] and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."[580] He invited them from drudgery to pleasant service; from the well-nigh unbearable burdens of ecclesiastical exactions and traditional formalism, to the liberty of truly spiritual worship; from slavery to freedom; but they would not. The gospel He offered them was the embodiment of liberty, but not of license; it entailed obedience and submission; but even if such could be likened unto a yoke, what was its burden in comparison with the incubus under which they groaned?
Seemingly troubled by the disbelief of the people, Jesus sought strength through prayer.[579] With an heartfelt expression that can only be found in the deep connection between Christ and His Father, He expressed His sincere gratitude that God had revealed the truth to the humble and simple rather than to the educated and powerful; although misunderstood by people, He was truly recognized by the Father. Turning back to the crowd, He once again urged them to accept Him and His message, offering one of the greatest expressions of spiritual emotion known to humanity: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."[580] He invited them from hard labor to joyful service; from the nearly unbearable pressures of religious demands and traditional formalities, to the freedom of genuine spiritual worship; from bondage to liberty; but they refused. The gospel He offered was the essence of freedom, but not of indulgence; it required obedience and humility; but even if that could be seen as a burden, what was it in comparison to the weight they were already carrying?
DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.
Reverting to John Baptist in his dungeon solitude, we are left without information as to how he received and understood the reply to his inquiry, as brought by his messengers. His captivity was destined soon to end, though not by restoration to liberty on earth. The hatred of Herodias increased against him. An opportunity for carrying into effect her fiendish plots against his life soon appeared.[581] The king celebrated his birthday by a great feast, to which his lords, high captains, and the principal officials of Galilee were bidden. To grace the occasion, Salome, daughter of Herodias though not of Herod, came in and danced before the company. So enchanted were Herod and his guests that the king bade the damsel ask whatever she would, and he swore he would give it unto her, even though the gift were half of his kingdom.
Reverting to John the Baptist in his dungeon solitude, we don’t know how he received and understood the reply to his inquiry from his messengers. His captivity was soon going to end, but not with a return to freedom on earth. Herodias’s hatred for him grew. An opportunity to carry out her wicked plans against his life soon appeared.[581] The king celebrated his birthday with a big feast, inviting his lords, top captains, and key officials of Galilee. To enhance the occasion, Salome, the daughter of Herodias but not of Herod, came in and danced for the guests. Herod and his guests were so captivated that the king told the young woman to ask for anything she wanted, and he swore he would give it to her, even if the gift was half his kingdom.
She retired to consult her mother as to what she should ask, and, being instructed, returned with the appalling demand: "I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist." The king was astounded; his amazement was followed by sorrow and regret; nevertheless, he dreaded the humiliation that would follow a violation of[Pg 260] the oath he had sworn in the presence of his court; so, summoning an executioner, he immediately gave the fatal order; and John was forthwith beheaded in the dungeon. The headsman returned, carrying a dish in which lay the ghastly trophy of the corrupt queen's vengeance. The bloody gift was delivered to Salome, who carried it with inhuman triumph to her mother. Some of John's disciples came, secured the corpse, laid it in a tomb; and bore the tidings of his death to Jesus. Herod was sorely troubled over the murder he had ordered; and when, later, the marvels wrought by Jesus were reported to him, he was afraid, and said: "That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him." To those who dissented, the terrified king replied: "It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead."[582]
She went away to consult her mother about what she should ask, and after getting instructions, she came back with the shocking demand: "I want you to give me the head of John the Baptist on a platter right away." The king was stunned; his shock quickly turned to sorrow and regret. Still, he feared the shame that would come from breaking the oath he had sworn in front of his court. So, he called for an executioner and immediately gave the deadly order; John was then beheaded in the dungeon. The headsman returned with a dish that held the gruesome trophy of the corrupt queen's revenge. The bloody gift was handed to Salome, who carried it back to her mother with cruel satisfaction. Some of John's disciples came, took the body, laid it in a tomb, and brought news of his death to Jesus. Herod was deeply troubled by the murder he had ordered; and later, when he heard about the miracles performed by Jesus, he became frightened and said: "That John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that’s why amazing things are happening through him." To those who disagreed, the terrified king responded: "It’s John, whom I beheaded; he has risen from the dead."[582]
So ended the life of the prophet-priest, the direct precursor of the Christ; thus was stilled the mortal voice of him who had cried so mightily in the wilderness: "Prepare ye the way of the Lord." After many centuries his voice has been heard again, as the voice of one redeemed and resurrected; and the touch of his hand has again been felt, in this the dispensation of restoration and fulness. In May, 1829, a resurrected personage appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, announced himself as John, known of old as the Baptist, laid his hands upon the two young men, and conferred upon them the priesthood of Aaron, which comprizes authority to preach and minister the gospel of repentance and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.[583]
So ended the life of the prophet-priest, the direct precursor of Christ; thus was silenced the mortal voice of the one who had called out powerfully in the wilderness: "Prepare the way for the Lord." After many centuries, his voice has been heard again, as the voice of someone redeemed and resurrected; and the touch of his hand has once more been felt, in this time of restoration and fulfillment. In May 1829, a resurrected being appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, identified himself as John, formerly known as the Baptist, laid his hands on the two young men, and conferred upon them the priesthood of Aaron, which includes the authority to preach and minister the gospel of repentance and baptism by immersion for the forgiveness of sins.[583]
IN THE HOUSE OF SIMON THE PHARISEE.
"And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat."[584]
"And one of the Pharisees invited him to eat with him. So he went into the Pharisee's house and sat down to eat." [584]
[Pg 261] From the place of this incident in Luke's narration of events, it appears that it may have occurred on the day of the visit of John's messengers. Jesus accepted the Pharisee's invitation, as He had accepted the invitations of others, including even publicans, and those called by the rabbis, sinners. His reception at Simon's house appears to have been somewhat lacking in warmth, hospitality and honorable attendance. The narrative suggests an attitude of condescension on the part of the host. It was the custom of the times to treat a distinguished guest with marked attention; to receive him with a kiss of welcome, to provide water for washing the dust from his feet, and oil for anointing the hair of the head and the beard. All these courteous attentions were omitted by Simon. Jesus took His place, probably on one of the divans or couches on which it was usual to partly sit, partly recline, while eating.[585] Such an attitude would place the feet of the person outward from the table. In addition to these facts relating to the usages of the time it should be further remembered that dwellings were not protected against intrusion by such amenities of privacy as now prevail. It was not unusual at that time in Palestine for visitors and even strangers, usually men however, to enter a house at meal time, observe the procedure and even speak to the guests, all without bidding or invitation.
[Pg 261] From the context of this event in Luke's account, it seems that it might have happened on the day when John's messengers visited. Jesus accepted the invitation from the Pharisee, just like He had done with others, including tax collectors and those labeled as sinners by the rabbis. The welcome He received at Simon's house seemed to lack warmth, hospitality, and proper respect. The story implies that the host had a condescending attitude. It was customary at that time to treat a distinguished guest with special care; they would greet him with a kiss, offer water to wash the dust from his feet, and provide oil to anoint his head and beard. Simon neglected all these polite gestures. Jesus likely took His place on one of the couches where people would sit and recline while eating. Such a position would mean that His feet were pointing away from the table. Additionally, it’s important to remember that homes weren’t protected against unwanted intrusion like they are today. In Palestine back then, it wasn't uncommon for visitors and even strangers—usually men—to enter a house during mealtimes, observe what was happening, and even talk to the guests, all without an invitation.
Among those who entered Simon's house while the meal was in progress, was a woman; and the presence of a woman, though somewhat unusual, was not strictly a social impropriety and could not well be forbidden on such an occasion. But this woman was one of the fallen class, a woman who had been unvirtuous, and who had to bear, as part of the penalty for her sins, outward scorn and practical ostracism from those who professed to be morally superior. She approached Jesus from behind, and bent low to kiss His feet as a mark of humility on her part and of respectful homage[Pg 262] to Him. She may have been one of those who had heard His gracious words, spoken possibly that day: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Whatever her motive in coming, she had certainly come in a repentant and deeply contrite state. As she leaned over the feet of Jesus her tears rained upon them. Seemingly oblivious of her surroundings and of disapproving eyes watching her movements, she shook out her tresses and wiped the Lord's feet with her hair. Then, opening an alabaster box of ointment, she anointed them, as a slave might do to his master. Jesus graciously permitted the woman to proceed unrebuked and uninterrupted in her humble service inspired by contrition and reverent love.
Among those who entered Simon's house while the meal was going on was a woman; and while it was somewhat unusual for a woman to be present, it wasn't strictly inappropriate and couldn't be banned on such an occasion. But this woman was from a fallen background, someone who had led an unvirtuous life, and as part of her punishment for her sins, she faced outward scorn and practical exclusion from those who claimed to be morally superior. She approached Jesus from behind and bent down to kiss His feet as a sign of her humility and respect for Him. She may have been one of those who had heard His gracious words, perhaps spoken that very day: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." Regardless of her reasons for coming, she was clearly in a repentant and deeply remorseful state. As she leaned over Jesus' feet, her tears fell on them. Seemingly unaware of her surroundings and the disapproving gazes watching her, she let down her hair and wiped the Lord's feet with it. Then, she opened an alabaster jar of ointment and anointed His feet, just as a servant might do for their master. Jesus graciously allowed the woman to continue her humble service, inspired by her remorse and loving reverence, without rebuke or interruption.
Simon had observed the whole proceeding; by some means he had knowledge as to the class to which this woman belonged; and though not aloud, within himself he said: "This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner." Jesus read the man's thoughts, and thus spake: "Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee," to which the Pharisee replied, "Master, say on." Jesus continued, "There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?" But one answer could be given with reason, and that Simon gave, though apparently with some hesitation or reserve. He possibly feared that he might involve himself. "I suppose" he ventured, "that he, to whom he forgave most." Jesus said, "Thou hast rightly judged," and proceeded: "Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not[Pg 263] anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment."
Simon had witnessed everything happening; somehow, he knew what kind of woman this was. Though he didn’t say it out loud, he thought to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who this woman is and what kind of person she is because she is a sinner.” Jesus could see what he was thinking and said, “Simon, I have something to tell you.” The Pharisee answered, “Master, go ahead.” Jesus continued, “There was a certain creditor who had two debtors: one owed five hundred coins, and the other owed fifty. When they couldn't pay him back, he graciously forgave them both. So, which of them will love him more?” There was only one reasonable answer, and Simon gave it, though he seemed a bit hesitant. He might have been worried about getting himself into trouble. “I suppose,” he said cautiously, “the one who was forgiven more.” Jesus replied, “You have judged correctly.” He then said, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house, and you didn’t give me any water for my feet, but she has washed my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You didn’t give me a kiss, but this woman has not stopped kissing my feet since I came in. You didn’t anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with perfume.”
The Pharisee could not fail to note so direct a reminder of his having omitted the ordinary rites of respect to a specially invited guest. The lesson of the story had found its application in him, even as Nathan's parable had drawn from David the king a self-convicting answer.[586] "Wherefore," Jesus continued, "I say unto thee, her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." Then to the woman He spake the words of blessed relief: "Thy sins are forgiven." Simon and the others at table murmured within themselves, "Who is this that forgiveth sins also?" Understanding their unspoken protest, Christ addressed the woman again, saying, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace."
The Pharisee couldn’t help but notice such a direct reminder of how he had neglected the usual signs of respect for a special guest. The lesson of the story had found its way to him, just like Nathan’s parable had prompted a self-condemning response from King David.[586] "Therefore," Jesus continued, "I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little." Then He spoke to the woman with words of comforting assurance: "Your sins are forgiven." Simon and the others at the table muttered among themselves, "Who is this that forgives sins too?" Knowing their silent objections, Christ addressed the woman again, saying, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
The latter part of the narrative brings to mind another occasion on which Christ granted remission of sins, and because of opposition in the minds of some hearers, opposition none the less real because unvoiced, had supplemented His authoritative utterance by another pronouncement.[587]
The later part of the story reminds me of another time when Christ forgave sins, and because some listeners silently disagreed, He reinforced His powerful statement with another declaration.[587]
The name of the woman who thus came to Christ, and whose repentance was so sincere as to bring to her grateful and contrite soul the assurance of remission, is not recorded. There is no evidence that she figures in any other incident recorded in scripture. By certain writers she has been represented as the Mary of Bethany who, shortly before Christ's betrayal, anointed the head of Jesus with spikenard;[588] but the assumption of identity is wholly unfounded,[589] and constitutes an unjustifiable reflection upon the earlier life of Mary, the devoted and loving sister of Martha and Lazarus. Equally wrong is the attempt made by others to identify this repentant and forgiven sinner with Mary Magdalene, no period of[Pg 264] whose life was marked by the sin of unchastity so far as the scriptures aver. The importance of guarding against mistakes in the identity of these women renders advisable the following addition to the foregoing treatment.
The name of the woman who came to Christ and whose repentance was so genuine that it brought her grateful and remorseful soul the assurance of forgiveness is not recorded. There’s no evidence that she appears in any other events mentioned in the scriptures. Some writers have claimed she is Mary of Bethany, who, shortly before Christ's betrayal, anointed Jesus’ head with expensive perfume; [588] but this assumption is completely unfounded,[589] and unfairly reflects on the earlier life of Mary, the devoted and loving sister of Martha and Lazarus. It’s also incorrect for others to try to link this repentant and forgiven sinner to Mary Magdalene, whose life, according to the scriptures, was marked by a notorious sin of unchastity. The necessity of avoiding mistakes regarding the identities of these women makes it important to add the following to the previous discussion.
In the chapter following that in which are recorded the incidents last considered, Luke[590] states that Jesus went throughout the region, visiting every city and village, preaching the gospel of the kingdom and showing the glad tidings thereof. With Him on this tour were the Twelve, and also "certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance." Further reference is made to some or all of these honorable women in connection with the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord, and of Mary Magdalene particular mention appears.[591] Mary Magdalene, whose second name is probably derived from her home town, Magdala, had been healed through the ministrations of Jesus from both physical and mental maladies, the latter having been associated with possession by evil spirits. Out of her we are told Christ had cast seven devils,[592] but even such grievous affliction affords no warrant for the assertion that the woman was unvirtuous or unchaste.
In the chapter after the one that discusses the previous events, Luke[590] describes how Jesus traveled throughout the area, visiting every town and village, preaching the good news of the kingdom and sharing its joyful message. Accompanying Him on this journey were the Twelve and also "some women who had been healed of evil spirits and ailments, including Mary called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, Susanna, and many others, who supported Him with their resources." There are further references to some or all of these remarkable women in relation to the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord, with specific mention of Mary Magdalene.[591] Mary Magdalene, whose second name likely comes from her hometown, Magdala, had been healed by Jesus from both physical and mental illnesses, the latter being linked to possession by evil spirits. It is said that Christ cast out seven demons from her,[592] but such serious affliction does not justify the claim that she was immoral or unchaste.
Mary Magdalene became one of the closest friends Christ had among women; her devotion to Him as her Healer and as the One whom she adored as the Christ, was unswerving; she stood close by the cross while other women tarried afar off in the time of His mortal agony; she was among the first at the sepulchre on the resurrection morning, and was the first mortal to look upon and recognize a resurrected Being—the Lord whom she had loved with all the fervor of spiritual[Pg 265] adoration. To say that this woman, chosen from among women as deserving of such distinctive honors, was once a fallen creature, her soul seared by the heat of unhallowed lust, is to contribute to the perpetuating of an error for which there is no excuse. Nevertheless the false tradition, arising from early and unjustifiable assumption, that this noble woman, distinctively a friend of the Lord, is the same who, admittedly a sinner, washed and anointed the Savior's feet in the house of Simon the Pharisee and gained the boon of forgiveness through contrition, has so tenaciously held its place in the popular mind through the centuries, that the name, Magdalene, has come to be a generic designation for women who fall from virtue and afterward repent. We are not considering whether the mercy of Christ could have been extended to such a sinner as Mary of Magdala is wrongly reputed to have been; man cannot measure the bounds nor fathom the depths of divine forgiveness; and if it were so that this Mary and the repentant sinner who ministered to Jesus as He sat at the Pharisee's table were one and the same, the question would stand affirmatively answered, for that woman who had been a sinner was forgiven. We are dealing with the scriptural record as a history, and nothing said therein warrants the really repellent though common imputation of unchastity to the devoted soul of Mary Magdalene.
Mary Magdalene became one of Christ's closest friends among women; her devotion to Him as her Healer and as the one she adored as the Christ was unwavering. She stood near the cross while other women stayed at a distance during His suffering. She was one of the first to arrive at the tomb on the morning of the resurrection and was the first person to see and recognize a resurrected Being—the Lord she had loved with all her heart and spiritual adoration. To say that this woman, chosen from among women as deserving of such special honors, was once a fallen person, her soul burned by the fires of unholy desire, is to perpetuate an error that has no justification. Yet, the false tradition, arising from early and unjust assumptions, that this noble woman, a distinct friend of the Lord, is the same person who, known to be a sinner, washed and anointed the Savior's feet in the house of Simon the Pharisee and received forgiveness through her remorse, has held onto its place in popular belief for centuries. As a result, the name Magdalene has become a common term for women who lose their virtue and later repent. We are not debating whether Christ's mercy could extend to someone like Mary of Magdala, who is wrongly believed to have been a sinner; we cannot measure the limits or depths of divine forgiveness. Even if this Mary and the repentant sinner who served Jesus at the Pharisee's table were one in the same, the answer would still be clear: the woman who had sinned was forgiven. We are examining the scriptural record as history, and nothing stated there justifies the truly offensive yet common accusation of unchastity against the devoted soul of Mary Magdalene.
CHRIST'S AUTHORITY ASCRIBED TO BEELZEBUB.[593]
At the time of our Lord's earthly ministry, the curing of the blind, deaf, or dumb was regarded as among the greatest possible achievements of medical science or spiritual treatment; and the subjection or casting out of demons was ranked among the attainments impossible to rabbinical exorcism. Demonstrations of the Lord's power to heal and restore, even in cases universally considered as incurable, had the effect of[Pg 266] intensifying the hostility of the sacerdotal classes; and they, represented by the Pharisaic party, evolved the wholly inconsistent and ridiculous suggestion that miracles were wrought by Jesus through the power of the prince of devils, with whom He was in league.[594]
At the time of our Lord's ministry on Earth, healing the blind, deaf, or mute was seen as one of the greatest achievements of medical science or spiritual healing. Casting out demons was considered something beyond the capabilities of rabbinical exorcism. The Lord's ability to heal and restore people, even in cases thought to be hopeless, only fueled the hostility of the religious leaders; represented by the Pharisees, they came up with the completely inconsistent and absurd claim that Jesus performed miracles through the power of the prince of demons, suggesting he was in league with him.[Pg 266][594]
While the Lord was making His second missionary tour through Galilee, going about through "all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people,"[595] the absurd theory that Christ was Himself a victim of demoniacal possession, and that He operated by the power of the devil, was urged and enlarged upon until it became the generally accepted explanation among the Pharisees and their kind. Jesus had withdrawn Himself for a time from the more populous centers, where He was constantly watched by emissaries, whom the ruling classes had sent from Jerusalem into Galilee; for the Pharisees were in conspiracy against Him, seeking excuse and opportunity to take His life; but even in the smaller towns and rural districts He was followed and beset by great multitudes, to whom He ministered for both physical and spiritual ailments.[596]
While the Lord was on His second missionary journey through Galilee, traveling through "all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people,"[595] the ridiculous idea that Christ was actually a victim of demonic possession and that He worked through the power of the devil was promoted and expanded upon until it became the commonly accepted explanation among the Pharisees and their supporters. Jesus had pulled away for a time from the busier areas, where He was constantly monitored by agents sent from Jerusalem into Galilee by the ruling classes; the Pharisees were conspiring against Him, looking for any reason or chance to take His life. Even in the smaller towns and rural areas, however, He was followed by large crowds, who He helped with both physical and spiritual issues.[596]
He urged the people to refrain from spreading His fame; and this He may have done for the reason that at that stage of His work an open rupture with the Jewish hierarchy would have been a serious hindrance; or possibly He desired to leave the rulers, who were plotting against Him, time and opportunity to brew their bitter enmity and fill to the brim the flagons of their determined iniquity. Matthew sees in the Lord's injunctions against publicity a fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy that the chosen Messiah would not strive nor cry out on the street to attract attention, nor would He use His mighty power to crush even a bruised[Pg 267] reed, or to quench even the smoking flax; He would not fail nor be discouraged, but would victoriously establish just judgment upon the earth for the Gentiles, as well as, by implication, for Israel.[597] The figure of the bruised reed and the smoking flax is strikingly expressive of the tender care with which Christ treated even the weakest manifestation of faith and genuine desire to learn the truth, whether exhibited by Jew or Gentile.
He encouraged people not to spread His fame; he may have done this because, at that point in His work, an open break with the Jewish leaders would have been a major obstacle. Or maybe He wanted to give the rulers, who were plotting against Him, time and opportunity to build up their bitterness and fully realize their determined evil. Matthew sees the Lord's instructions against publicity as a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy that the chosen Messiah would not strive or shout in the streets to draw attention, nor would He use His great power to crush even a bruised reed or extinguish even the smoking flax; He would not falter or lose heart but would successfully set just judgment upon the earth for the Gentiles, as well as, by implication, for Israel.[Pg 267] The imagery of the bruised reed and the smoking flax powerfully expresses the gentle care with which Christ treated even the weakest signs of faith and genuine desire to learn the truth, whether shown by a Jew or a Gentile.
Soon after His return from the missionary tour referred to, an excuse for the Pharisees to assail Him was found in His healing of a man who was under the influence of a demon, and was both blind and dumb. This combination of sore afflictions, affecting body, mind, and spirit, was rebuked, and the sightless, speechless demoniac was relieved of his three-fold burden.[598] At this triumph over the powers of evil the people were the more amazed and said: "Is not this the son of David?" in other words, Can this be any other than the Christ we have been so long expecting? The popular judgment so voiced maddened the Pharisees, and they told the almost adoring people: "This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of devils." Jesus took up the malicious charge and replied thereto, not in anger but in terms of calm reason and sound logic. He laid the foundation of His defense by stating the evident truth that a kingdom divided against itself cannot endure but must surely suffer disruption. If their assumption were in the least degree founded on truth, Satan through Jesus would be opposing Satan. Then, referring to the superstitious practises and exorcisms of the time, by which some such effects as we class today under mind cures were obtained, He asked: "If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges." And to make the demonstration plainer by contrast, He continued: "But if I cast out devils by the[Pg 268] Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come upon you." By the acceptance of either proposition, and surely one was true, for the fact that Jesus did cast out devils was known throughout the land and was conceded in the very terms of the charge now brought against Him, the accusing Pharisees stood defeated and condemned.
Soon after His return from the missionary tour mentioned earlier, the Pharisees found an excuse to attack Him through His healing of a man possessed by a demon, who was both blind and mute. This combination of severe afflictions affecting body, mind, and spirit was confronted, and the blind and speechless demoniac was freed from his three-fold burden.[598] At this victory over evil, the people were even more amazed and said, "Isn't this the son of David?" meaning, Can this be anyone other than the Christ we've been waiting for? The popular opinion enraged the Pharisees, and they told the nearly worshipping crowd, "This man does not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub, the prince of demons." Jesus addressed the slanderous accusation calmly and logically. He began His defense by stating the obvious truth that a kingdom divided against itself cannot survive and will certainly fall apart. If their claim had even a shred of truth, then Satan would be opposing Satan through Jesus. Then, referencing the superstitious practices and exorcisms of the time, which produced effects we would call mind cures today, He asked, "If I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore, they will be your judges." To clarify the contrast, He added, "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." By accepting either statement, and obviously one was true since everyone knew Jesus cast out demons, the accusing Pharisees were ultimately defeated and condemned.
But the illustration went further. Jesus continued: "Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house." Christ had attacked the stronghold of Satan, had driven his evil spirits from the human tabernacles of which they had unwarrantably taken possession; how could Christ have done this had He not first subdued the "strong man," the master of devils, Satan himself? And yet those ignorant scholars dared to say in the face of such self-evident refutation of their own premises, that the powers of Satan were subdued by Satanic agency. There could be no agreement, no truce nor armistice between the contending powers of Christ and Satan. Offering a suggestion of self-judgment to His accusers, that they might severally decide on which side they were aligned, Jesus added: "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."
But the illustration went further. Jesus continued: "How can someone enter a strong man's house and take his stuff unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob the house." Christ had taken on the stronghold of Satan, casting out the evil spirits from the human bodies they had wrongfully occupied; how could Christ have done this if He hadn't first defeated the "strong man," the master of demons, Satan himself? Yet those misguided scholars had the audacity to claim, in light of such obvious evidence against their own arguments, that Satan's powers were defeated by evil means. There could be no agreement, no truce, or ceasefire between the opposing forces of Christ and Satan. Offering a moment of self-reflection to His accusers, so they could each determine which side they were on, Jesus added: "Whoever is not with me is against me; and whoever does not gather with me scatters."
Then, the demonstration being complete, and the absurdity of His opponents' assumption proved, Christ directed their thoughts to the heinous sin of condemning the power and authority by which Satan was overcome. He had proved to them on the basis of their own proposition that He, having subdued Satan, was the embodiment of the Spirit of God, and that through Him the kingdom of God was brought to them. They rejected the Spirit of God, and sought to destroy the Christ through whom that Spirit was made manifest. What blasphemy could be greater? Speaking as one having authority, with the solemn affirmation "I say unto you," He continued: "All manner of sin[Pg 269] and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosover speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."
Then, once the demonstration was complete, and the absurdity of His opponents' argument was proven, Christ shifted their focus to the serious sin of condemning the power and authority that had defeated Satan. He had shown them, based on their own claims, that since He had conquered Satan, He was the embodiment of the Spirit of God, and that through Him the kingdom of God was presented to them. They rejected the Spirit of God and tried to destroy Christ, through whom that Spirit was revealed. What greater blasphemy could exist? Speaking with authority and solemnly asserting, "I say to you," He went on: "Every kind of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to people, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in the age to come."
Who among men can word a more solemn and awful warning against the danger of committing the dread unpardonable sin?[599] Jesus was merciful in His assurance that words spoken against Himself as a Man, might be forgiven; but to speak against the authority He possessed, and particularly to ascribe that power and authority to Satan, was very near to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, for which sin there could be no forgiveness. Then, in stronger terms, which developed into cutting invective, He told them to be consistent—if they admitted that the result of His labors was good, as the casting out of devils surely was, to be likened unto good fruit—why did they not acknowledge that the power by which such results were attained, in other words that the tree itself, was good? "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." With burning words of certain conviction He continued: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." By the truths He had made so plain it was evident that their accusing words were drawn from hearts stored with evil treasure. Moreover their words were shown to be not only malicious but foolish, idle and vain, and therefore doubly saturated with sin. Another authoritative declaration followed: "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."[Pg 270]
Who among us can deliver a more serious and terrifying warning about the risk of committing the unforgivable sin?[599] Jesus was compassionate in assuring that words spoken against Him as a human could be forgiven; however, to challenge the authority He had, especially by attributing that power to Satan, came dangerously close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit, for which there could be no forgiveness. Then, using stronger language that became sharply critical, He urged them to be consistent—if they acknowledged that His works were good, as the act of casting out demons surely was, likening it to good fruit—then why didn’t they recognize that the power behind those actions, in other words, the tree itself, was also good? "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or else make the tree bad, and its fruit bad: for the tree is known by its fruit." With passionate words of undeniable truth, He went on: "O generation of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." By the truths He had made so clear, it became obvious that their accusatory words came from hearts filled with wickedness. Moreover, their words were shown to be not only malicious but also foolish, pointless, and empty, and thus doubly infused with sin. Another authoritative statement followed: "But I say to you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account for on the day of judgment."[Pg 270]
SEEKERS AFTER SIGNS?[600]
The Master's lesson, enforced though it was by illustration and analogy, by direct application, and by authoritative avowal, fell on ears that were practically deaf to spiritual truth, and found no place in hearts already stuffed with great stores of evil. To the profound wisdom and saving instruction of the word of God to which they had listened, they responded with a flippant request: "Master, we would see a sign from thee." Had they not already seen signs in profusion? Had not the blind and the deaf, the dumb and the infirm, the palsied and the dropsical, and people afflicted with all manner of diseases, been healed in their houses, on their streets, and in their synagogs; had not devils been cast out and their foul utterances been silenced by His word; and had not the dead been raised, and all by Him whom they now importuned for a sign? They would have some surpassing wonder wrought, to satisfy curiosity, or perhaps to afford them further excuse for action against Him—they wanted signs to waste on their lust.[601] Small wonder, that "he sighed deeply in his spirit" when such demands were made.[602] To the scribes and Pharisees who had shown such inattention to His words, He replied: "An evil and adulterous generation[603] seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas."
The Master's lesson, supported by examples and analogies, direct application, and authoritative statements, fell on ears that were practically deaf to spiritual truth and found no place in hearts already filled with great stores of evil. In response to the profound wisdom and saving instruction of God's word that they had heard, they asked flippantly, "Master, we would like to see a sign from you." Had they not already seen countless signs? Hadn't the blind, the deaf, the mute, the sick, the paralyzed, and those with all kinds of diseases been healed in their homes, on their streets, and in their synagogues? Hadn’t demons been cast out and their foul words silenced by His command? And had the dead not been raised, all by the one whom they were now asking for a sign? They wanted some incredible miracle to satisfy their curiosity or perhaps to give them more reason to act against Him—they wanted signs to indulge their desires.[601] It's no wonder that "he sighed deeply in his spirit" when such demands were made.[602] To the scribes and Pharisees who had shown such disregard for His words, He replied: "An evil and adulterous generation[603] seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it, except for the sign of the prophet Jonah."
The sign of Jonas (or Jonah) was that for three days he had been in the belly of the fish and then had been restored to liberty; so would the Son of Man be immured in the tomb, after which He would rise again. That was the only sign He would give them, and by that would they stand condemned. Against them and their generation would the[Pg 271] men of Nineveh rise in judgment, for they, wicked as they were, had repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold a greater than Jonas was among them.[604] The queen of Sheba would rise in judgment against them, for she had journeyed far to avail herself of Solomon's wisdom; and behold a greater than Solomon stood before them.[605]
The sign of Jonah was that he spent three days in the belly of a fish and then was set free; similarly, the Son of Man would be sealed in the tomb, after which He would rise again. That was the only sign He would give them, and by it, they would be judged. The people of Nineveh would stand up in judgment against this generation because, despite their wickedness, they repented at Jonah's preaching; yet here was someone greater than Jonah among them. The queen of Sheba would also rise in judgment against them, for she traveled a long way to hear Solomon's wisdom; and here was someone greater than Solomon standing right in front of them.
Then, reverting to the matter of unclean and evil spirits, in connection with which they had spread the accusation that He was one of the devil's own, He told them, that when a demon is cast out, he tries after a season of loneliness to return to the house or body from which he had been expelled; and, finding that house in order, sweet and clean since his filthy self had been forced to vacate it, he calls other spirits more wicked than himself, and they take possession of the man, and make his state worse than it was at first.[606] In this weird example is typified the condition of those who have received the truth, and thereby have been freed from the unclean influences of error and sin, so that in mind and spirit and body they are as a house swept and garnished and set in cleanly order, but who afterward renounce the good, open their souls to the demons of falsehood and deceit, and become more corrupt than before. "Even so," declared the Lord, "shall it be also unto this wicked generation."
Then, returning to the topic of unclean and evil spirits, which they had accused Him of being associated with, He explained that when a demon is cast out, it tries to come back after a time alone. If it finds the house or body it left in order, tidy, and clean since it had to leave, it brings along even worse spirits and takes over the person, making their situation worse than it was at first. In this strange example, we see the condition of those who have embraced the truth and thus have been freed from the dirty influences of error and sin, so that in mind, spirit, and body, they are like a house that has been cleaned and arranged nicely. However, if they later reject the good, open themselves to the demons of falsehood and deceit, they become even more corrupt than before. "In the same way," said the Lord, "it will be for this wicked generation."
Though the scribes and Pharisees were mostly unconvinced, if at all really impressed by His teachings, our Lord was not entirely without appreciative listeners. A woman in the company raised her voice in an invocation of blessing on the mother who had given birth to such a Son, and on the breasts that had suckled Him. While not rejecting this tribute of reverence, which applied to both mother and Son, Jesus answered: "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."[607]
Though the scribes and Pharisees were mostly skeptical, if they were impressed at all by His teachings, our Lord did have some appreciative listeners. A woman in the crowd raised her voice to bless the mother who had given birth to such a Son, and the breasts that had nurtured Him. While not dismissing this tribute of respect, which applied to both mother and Son, Jesus replied: "Yes, even more blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it."[607]
CHRIST'S MOTHER AND BRETHREN COME TO SEE HIM.[608]
While Jesus was engaged with the scribes and Pharisees, and a great number of others, possibly at or near the conclusion of the teachings last considered, word was passed to Him that His mother and His brethren were present and desired to speak with Him. On account of the press of people they had been unable to reach His side. Making use of the circumstance to impress upon all the fact that His work took precedence over the claims of family and kinship, and thereby explaining that He could not meet His relatives at that moment, He asked, "Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?" Answering His own question and expressing in the answer the deeper thought in His mind, He said, pointing toward His disciples: "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."
While Jesus was talking with the scribes and Pharisees, along with a large crowd, possibly near the end of His recent teachings, someone informed Him that His mother and brothers were there and wanted to speak with Him. Because of the crowd, they couldn't get to Him. Taking this opportunity to highlight that His mission was more important than family ties, He asked, “Who is my mother? And who are my brothers?” Answering His own question and sharing a deeper insight, He pointed to His disciples and said, “Look, here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, sister, and mother.”
The incident reminds one of the answer He made to His mother, when she and Joseph had found Him in the temple after their long and anxious search: "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"[609] In that business He was engaged when His mother and brethren desired to speak with Him as He sat amidst the crowd. The superior claims of His Father's work caused Him to let all minor matters wait. We are not justified in construing these remarks as evidence of disrespect, far less of filial and family disloyalty. Devotion, similar in kind at least, was expected by Him of the apostles, who were called to devote without reserve their time and talents to the ministry.[610] The purpose on which the relatives of Jesus had come to see Him is not made known; we may[Pg 273] infer, therefore, that it was of no great importance beyond the family circle.[611]
The incident reminds us of His response to His mother when she and Joseph found Him in the temple after their long and worried search: "Why were you looking for me? Didn't you know that I had to be in my Father's house?"[609] He was focused on that mission when His mother and siblings wanted to speak with Him while He was surrounded by the crowd. His commitment to His Father's work led Him to put aside all less important matters. We shouldn't interpret these comments as signs of disrespect, let alone lack of loyalty to His family. He expected a similar level of devotion from the apostles, who were called to fully dedicate their time and abilities to the ministry.[610] The reason Jesus' relatives came to see Him is not revealed, so we can assume it wasn't of much importance beyond their family.[611]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 18.
1. The Two Accounts of the Miracle.—In the commentary on the miraculous healing of the centurion's servant, as given in the text, we have followed in the main Luke's more circumstantial account. Matthew's briefer statement of the officer's petition, and the Lord's gracious compliance therewith, represents the man as coming in person to Jesus; while Luke refers to the elders of the local synagog as presenting the request. There is here no real discrepancy. It was then allowable, as in our time it is, to speak of one who causes something to be done as doing that thing himself. One may properly be said to notify another, when he sends the notification by a third party. A man may say he has built a house, when in reality others did the work of building though at his instance. An architect may with propriety be said to have constructed a building, when as a matter of fact he made the design, and directed others who actually reared the structure.
1. The Two Accounts of the Miracle.—In the commentary on the miraculous healing of the centurion's servant, as provided in the text, we have primarily followed Luke's more detailed account. Matthew’s shorter version of the officer's request and the Lord's kind response portrays the man as coming directly to Jesus, while Luke mentions that the local synagogue elders brought the request. There is no real contradiction here. At that time, just like today, it was acceptable to describe someone who causes something to be done as if they did it themselves. Someone can correctly say they notified another person even if they sent the notification through a third party. A person might say they built a house, even though others did the actual construction at their request. An architect can rightly be said to have constructed a building when, in reality, they created the design and oversaw those who actually built it.
2. Jesus Marveled.—Both Matthew and Luke tell us that Jesus marveled at the faith shown by the centurion, who begged that his beloved servant be healed (Matt. 8:10; Luke 7:9). Some have queried how Christ, whom they consider to have been omniscient during His life in the flesh, could have marveled at anything. The meaning of the passage is evident in the sense that when the fact of the centurion's faith was brought to His attention, He pondered over it, and contemplated it, probably as a refreshing contrast to the absence of faith He so generally encountered. In similar way, though with sorrow in place of joy, He is said to have marveled at the peoples' unbelief (Mark 6:6).
2. Jesus Marveled.—Both Matthew and Luke tell us that Jesus was amazed by the faith of the centurion, who asked for healing for his beloved servant (Matt. 8:10; Luke 7:9). Some people wonder how Christ, whom they believe was all-knowing during His time on earth, could be amazed by anything. The meaning of this passage is clear in that, when the centurion's faith was brought to His attention, He thought about it and reflected on it, likely as a refreshing change from the lack of faith He often encountered. In a similar way, though with sadness instead of joy, He is said to have been astonished by the people's unbelief (Mark 6:6).
3. Sequence of the Miracles of Raising the Dead.—As stated and reiterated in the text the chronology of the events in our Lord's ministry, as recorded by the Gospel-writers, is uncertain. Literature on the subject embodies much disputation and demonstrates absence of any near approach to agreement among Biblical scholars. We have record of three instances of miraculous restoration of the dead to life at the word of Jesus—the raising of the son of the widow of Nain, the raising of the daughter of Jairus, and the raising of Lazarus; and on the sequence of two of these there is difference of opinion. Of course the placing of the raising of Lazarus as the latest of the three is based on certainty. Dr. Richard C. Trench, in his scholarly and very valuable Notes on the Miracles of our Lord definitely asserts that the raising of the daughter of Jairus is the first of the three works of restoration to life. Dr. John Laidlaw, in The Miracles of our Lord, treats this first among the miracles of its[Pg 274] class though without affirming its chronological precedence; many other writers make it the second of the three. The incentive to arrange the three miracles of this group in the sequence indicated may, perhaps, be found in the desire to present them in the increasing order of apparent greatness—the raising of the damsel being an instance of recalling to life one who had but just died, ("hardly dead" as some wrongly describe her condition), the raising of the young man of Nain being the restoration of one on the way to the tomb, and the raising of Lazarus an instance of recalling to life one who had lain four days in the sepulchre. We cannot consistently conceive of these cases as offering grades of greater or lesser difficulty to the power of Christ; in each case His word of authority was sufficient to reunite the spirit and body of the dead person. Luke, the sole recorder of the miracle at Nain, places the event before that of the raising of the daughter of Jairus, with many incidents between. The great preponderance of evidence is in favor of considering the three miracles in the order followed herein, (1) the raising of the young man of Nain, (2) that of the daughter of Jairus, and (3) that of Lazarus.
3. Sequence of the Miracles of Raising the Dead.—As mentioned in the text, the timeline of events in our Lord's ministry, as recorded by the Gospel writers, is uncertain. The literature on this topic is filled with debate and shows a lack of agreement among Biblical scholars. There are three recorded instances of miraculous resurrections performed by Jesus: the raising of the son of the widow of Nain, the raising of the daughter of Jairus, and the raising of Lazarus. There are differing opinions on the order of two of these events. However, it is certain that the raising of Lazarus is the last of the three. Dr. Richard C. Trench, in his scholarly and valuable Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, asserts that the raising of the daughter of Jairus is the first of the three miracles of resurrection. Dr. John Laidlaw, in The Miracles of our Lord, discusses this miracle as the first of its kind without claiming it as the earliest chronologically; many other writers consider it the second of the three. The motivation to arrange these miracles in this particular sequence may come from a desire to present them in a way that showcases increasing greatness—raising the damsel, who had just died ("hardly dead," as some incorrectly describe her state), raising the young man of Nain, who was on the way to the tomb, and raising Lazarus, who had been in the tomb for four days. We cannot consistently view these cases as showing different levels of difficulty for the power of Christ; in each instance, His authoritative word was enough to reunite the spirit and body of the deceased. Luke, the only Gospel writer to record the miracle at Nain, positions this event before the raising of the daughter of Jairus, with several incidents in between. The majority of evidence supports the order presented here: (1) the raising of the young man of Nain, (2) that of the daughter of Jairus, and (3) that of Lazarus.
4. Tetrarch.—This title by derivation of the term and as originally used was applied to the ruler of a fourth part, or one of four divisions of a region that had formerly been one country. Later it came to be the designation of any ruler or governor over a part of a divided country, irrespective of the number or extent of the fractions. Herod Antipas is distinctively called the tetrarch in Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:1, 19; 9:7; and Acts 13:1; and is referred to as king in Matt. 14:9; Mark 6:14, 22, 25, 26.
4. Tetrarch.—Originally, this title referred to someone who ruled over a quarter, or one of four sections of a region that used to be a single country. Over time, it became a general term for any ruler or governor of a part of a divided nation, regardless of the number or size of those divisions. Herod Antipas is specifically called the tetrarch in Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:1, 19; 9:7; and Acts 13:1; and he is referred to as king in Matt. 14:9; Mark 6:14, 22, 25, 26.
6. Christ an Offender to Many.—The concluding part of our Lord's message to the imprisoned Baptist, in answer to the latter's inquiry, was, "Blessed is he whosoever is not offended in me." In passing it may be well to observe that whatever of reproof or rebuke these words may connote, the lesson was given in the gentlest way and in the form most easy to understand. As Deems has written, "Instead of saying 'Woe to him who is offended in me,' He puts it in the softer way 'Blessed is he who is not offended.'" In our English version of the Holy Bible the word "offend" and its cognates, are used in place of several different expressions which occur in the original Greek. Thus, actual infractions of the law, sin, and wickedness in general are all called offenses, and the perpetrators of such are guilty offenders who deserve punishment. In other instances even the works of righteousness are construed as causes of offense to the wicked; but this is so, not because the good works were in any way offenses against law or right, but because the law-breaker takes offense thereat. The convicted felon, if unrepentant and still of evil mind, is offended and angry at the law by which he has been brought to justice; to him the law is[Pg 275] a cause of offense. In a very significant sense Jesus Christ stands as the greatest offender in history; for all who reject His gospel, take offense thereat. On the night of His betrayal Jesus told the apostles that they would be offended because of Him (Matt. 26:31; see also verse 33). The Lord's personal ministry gave offense not alone to Pharisees and priestly opponents, but to many who had professed belief in Him (John 6:61; compare 16:1). The gospel of Jesus Christ is designated by Peter as "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient" (1 Peter 2:8; compare Paul's words, Romans 9:33). Indeed blessed is he to whom the gospel is welcome, and who finds therein no cause for offense.
6. Christ an Offender to Many.—The last part of our Lord's message to the imprisoned Baptist, in response to his question, was, "Blessed is anyone who is not offended by me." It's worth noting that whatever criticism or reprimand these words might imply, the lesson was conveyed in the gentlest way and in a form that's easy to grasp. As Deems remarked, "Instead of saying 'Woe to him who is offended by me,' He states it in a softer way: 'Blessed is he who is not offended.'" In our English version of the Holy Bible, the word "offend" and its related terms are used instead of several different expressions found in the original Greek. Thus, actual violations of the law, sin, and general wickedness are all referred to as offenses, and those who commit them are guilty offenders deserving of punishment. In some cases, even acts of righteousness are seen as causes of offense to the wicked; but this happens not because good deeds are offenses against the law or what is right, but because the lawbreaker is offended by them. The unrepentant criminal, if still malicious, feels offended and angry at the law that has brought him to justice; for him, the law is[Pg 275] a cause of offense. In a significant way, Jesus Christ is viewed as the greatest offender in history; for all who reject His gospel take offense at it. On the night of His betrayal, Jesus told the apostles that they would be offended because of Him (Matt. 26:31; see also verse 33). The Lord's personal ministry offended not just the Pharisees and priestly opponents, but many who had claimed to believe in Him (John 6:61; compare 16:1). The gospel of Jesus Christ is referred to by Peter as "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, even to those who stumble at the word, being disobedient" (1 Peter 2:8; compare Paul's words, Romans 9:33). Truly, blessed is he who welcomes the gospel and finds no reason for offense in it.
7. The Greatness of the Baptist's Mission.—The exalted nature of the mission of John the Baptist was thus testified to by Jesus: "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11:11; compare Luke 7:28). In elucidation of the first part of this testimony, the prophet Joseph Smith said, in the course of a sermon delivered May 24, 1843, (Hist. of the Church, under date named): "It could not have been on account of the miracles John performed, for he did no miracles; but it was—First, because he was trusted with a divine mission of preparing the way before the face of the Lord. Who was trusted with such a mission before or since? No man. Second, he was trusted and it was required at his hands, to baptise the Son of Man. Who ever did that? Who ever had so great a privilege or glory? Who ever led the Son of God into the waters of baptism, beholding the Holy Ghost descend upon Him in the sign of a dove? No man. Third, John at that time was the only legal administrator holding the keys of power there was on earth. The keys, the kingdom, the power, the glory had departed from the Jews; and John, the son of Zacharias, by the holy anointing and decree of heaven, held the keys of power at that time."
7. The Greatness of the Baptist's Mission.—The significance of John the Baptist's mission was underscored by Jesus: "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women, there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11:11; see Luke 7:28). To explain the first part of this statement, the prophet Joseph Smith said during a sermon on May 24, 1843, (Hist. of the Church, on that date): "It couldn't have been because of any miracles John performed, since he did no miracles; rather, it was—First, because he was entrusted with a divine mission to prepare the way for the Lord. Who else has been trusted with such a mission before or since? No one. Second, he was entrusted with the task of baptizing the Son of Man. Who else has done that? Who has had such a remarkable privilege or honor? Who has led the Son of God into the waters of baptism, witnessing the Holy Ghost descend upon Him in the form of a dove? No one. Third, at that time, John was the only legitimate administrator holding the keys of power on Earth. The keys, the kingdom, the power, and the glory had departed from the Jews; and John, the son of Zacharias, by the holy anointing and decree of heaven, held the keys of power at that time."
The latter part of our Lord's statement—"notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (John), has given rise to diverse interpretations and comment. The true meaning may be, that surpassingly great as was John's distinction among the prophets, he had not learned, at the time of the incident under consideration, the full purpose of the Messiah's mission, and such he would surely have to learn before he became eligible for admission into the kingdom of heaven; therefore, the least of those who through knowledge gained and obedience rendered, would be prepared for a place in the kingdom of which Jesus taught, was greater than was John the Baptist at that time. Through latter-day inspiration we learn that "it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" (Doc. and Cov. 131:6), and that "The glory of God in intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" (Doc. and Cov. 93:36). The Baptist's inquiry showed that he was then lacking in[Pg 276] knowledge, imperfectly enlightened and unable to comprehend the whole truth of the Savior's appointed death and subsequent resurrection as the Redeemer of the world. But we must not lose sight of the fact, that Jesus in no wise intimated that John would remain less than the least in the kingdom of heaven. As he increased in knowledge of the vital truths of the kingdom, and rendered obedience thereto, he would surely advance, and become great in the kingdom of heaven as he was great among the prophets of earth.
The latter part of our Lord's statement—"notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (John)—has led to various interpretations and discussions. The real meaning might be that, while John had a remarkable status among the prophets, he hadn't fully grasped the Messiah's mission by the time of the event we're discussing. He would need to learn this before he could enter the kingdom of heaven; thus, even the least among those who acquire knowledge and show obedience would be more prepared for a place in the kingdom Jesus taught about, making them greater than John the Baptist at that moment. Through modern revelation, we understand that "it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" (Doc. and Cov. 131:6), and that "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" (Doc. and Cov. 93:36). John's question revealed he was lacking in knowledge, only partially enlightened, and unable to grasp the full truth of the Savior’s appointed death and subsequent resurrection as the Redeemer of the world. However, we must remember that Jesus did not imply that John would always be less than the least in the kingdom of heaven. As John gained knowledge of the essential truths of the kingdom and obeyed them, he would certainly grow and become great in the kingdom of heaven, just as he was great among the prophets of the earth.
8. John the Baptist the Elias that was to Come.—In the days of Christ the people clung to the traditional belief that the ancient prophet Elijah was to return in person. Concerning this tradition the Dummelow Commentary says, on Matt. 11:14: "It was supposed that his [Elijah's] peculiar activity would consist in settling ceremonial and ritual questions, doubts and difficulties and that he would restore to Israel (1) the golden pot of manna, (2) the vessel containing the anointing oil, (3) the vessel containing the waters of purification, (4) Aaron's rod that budded and bore fruit." For this belief there was no scriptural affirmation. That John was to go before the Messiah in the spirit and power of Elias was declared by the angel Gabriel in his announcement to Zacharias (Luke 1:17); and our Lord made plain the fact that John was that predicted Elias. "Elias" is both a name and a title of office. Through revelation in the present dispensation we learn of the separate individuality of Elias and Elijah, each of whom appeared in person and committed to modern prophets the particular powers pertaining to his respective office (Doc. and Cov. 110:12, 13). We learn that the office of Elias is that of restoration (Doc. and Cov. 27:6, 7; 76:100; 77:9, 14). Under date of March 10, 1844, the following is recorded (Hist. of Church) as the testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith:—
8. John the Baptist, the Elijah Who Was to Come.—In the days of Christ, people held onto the belief that the ancient prophet Elijah was supposed to return in person. Regarding this tradition, the Dummelow Commentary mentions in Matt. 11:14: "It was believed that his [Elijah's] unique role would involve addressing ceremonial and ritual questions, clearing up doubts and issues, and restoring to Israel (1) the golden pot of manna, (2) the container of anointing oil, (3) the container of purification waters, (4) Aaron's rod that blossomed and bore fruit." There was no scriptural basis for this belief. The angel Gabriel announced to Zacharias that John would go before the Messiah in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17), and our Lord made it clear that John was the prophesied Elijah. "Elijah" serves as both a name and a title for his office. Through revelation in our current dispensation, we learn about the distinct identities of Elijah and Elias, each of whom appeared in person and entrusted modern prophets with the specific powers of their offices (Doc. and Cov. 110:12, 13). We understand that the role of Elias is one of restoration (Doc. and Cov. 27:6, 7; 76:100; 77:9, 14). On March 10, 1844, the following is recorded in the (Hist. of Church) as the testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith:—
"The spirit of Elias is to prepare the way for a greater revelation of God, which is the Priesthood of Elias, or the Priesthood that Aaron was ordained unto. And when God sends a man into the world to prepare for a greater work, holding the keys of the power of Elias, it was called the doctrine of Elias, even from the early ages of the world.
"The spirit of Elias is to pave the way for a greater revelation of God, which is the Priesthood of Elias, or the Priesthood that Aaron was ordained to. When God sends a man into the world to prepare for a greater task, holding the keys of the power of Elias, it's referred to as the doctrine of Elias, even from the early ages of the world."
"John's mission was limited to preaching and baptizing; but what he did was legal; and when Jesus Christ came to any of John's disciples, He baptized them with fire and the Holy Ghost.
"John's mission was focused on preaching and baptizing, but what he did was lawful; and when Jesus Christ came to any of John's disciples, He baptized them with fire and the Holy Spirit."
"We find the apostles endowed with greater power than John: their office was more under the spirit and power of Elijah than Elias.
"We see that the apostles have greater power than John; their role was more aligned with the spirit and power of Elijah than with Elias."
"In the case of Philip, when he went down to Samaria, when he was under the spirit of Elias, he baptized both men and women. When Peter and John heard of it, they went down and laid hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. This shows the distinction between the two powers.
"In the case of Philip, when he went to Samaria and was inspired by the spirit of Elijah, he baptized both men and women. When Peter and John heard about this, they went down and laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. This illustrates the difference between the two powers."
"When Paul came to certain disciples, he asked if they had received the Holy Ghost? They said, No. Who baptized you, then? We were baptized unto John's baptism. No, you were[Pg 277] not baptized unto John's baptism, or you would have been baptized by John. And so Paul went and baptized them, for he knew what the true doctrine was, and he knew that John had not baptized them. And these principles are strange to me, that men who have read the Scriptures of the New Testament are so far from it.
"When Paul met some disciples, he asked if they had received the Holy Spirit. They answered, 'No.' So he asked, 'Who baptized you then?' They replied, 'We were baptized with John's baptism.' Paul said, 'No, you weren't baptized with John's baptism, or you would have been baptized by John himself.' Paul then went and baptized them because he understood the true doctrine and knew that John hadn’t baptized them. It's strange to me that people who have read the New Testament Scriptures are so far from this understanding."
"What I want to impress upon your minds is the difference of power in the different parts of the Priesthood, so that when any man comes among you, saying, 'I have the spirit of Elias,' you can know whether he be true or false; for any man that comes having the spirit and power of Elias, he will not transcend his bounds.
"What I want to make clear to you is the difference in authority within the various parts of the Priesthood, so that when someone comes to you claiming, 'I have the spirit of Elias,' you can determine whether he is genuine or not; because anyone who comes with the spirit and power of Elias will not overstep his limitations."
"John did not transcend his bounds, but faithfully performed that part belonging to his office; and every portion of the great building should be prepared right and assigned to its proper place; and it is necessary to know who holds the keys of power, and who does not, or we may be likely to be deceived.
"John didn’t overstep his limits but instead fulfilled his role diligently; every section of the large building should be properly prepared and assigned to its correct place; and it’s essential to know who has the keys to power and who doesn’t, or we might easily be misled."
"That person who holds the keys of Elias hath a preparatory work.
"That person who has the keys of Elias has a preparatory work."
"This is the Elias spoken of in the last days, and here is the rock upon which many split, thinking the time was past in the days of John and Christ, and no more to be. But the spirit of Elias was revealed to me, and I know it is true; therefore I speak with boldness, for I know verily my doctrine is true."
"This is the Elias mentioned in the last days, and here is the point where many falter, believing that the time had already passed during the days of John and Christ and that it wouldn't return. But the spirit of Elias has been revealed to me, and I know it’s true; that's why I speak confidently, because I truly believe my teachings are correct."
9. At the Pharisee's Table.—The expression "sat at meat," as in Luke 7:37 and in other instances, is stated by good authority to be a mistranslation; it should be rendered "lay" or "reclined" (see Smith's Comp. Dict. of the Bible, article "Meals"). That sitting was the early Hebrew posture at meals is not questioned (Gen. 27:19; Judges 19:6; 1 Sam. 16:11; 20:5, 18, 24; 1 Kings 13:20); but the custom of reclining on couches set around the table seems to date back long before the days of Jesus (Amos 3:12; 6:4). The Roman usage of arranging the tables and adjoining couches along three sides of a square, leaving the fourth side open for the passage of the attendants who served the diners was common in Palestine. Tables and couches so placed constituted the triclinium. In reference to the ceremonial of the Pharisees in the matter of prescribed washing of articles used in eating, Mark (7:4) specifies "tables"; this mention is conceded to be a mistranslation, as couches or literally beds, are meant by the Greek expression. (See marginal reading, "beds" in Oxford Bible, and others.) A person reclining at table would have the feet directed outward. Thus it was a simple matter for the contrite woman to approach Jesus from behind and anoint His feet without causing disturbance to others at the table.
9. At the Pharisee's Table.—The phrase "sat at meat," as found in Luke 7:37 and other instances, is said to be a mistranslation according to reliable sources; it should be interpreted as "lay" or "reclined" (see Smith's Comp. Dict. of the Bible, article "Meals"). It is widely accepted that sitting was the traditional Hebrew position during meals (Gen. 27:19; Judges 19:6; 1 Sam. 16:11; 20:5, 18, 24; 1 Kings 13:20); however, the practice of reclining on couches around the table seems to have started long before Jesus' time (Amos 3:12; 6:4). The Roman custom of arranging tables and adjacent couches along three sides of a square setup, leaving the fourth side open for servers to pass and assist the diners, was common in Palestine. This setup of tables and couches was known as the triclinium. Regarding the Pharisees' rituals for washing items used for eating, Mark (7:4) refers to "tables"; this is acknowledged to be a mistranslation, as the Greek term actually refers to couches or beds. (See marginal reading, "beds" in the Oxford Bible, and others.) A person reclining at the table would have their feet directed outward. This positioning made it easy for the woman in distress to approach Jesus from behind and anoint His feet without disturbing anyone else at the table.
10. The Woman's Identity not Specified.—The attempt to identify the contrite sinner who anointed the feet of Jesus in the house of Simon the Pharisee with Mary of Bethany is thus strongly condemned by Farrar (p. 228, note): "Those who identify this feast at the house of Simon the Pharisee, in Galilee,[Pg 278] with the long-subsequent feast at the house of Simon the leper, at Bethany, and the anointing of the feet by 'a woman that was a sinner' in the city, with the anointing of the head by Mary the sister of Martha, adopt principles of criticism so reckless and arbitrary that their general acceptance would rob the Gospels of all credibility, and make them hardly worth study as truthful narratives. As for the names Simon and Judas, which have led to so many identifications of different persons and different incidents, they were at least as common among the Jews of that day as Smith and Jones among ourselves. There are five or six Judes and nine Simons mentioned in the New Testament, and two Judes and two Simons among the Apostles alone; Josephus speaks of some ten Judes and twenty Simons in his writings, and there must, therefore, have been thousands of others who at this period had one of these two names. The incident (of anointing with ointment) is one quite in accordance with the customs of the time and country, and there is not the least improbability in its repetition under different circumstances. (Eccles. 9:8; Cant. 4:10; Amos 6:6.) The custom still continues."
10. The Woman's Identity not Specified.—The attempt to identify the remorseful sinner who anointed Jesus' feet in Simon the Pharisee's house with Mary of Bethany is strongly criticized by Farrar (p. 228, note): "Those who link this feast at Simon the Pharisee's house in Galilee,[Pg 278] with the later feast at Simon the leper's house in Bethany, and the anointing of the feet by 'a woman who was a sinner' in the city, with the anointing of the head by Mary, the sister of Martha, follow such careless and arbitrary critical principles that their widespread acceptance would strip the Gospels of all credibility, making them hardly worth studying as truthful accounts. As for the names Simon and Judas, which have led to so many mistaken identifications of different people and different events, they were as common among Jews of that time as Smith and Jones are today. There are five or six Judes and nine Simons mentioned in the New Testament, with two Judes and two Simons among the Apostles alone; Josephus refers to around ten Judes and twenty Simons in his writings, meaning there must have been thousands more who had one of these two names during this period. The act of anointing with ointment fits perfectly with the customs of the time and place, and there’s nothing improbable about it happening in different contexts. (Eccles. 9:8; Cant. 4:10; Amos 6:6.) The custom continues to this day."
The learned canon is fully justified in his vigorous criticism; nevertheless he endorses the commonly-accepted identification of the woman mentioned in connection with the meal in the house of Simon the Pharisee with Mary Magdalene, although he admits that the foundation of the assumed identification is "an ancient tradition,—especially prevalent in the Western Church, and followed by the translation of our English version" (p. 233). As stated in our text, there is an entire absence of trustworthy evidence that Mary Magdalene was ever tainted with the sin for which the repentant woman in the Pharisee's house was so graciously pardoned by our Lord.
The knowledgeable canon is completely justified in his strong criticism; however, he agrees with the widely accepted view that the woman mentioned during the meal at Simon the Pharisee's house is Mary Magdalene, even though he acknowledges that the basis for this identification is "an ancient tradition,—especially common in the Western Church, and followed by the translation of our English version" (p. 233). As stated in our text, there is a complete lack of reliable evidence that Mary Magdalene was ever stained by the sin for which the repentant woman in the Pharisee's house was so graciously forgiven by our Lord.
11. The Unpardonable Sin.—The nature of the awful sin against the Holy Ghost, against which the Lord warned the Pharisaic accusers who sought to ascribe His divine power to Satan, is more fully explained, and its dread results are more explicitly set forth in modern revelation. Concerning them and their dreadful fate, the Almighty has said:—"I say that it had been better for them never to have been born, for they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come.... They shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment; and the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows, neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof: nevertheless I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again; wherefore the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except them who are ordained unto this[Pg 279] condemnation." (Doc. and Cov. 76:31-48; see also Heb. 6:4-6; B. of M., Alma 39:6.)
11. The Unforgivable Sin.—The nature of the terrible sin against the Holy Spirit, which the Lord warned the Pharisees about when they tried to attribute His divine power to Satan, is explained in greater detail, and its dreadful consequences are more clearly outlined in modern revelation. About them and their awful fate, the Almighty has said:—"I say that it would have been better for them never to have been born, for they are vessels of wrath, destined to suffer God's wrath, along with the devil and his angels for eternity; about whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world or the next.... They will go away to everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels for eternity, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment; and the end of it, neither the place nor their torment, no one knows, nor was it revealed, nor is, nor will be revealed to anyone, except to those who experience it: nevertheless I, the Lord, show it by vision to many, but I quickly close it off again; therefore the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery of it, they do not understand, nor does anyone except those who are appointed to this[Pg 279]condemnation." (Doc. and Cov. 76:31-48; see also Heb. 6:4-6; B. of M., Alma 39:6.)
12. An Adulterous Generation Seeking after Signs.—Our Lord's reply to those who clamored for a sign, that "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Matt. 12:39; see also 16:4; Mark 8:38) could only be interpreted by the Jews as a supreme reproof. That the descriptive designation "adulterous" was literally applicable to the widespread immorality of the time, they all knew. Adam Clarke in his commentary on Matt. 12:39, says of this phase of our topic: "There is the utmost proof from their [the Jews'] own writings, that in the time of our Lord, they were most literally an adulterous race of people; for at this very time Rabbi Jachanan ben Zacchi abrogated the trial by the bitter waters of jealousy, because so many were found to be thus criminal." For the information concerning the trial of the accused by the bitter waters, see Numb. 5:11-31. Although Jesus designated the generation in which He lived as adulterous, we find no record that the Jewish rulers, who by their demand for a sign had given occasion for the accusation, ventured to deny or attempt to repel the charge. The sin of adultery was included among capital offenses (Deut. 22:22-25). The severity of the accusation as applied by Jesus, however, was intensified by the fact that the older scriptures represented the covenant between Jehovah and Israel as a marriage bond (Isa. 54:5-7; Jer. 3:14; 31:32; Hos. 2:19, 20); even as the later scriptures typify the Church as a bride, and Christ as the husband (2 Cor. 11:2; compare Rev. 21:2). To be spiritually adulterous, as the rabbis construed the utterances of the prophets, was to be false to the covenant by which the Jewish nations claimed distinction, as the worshipers of Jehovah, and to be wholly recreant and reprobate. Convicted on such a charge those sign-seeking Pharisees and scribes understood that Jesus classed them as worse than the idolatrous heathen. The words "adultery" and "idolatry" are of related origin, each connoting the act of unfaithfulness and the turning away after false objects of affection or worship.
12. An Adulterous Generation Seeking after Signs.—Our Lord's response to those who demanded a sign, that "an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign" (Matt. 12:39; see also 16:4; Mark 8:38) could only be seen by the Jews as a serious rebuke. They all recognized that the term "adulterous" literally applied to the widespread immorality of the time. Adam Clarke, in his commentary on Matt. 12:39, notes about this aspect of our topic: "There is ample evidence from their [the Jews'] own writings that, during our Lord’s time, they were indeed an adulterous people; for at this time Rabbi Jachanan ben Zacchi abolished the trial by the bitter waters of jealousy because so many were found guilty." For details on the trial of the accused by the bitter waters, see Numb. 5:11-31. Although Jesus labeled the generation in which He lived as adulterous, there’s no record that the Jewish leaders, who had prompted the accusation by asking for a sign, attempted to deny or contest the claim. The sin of adultery was classified among capital offenses (Deut. 22:22-25). The seriousness of the accusation made by Jesus was heightened by older scriptures depicting the covenant between Jehovah and Israel as akin to a marriage (Isa. 54:5-7; Jer. 3:14; 31:32; Hos. 2:19, 20); just as later scriptures portray the Church as a bride and Christ as the husband (2 Cor. 11:2; compare Rev. 21:2). To be spiritually adulterous, as the rabbis interpreted the prophets’ messages, meant being unfaithful to the covenant that distinguished the Jewish nation as worshippers of Jehovah and being entirely disloyal and depraved. Confronted with such an accusation, those sign-seeking Pharisees and scribes understood that Jesus deemed them worse than the idolatrous outsiders. The terms "adultery" and "idolatry" are etymologically linked, each implying acts of unfaithfulness and turning towards false objects of love or worship.
13. The Mother and the Brethren of Jesus.—The attempt of Mary and some members of her family to speak with Jesus on the occasion referred to in the text has been construed by many writers to mean that the mother and sons had come to protest against the energy and zeal with which Jesus was pursuing His work. Some indeed have gone so far as to say that the visiting members of the family had come to put Him under restraint, and to stem, if they could, the tide of popular interest, criticism, and offense, which surged about Him. The scriptural record furnishes no foundation for even a tentative conception of the kind. The purpose of the desired visit is not intimated. It is a fact as will be shown in pages to follow, that some members of Mary's household had failed to understand the great import of the work in which Jesus was so assiduously engaged; and we are told that some of His friends (marginal rendering, "kinsmen,") on one occasion set out with the purpose of laying hold[Pg 280] on Him and stopping His public activities by physical force, for they said "He is beside himself." (Mark 3:21); furthermore we learn that His brethren did not believe on Him (John 7:5). These facts, however, scarcely warrant the assumption that the desire of Mary and her sons to speak with Him on the occasion referred to was other than peaceful. And to assume that Mary, His mother, had so far forgotten the wondrous scenes of the angelic annunciation, the miraculous conception, the heavenly accompaniments of the birth, the more than human wisdom and power exhibited in youth and manhood, as to believe her divine Son an unbalanced enthusiast, whom she ought to restrain, is to assume responsibility for injustice to the character of one whom the angel Gabriel declared was blessed among women, and highly favored of the Lord.
13. The Mother and the Brothers of Jesus.—The attempt by Mary and some of her family members to talk to Jesus in this instance has been interpreted by many writers as an indication that they came to protest against the energy and dedication with which Jesus was carrying out His mission. Some have even suggested that the family members intended to restrain Him and curb the wave of public interest, criticism, and offense surrounding Him. However, the biblical account does not support any such interpretation. The reason for their visit is not clarified. It is evident, as will be demonstrated in the following pages, that some members of Mary's household did not grasp the significance of the work Jesus was diligently engaged in; and we are informed that some of His friends (marginal rendering, "kinsmen") once planned to forcefully take hold of Him to stop His public activities, saying, "He is out of His mind." (Mark 3:21); additionally, we learn that His brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5). Nevertheless, these facts do not justify assuming that Mary and her sons' desire to speak with Him at that time was anything but peaceful. To believe that Mary, His mother, could forget the miraculous events surrounding His birth and life—like the angelic announcement, the miraculous conception, the divine aspects of His birth, and the extraordinary wisdom and power He showed as a young man—and think of her divine Son as an unbalanced enthusiast in need of restraint is to unjustly misrepresent the character of one whom the angel Gabriel declared was blessed among women and highly favored by the Lord.
The statement that the brethren of Jesus did not believe on Him at the time referred to by the recorder (John 7:5) is no proof that some or even all of those same brethren did not later believe on their divine Brother. Immediately after the Lord's ascension, Mary, the mother of Jesus, and His brethren were engaged in worship and supplication with the Eleven and other disciples (Acts 1:14). The attested fact of Christ's resurrection converted many who had before declined to accept Him as the Son of God. Paul records a special manifestation of the resurrected Christ to James (1 Cor. 15:7) and the James here referred to may be the same person elsewhere designated as "the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19); compare Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3. It appears that "brethren of the Lord" were engaged in the work of the ministry in the days of Paul's active service (1 Cor. 9:5). The specific family relationship of our Lord to James, Joses, Simon, Judas and the sisters referred to by Matthew (13:55, 56), and Mark (6:3), has been questioned; and several theories have been invented in support of divergent views. Thus, the Eastern or Epiphanian hypothesis holds, on no firmer basis than assumption, that the brethren of Jesus were children of Joseph of Nazareth by a former wife, and not the children of Mary the Lord's mother. The Levirate theory assumes that Joseph of Nazareth and Clopas (the latter name, it is interesting to note, is regarded as the equivalent of Alpheus, see footnote page 224) were brothers; and that, after the death of Clopas or Alpheus, Joseph married his brother's widow according to the levirate law (page 548). The Hieronymian hypothesis is based on the belief that the persons referred to as brethren and sisters of Jesus were children of Clopas (Alpheus) and Mary the sister of the Lord's mother, and therefore cousins to Jesus. (See Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25.) It is beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was regarded by those, who were acquainted with the family of Joseph and Mary as a close blood relative of other sons and daughters belonging to the household. If these others were children of Joseph and Mary, they were all juniors to Jesus, for He was undoubtedly His mother's firstborn child. The acceptance of this relationship between Jesus and His "brethren" and "sisters" mentioned by the synoptists constitutes what is known in theological literature as the Helvidian view.[Pg 281]
The claim that Jesus' siblings didn't believe in Him at the time mentioned by the writer (John 7:5) doesn't prove that some or even all of them didn't eventually believe in their divine Brother. Right after the Lord's ascension, Mary, the mother of Jesus, along with His siblings, joined the Eleven and other disciples in worship and prayer (Acts 1:14). The fact of Christ's resurrection led many who previously rejected Him as the Son of God to believe. Paul notes a special appearance of the resurrected Christ to James (1 Cor. 15:7), and this James might be the same person referred to as "the Lord's brother" elsewhere (Gal. 1:19); see also Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3. It seems that the "brethren of the Lord" were involved in ministry while Paul was active (1 Cor. 9:5). The exact family relationship of Jesus to James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and the sisters mentioned by Matthew (13:55, 56) and Mark (6:3) has been debated, leading to several theories to support different views. The Eastern or Epiphanian hypothesis suggests, with no solid evidence, that Jesus' siblings were children of Joseph of Nazareth from a previous marriage, not of Mary, His mother. The Levirate theory posits that Joseph of Nazareth and Clopas (notably, this name is seen as equivalent to Alpheus, see footnote page 224) were brothers, and after Clopas or Alpheus died, Joseph married his brother’s widow following levirate law (page 548). The Hieronymian hypothesis suggests that the siblings of Jesus were children of Clopas (Alpheus) and Mary, who was Jesus' mother’s sister, making them Jesus' cousins (see Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). It's very likely that Jesus was considered a close blood relative by those who knew Joseph and Mary's family, as He would be a senior to any other children they had, being Mary’s firstborn. Accepting this family relationship between Jesus and His mentioned "brethren" and "sisters," as described by the synoptic authors, is known in theological literature as the Helvidian view.[Pg 281]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[551] Luke 7:1-10; compare Matt. 8:5-13.
[556] Luke 7:11-17.
[560] Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 3:19, 20; see Note 2, chap. 9, page 119, and Note 4, end of this chapter.
[560] Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 3:19, 20; see Note 2, chap. 9, page 119, and Note 4, end of this chapter.
[562] Mark 6:17-20.
[563] Matt. 14:5.
[565] Luke 7:18; Matt. 11:2.
[566] Matt. 11:2-6; Luke 7:18-23.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 11:2-6; Luke 7:18-23.
[567] Isa. 35:5, 6.
[570] John 3:30.
John 3:30.
[571] Note that Jesus compared the sufferings of John while in prison as in part comparable to those He would Himself have to endure, in that they did unto John "whatsoever they listed" (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13).
[571] Note that Jesus likened John's sufferings in prison to the things He would have to face Himself, noting that they did to John "whatever they wanted" (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13).
[576] Matt. 3:7; Luke 7:30.
[580] Matt. 11:28-30.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 11:28-30.
[581] Mark 6:21-29.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 6:21-29.
[582] Mark 6:14-16.
[583] "Articles of Faith," x:18; also chapter 41, herein.
[583] "Articles of Faith," x:18; also chapter 41, herein.
[586] 2 Sam. 12:1-7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 2 Sam. 12:1-7.
[590] Luke 8:1-3.
[592] Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2.
[594] Matt. 9:34.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 9:34.
[595] Matt. 9:35.
[596] Matt. 12:14-15.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 12:14-15.
[597] Matt. 12:17-20; compare Isa. 42:1.
[598] Matt. 12:22, 23.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 12:22, 23.
[602] Mark 8:12.
[604] Jonah chaps. 1-4.
Jonah chapters 1-4.
[606] Matt. 12:43-45; Luke 11:24-26.
[607] Luke 11:27, 28.
Luke 11:27, 28.
CHAPTER 19.
"HE SPAKE MANY THINGS UNTO THEM IN PARABLES."
Throughout the period of Christ's ministry with which we have thus far dealt, His fame had continuously increased, because of the authority with which He spoke and of the many mighty works He did; His popularity had become such that whenever He moved abroad great multitudes followed Him. At times the people so thronged as to impede His movements, some with a desire to hear more of the new doctrine, others to plead at His feet for relief from physical or other ills; and many there were who had faith that could they but reach Him, or even touch the border of His robe, they would be healed.[612] One effect of the people's eagerness, which led them to press and crowd around Him, was to render difficult if not impossible at times the effective delivery of any discourse. His usual place for open-air teaching while He tarried in the vicinity of the sea, or lake, of Galilee was the shore; and thither flocked the crowds to hear Him. At His request, the disciples had provided a "small ship," which was kept in readiness on the beach;[613] and it was usual with Him to sit in the boat a short distance off shore, and preach to the people, as He had done when in the earlier days He called the chosen fishermen to leave their nets and follow Him.[614]
Throughout the time of Christ's ministry that we have covered so far, His fame continued to grow because of the authority with which He spoke and the many amazing things He did; His popularity became such that whenever He was out in public, large crowds followed Him. At times, the people crowded so much that it made it difficult for Him to move, some wanting to hear more about the new teachings, others coming to Him for help with physical or other problems; and many believed that if they could just reach Him, or even touch the hem of His robe, they would be healed.[612] One effect of the people's eagerness to press in around Him was that it often made it hard, if not impossible, for Him to effectively teach. His usual spot for outdoor teaching while He stayed near the Sea of Galilee was the shore, where the crowds gathered to listen to Him. At His request, the disciples had arranged for a "small boat," which was kept ready on the beach;[613] and it was common for Him to sit in the boat a short distance from the shore and preach to the people, as He had done when He first called the chosen fishermen to leave their nets and follow Him.[614]
On one such occasion He employed a means of instruction, which, prior to that time, had not been characteristic of His teaching; this consisted in the use of parables,[615] simple stories to illustrate His doctrines. Some of these we[Pg 282] shall here consider briefly, in the order most advantageous for treatment, and as best we know, in what may have been the sequence in which they were given.
On one such occasion, He used a method of teaching that hadn't been typical of His approach before; this involved the use of parables,[615] simple stories to illustrate His beliefs. Some of these we[Pg 282] will briefly discuss here, in the order that makes the most sense for analysis, and as far as we know, in the likely sequence in which they were presented.
"A SOWER WENT FORTH TO SOW."
First in the order of delivery is the Parable of the Sower. It is a splendid type of our Lord's parables in general, and is particularly valuable for its great intrinsic worth and because we possess a comprehensive interpretation of it by the divine Author. This is the story:
First in the order of delivery is the Parable of the Sower. It is a great example of our Lord's parables overall, and is especially important for its significant intrinsic value and because we have a thorough explanation of it from the divine Author. This is the story:
"Behold, a sower went forth to sow; and when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: and when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: but other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."[616]
"Look, a farmer went out to plant seeds; and as he was planting, some seeds fell along the edge of the path, and the birds came and ate them up. Some fell on rocky ground, where there wasn't much soil; they sprang up quickly because the soil was shallow, but when the sun came up, they got scorched, and since they had no roots, they dried up. Other seeds fell among thorns, which grew up and choked them. However, some seeds fell on good soil and produced a crop—some a hundred times what was sown, some sixty times, and some thirty times. Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear." [616]
This new way of teaching, this departure from the Master's earlier method of doctrinal exposition, caused even the most devoted of the disciples to marvel. The Twelve and a few others came to Jesus when He was apart from the multitude, and asked why He had spoken to the people in this manner, and what was the meaning of this particular parable. Our Lord's reply to the first part of the inquiry we shall consider presently; concerning the second, He asked "Know ye not the parable? and how then will ye know all parables?"[617] Thus did He indicate the simplicity of this the first of His parables, together with its typical and fundamental character, and at the same time intimate that other[Pg 283] parables would follow in the course of His teaching. Then He gave the interpretation:
This new teaching style, which was a shift from the Master's previous method of explaining doctrine, amazed even the most dedicated disciples. The Twelve and a few others approached Jesus when He was away from the crowd and asked why He spoke to the people this way and what this specific parable meant. We will look at our Lord's answer to the first question shortly; regarding the second, He asked, "Don't you understand the parable? How will you understand all parables?"[617] This highlighted the simplicity of this first parable, as well as its typical and fundamental nature, and suggested that more parables would follow in His teachings. Then He provided the interpretation:
"Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."[618]
"Hear the parable of the sower. When someone hears the message of the kingdom and doesn’t understand it, the evil one comes and takes away what was planted in their heart. This is the person who received the seed along the path. The one who received the seed in rocky places hears the word and immediately accepts it with joy; however, they have no deep roots and only last for a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. The one who received seed among thorns hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received seed on good soil hears the word and understands it, and they produce a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty, or thirty times what was sown."[618]
Further exposition may appear superfluous; some suggestion as to the individual application of the contained lessons may be in place, however. Observe that the prominent feature of the story is that of the prepared or unprepared condition of the soil. The seed was the same whether it fell on good ground or bad, on mellow mold or among stones and thistles. The primitive method of sowing still followed in many countries, consists in the sower throwing the grain by handfuls against the wind, thus securing a widespread scattering. Running through the Galilean fields, were pathways, hard trodden by feet of men and beasts. Though seed should fall on such tracts, it could not grow; birds would pick up the living kernels lying unrooted and uncovered and some of the grains would be crushed and trodden down. So with the seed of truth falling upon the hardened heart; ordinarily it cannot take root, and Satan, as a marauding crow, steals it away, lest a grain of it perchance[Pg 284] find a crack in the trampled ground, send down its rootlet, and possibly develop.
Further explanation might seem unnecessary, but it could be helpful to suggest how to apply the lessons here. Notice that the key point of the story is whether the soil was prepared or not. The seed was the same, whether it landed on good soil or bad, on rich earth or among stones and weeds. In many countries, the traditional way of sowing involves the sower tossing the seeds into the wind, allowing them to scatter widely. There were paths running through the Galilean fields, created by the heavy footsteps of people and animals. If seeds fell on these hard paths, they wouldn’t grow; birds would come and eat the seeds that lay exposed and uncovered, and some seeds would be crushed underfoot. Similarly, when the seed of truth falls on a hardened heart, it usually can't take root, and Satan, like a thieving crow, snatches it away, so that not even one grain might find a crack in the compacted ground, take root, and possibly grow.
Seed falling in shallow soil, underlain by a floor of unbroken stone or hard-pan, may strike root and flourish for a brief season; but as the descending rootlets reach the impenetrable stratum they shrivel, and the plant withers and dies, for the nutritive juices are insufficient where there is no depth of earth.[619] So with the man whose earnestness is but superficial, whose energy ceases when obstacles are encountered or opposition met; though he manifest enthusiasm for a time persecution deters him; he is offended,[620] and endures not. Grain sown where thorns and thistles abound is soon killed out by their smothering growth; even so with a human heart set on riches and the allurements of pleasure—though it receive the living seed of the gospel it will produce no harvest of good grain, but instead, a rank tangle of noxious weeds. The abundant yield of thorny thistles demonstrates the fitness of the soil for a better crop, were it only free from the cumbering weeds. The seed that falls in good deep soil, free from weeds and prepared for the sowing, strikes root and grows; the sun's heat scorches it not, but gives it thrift; it matures and yields to the harvester according to the richness of the soil, some fields producing thirty, others sixty, and a few even a hundred times as much grain as was sown.
Seed falling in shallow soil, resting on a layer of unbroken stone or hard-pan, might take root and thrive for a short time; but as the roots reach the hard layer below, they dry up, and the plant wilts and dies because there aren’t enough nutrients without more depth of soil.[619] Similarly, a person whose determination is only skin-deep, whose effort stops when faced with challenges or opposition; although they might show enthusiasm for a while, they become discouraged by persecution; they take offense,[620] and cannot persevere. Grain planted among thorns and thistles is soon choked out by their overpowering growth; likewise, a heart focused on wealth and the temptations of pleasure—while it might receive the life-giving message of the gospel, it will yield no good results, but instead, a tangled mess of harmful weeds. The abundant growth of thorns shows that the soil is capable of producing a better crop, if only it were free from those pesky weeds. The seed that falls in good, deep soil, clear of weeds and ready for planting, takes root and grows; the sun’s heat doesn’t scorch it but nourishes it; it matures and yields a harvest according to the richness of the soil, with some fields producing thirty, others sixty, and a few even a hundred times more grain than was sown.
Even according to literary canons, and as judged by the recognized standards of rhetorical construction and logical arrangement of its parts, this parable holds first place among productions of its class. Though commonly known to us as the Parable of the Sower, the story could be expressively designated as the Parable of the Four Kinds of Soil. It is the ground upon which the seed is cast, to which the story most strongly directs our attention, and which so aptly is made to symbolize the softened or the hardened heart,[Pg 285] the clean or the thorn-infested soil. Observe the grades of soil, given in the increasing order of their fertility: (A) the compacted highway, the wayside path, on which, save by a combination of fortuitous circumstances practically amounting to a miracle, no seed can possibly strike root or grow; (B) the thin layer of soil covering an impenetrable bed-rock, wherein seed may sprout yet can never mature; (C) the weed-encumbered field, capable of producing a rich crop but for the jungle of thistles and thorns; and (D) the clean rich mold receptive and fertile. Yet even soils classed as good are of varying degrees of productiveness, yielding an increase of thirty, sixty, or even a hundred fold, with many inter-gradations.
Even by today’s literary standards and based on recognized criteria for structure and logic, this parable stands out as the best in its genre. While we usually call it the Parable of the Sower, it could just as well be named the Parable of the Four Types of Soil. The focus of the story is on the ground where the seed is scattered, which serves as a powerful symbol for the open or closed heart, the clean or weed-filled soil. Notice the types of soil, listed in order of increasing fertility: (A) the hard-packed road, where, except by some remarkable chance, no seed can take root or grow; (B) a thin layer of soil over a solid rock base, where seeds may sprout but will never reach maturity; (C) a weedy field that could produce a great crop if not for the thorns and thistles; and (D) the rich, clean soil that is fertile and ready to yield. However, even the good soil has varying levels of productivity, resulting in an increase of thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times, with many variations in between.[Pg 285]
Some Bible expositors have professed to find in this splendid parable evidence of decisive fatalism in the lives of individuals, so that those whose spiritual state is comparable to the hardened pathway or wayside ground, to the shallow soil on stony floor, or to the neglected, thorn-ridden tract, are hopelessly and irredeemably bad; while the souls who may be likened unto good soil are safe against deterioration and will be inevitably productive of good fruit. Let it not be forgotten that a parable is but a sketch, not a picture finished in detail; and that the expressed or implied similitude in parabolic teaching cannot logically and consistently be carried beyond the limits of the illustrative story. In the parable we are considering, the Teacher depicted the varied grades of spiritual receptivity existing among men, and characterized with incisive brevity each of the specified grades. He neither said nor intimated that the hard-baked soil of the wayside might be plowed, harrowed, fertilized, and so be rendered productive; nor that the stony impediment to growth might not be broken up and removed, or an increase of good soil be made by actual addition; nor that the thorns could never be uprooted and their former habitat be rendered fit to support good plants. The parable[Pg 286] is to be studied in the spirit of its purpose; and strained inferences or extensions are unwarranted. A strong metaphor, a striking simile, or any other expressive figure of speech, is of service only when rationally applied; if carried beyond the bounds of reasonable intent, the best of such may become meaningless or even absurd.
Some Bible interpreters claim to find in this impressive parable proof of strict fatalism in people's lives. They believe that those whose spiritual state resembles the hard ground of a pathway, the shallow soil on rocky ground, or the neglected, thorny area, are beyond hope and irredeemably bad. Meanwhile, those compared to good soil are safe from decline and will inevitably produce good results. However, it’s important to remember that a parable is just a rough sketch, not a completely detailed picture. The similarities expressed or implied in parables shouldn't be taken beyond the limits of the story. In the parable we're looking at, the Teacher illustrated the different levels of spiritual receptivity among people and briefly described each level. He didn't claim that the hard-packed soil of the pathway could be plowed, cultivated, fertilized, and made productive, nor did he suggest that the rocky barriers to growth couldn't be broken up and removed, that good soil couldn't be added, or that the thorns couldn't be pulled out and their old space made suitable for healthy plants. The parable[Pg 286] should be studied with its intended message in mind; overextending interpretations is not justified. A strong metaphor, a vivid simile, or any other figure of speech is only useful when applied sensibly; if taken too far, even the best of them can become meaningless or even ridiculous.
THE WHEAT AND THE TARES.
Another parable, somewhat closely related to the foregoing as to the actual story, dealing again with seed and sowing, and, like the first, accompanied by an interpretation, was delivered by the Master as follows:
Another parable, somewhat related to the previous one regarding the actual story, dealing again with seed and planting, and, like the first, accompanied by an explanation, was told by the Master as follows:
"The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."[621]
"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who planted good seeds in his field. But while everyone was asleep, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat and went away. When the plants grew and produced grain, the weeds appeared as well. The owner's servants came and said to him, 'Sir, didn’t you plant good seeds in your field? Where did the weeds come from?' He replied, 'An enemy did this.' The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' He said, 'No, because while you pull the weeds, you might uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At harvest time, I will tell the harvesters, “First, collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn."'[621]
When Jesus had retired to the house in which He lodged, the disciples came, saying: "Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field."
When Jesus went back to the house where He was staying, the disciples came and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
"He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers[Pg 287] are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."[622]
"He answered them, saying, The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world; the good seed represents the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one; the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the harvesters[Pg 287] are the angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this world. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that cause offense and those who do evil; and they will throw them into a furnace of fire: there will be weeping and teeth grinding. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear."[622]
By the Author's explication, the sower was Himself, the Son of Man; and, as the condition of wheat and tares growing together was one that shall continue until "the end of the world," those who were ordained to carry on the ministry after Him are by direct implication also sowers. The seed as here represented is not, as in the last parable, the gospel itself, but the children of men, the good seed typifying the honest in heart, righteous-minded children of the kingdom; while the tares are those souls who have given themselves up to evil and are counted as children of the wicked one. Inspired by zeal for their Master's profit, the servants would have forcibly rooted up the tares, but were restrained, for their unwise though well-intended course would have endangered the wheat while yet tender, since in the early stages of growth it would have been difficult to distinguish the one from the other, and the intertwining of the roots would have caused much destruction of the precious grain.
According to the Author's explanation, the sower is Himself, the Son of Man; and since the situation of wheat and weeds growing together will last until "the end of the world," those who were chosen to continue the ministry after Him are also considered sowers. The seed represented here isn’t the gospel itself, like in the last parable, but the children of humanity, with the good seed symbolizing the honest, righteous-hearted children of the kingdom; while the weeds represent those who have surrendered to evil and are seen as children of the wicked one. Driven by a desire to benefit their Master, the servants wanted to forcibly remove the weeds but were held back because their misguided but well-meaning actions could have harmed the tender wheat. Early on, it would have been hard to tell the difference between the two, and the entangled roots would have caused a lot of damage to the precious grain.
One cardinal lesson of the parable, apart from the representation of actual conditions present and future, is that of patience, long-suffering, and toleration—each an attribute of Deity and a trait of character that all men should cultivate. The tares mentioned in the story may be considered as any kind of noxious weed, particularly such as in early growth resembles the wholesome grain.[623] Over-sowing with the seed of weeds in a field already sown with grain is a[Pg 288] species of malignant outrage not unknown even in the present day.[624] The certainty of a time of separation, when the wheat shall be garnered in the store-house of the Lord, and the tares be burned, that their poisonous seed may reproduce no more, is placed beyond question by the Lord's own exposition.
One key lesson from the parable, aside from illustrating real conditions of the past and future, is the importance of patience, endurance, and tolerance—qualities that reflect the Divine and traits that everyone should develop. The weeds mentioned in the story can be seen as any harmful plant, especially those that initially resemble healthy grain. Overplanting with weed seeds in a field already sown with grain is a malicious act that still occurs today. The certainty of a time of separation, when the wheat will be gathered into the Lord's storehouse and the weeds will be burned to prevent their toxic seeds from spreading, is clearly affirmed by the Lord's own explanation.
So important is the lesson embodied in this parable, and so assured is the literal fulfilment of its contained predictions, that the Lord has given a further explication through revelation in the current dispensation, a period in which the application is direct and immediate. Speaking through Joseph Smith the Prophet in 1832, Jesus Christ said:
So important is the lesson in this parable, and so certain is the literal fulfillment of its predictions, that the Lord has provided further explanation through revelation in the present time, a period where the application is direct and immediate. Speaking through Joseph Smith the Prophet in 1832, Jesus Christ said:
"But behold, in the last days, even now while the Lord is beginning to bring forth the word, and the blade is springing up and is yet tender. Behold, verily I say unto you, the angels are crying unto the Lord day and night, who are ready and waiting to be sent forth to reap down the fields; but the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender, (for verily your faith is weak,) lest you destroy the wheat also. Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe, then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo! the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned."[625]
"But look, in the last days, even now while the Lord is starting to reveal the word, and the blade is coming up and is still tender. Truly, I tell you, the angels are calling out to the Lord day and night, ready and waiting to be sent to harvest the fields; but the Lord tells them not to pull up the weeds while the blade is still tender, (for your faith is indeed weak,) lest you also destroy the wheat. Therefore, let the wheat and the weeds grow together until the harvest is completely ripe, then you shall first gather the wheat from among the weeds, and after gathering the wheat, look! The weeds are tied in bundles, and the field is left to be burned." [625]
THE SEED GROWING SECRETLY.
Matthew records the Parable of the Tares as immediately following that of the Sower; Mark places in the same position of sequence a parable found in his writings alone. It is presented in outline form, and by critical expositors would be classed rather as a simple analogy than a typical parable. Read it:
Matthew records the Parable of the Tares as coming right after the Parable of the Sower; Mark includes a different parable in the same position that is unique to his writings. It is presented in a basic outline, and critical scholars would categorize it more as a straightforward analogy than a typical parable. Read it:
"And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; and should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come."[626]
"And he said, the kingdom of God is like a man who plants seed in the ground; he goes to sleep and gets up night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows, though he doesn't know how. The earth produces fruit by itself; first the blade, then the ear, and finally the full grain in the ear. But once the fruit is ready, he immediately puts in the sickle because the harvest has arrived." [626]
We have no record of the disciples asking nor of the Master giving any interpretation of this, or of any later parable.[627] In this story we find effectively illustrated the fact of the vitality of the seed of truth, though the secret processes of its growth be a mystery to all save God alone. A man having planted seed must needs leave it alone. He may tend the field, removing weeds, protecting the plants as best he may, but the growth itself is dependent upon conditions and forces beyond his power to ultimately control. Though it were Paul who planted and Apollos who watered, none but God could insure the increase.[628] The one who sowed may go about his other affairs, for the field does not demand continuous or exclusive attention; nevertheless, under the influences of sunshine and shower, of breeze and dew, the blade develops, then the ear, and in due time the full corn in the ear. When the grain is ripe the man gladly harvests his crop.
We have no record of the disciples asking or the Master offering any interpretation of this, or any later parable.[627] This story effectively illustrates the vitality of the seed of truth, even though the secret processes of its growth remain a mystery known only to God. A man who plants seed must leave it alone. He can take care of the field, removing weeds and protecting the plants as best as he can, but the actual growth depends on conditions and forces that are ultimately beyond his control. Even if Paul plants and Apollos waters, only God can ensure the growth.[628] The one who sows can go about his other business, as the field doesn’t require constant or exclusive attention; however, under the influences of sunshine and rain, breeze and dew, the blade develops, then the ear, and eventually the full corn in the ear. When the grain is ripe, the man happily harvests his crop.
The sower in this story is the authorized preacher of the word of God; he implants the seed of the gospel in the hearts of men, knowing not what the issue shall be. Passing on to similar or other ministry elsewhere, attending to his appointed duties in other fields, he, with faith and hope, leaves with God the result of his planting. In the harvest of souls converted through his labor, he is enriched and made to rejoice.[629] This parable was probably directed more particularly to the apostles and the most devoted of the other[Pg 290] disciples, rather than to the multitude at large; the lesson is one for teachers, for workers in the Lord's fields, for the chosen sowers and reapers. It is of perennial value, as truly applicable today as when first spoken. Let the seed be sown, even though the sower be straightway called to other fields or other duties; in the gladsome harvest he shall find his recompense.
The sower in this story is the authorized messenger of God's word; he plants the seed of the gospel in people's hearts, not knowing what the outcome will be. Moving on to similar or different ministry elsewhere, and attending to his assigned duties in other areas, he leaves the results of his planting in God's hands, with faith and hope. In the harvest of souls saved through his work, he finds joy and fulfillment.[629] This parable was likely aimed more specifically at the apostles and the most committed of the other[Pg 290] disciples, rather than the general crowd; the lesson is meant for teachers, for workers in the Lord's fields, for the chosen sowers and harvesters. It holds enduring value, just as relevant today as it was when it was first spoken. Let the seed be sown, even if the sower is quickly called to different fields or other responsibilities; in the joyful harvest, he will find his reward.
THE MUSTARD SEED.
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."[630]
"Another parable he told them is this: The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. It’s the smallest of all seeds, but when it grows, it becomes the largest of all garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."[630]
This little story, addressed to the assembled multitude, must have set many thinking, because of the simplicity of the incident related and the thoroughly un-Jewish application made of it. To the mind taught by teachers of the time the kingdom was to be great and glorious from its beginning; it was to be ushered in by blare of trumpets and tramp of armies, with King Messiah at the head; yet this new Teacher spoke of it as having so small a beginning as to be comparable to a mustard seed. To make the illustration more effective He specified that the seed spoken of was "the least of all seeds." This superlative expression was made in a relative sense; for there were and are smaller seeds than the mustard, even among garden plants, among which rue and poppy have been named; but each of these plants is very small in maturity, while the well-cultivated mustard plant is one of the greatest among common herbs, and presents a strong contrast of growth from tiny seed to spreading shrub.
This short story, aimed at the gathered crowd, must have made many people think because of the simplicity of the incident described and the completely un-Jewish application of it. According to what teachers of the time taught, the kingdom was supposed to be grand and glorious from the very start; it was meant to be announced with loud trumpets and marching armies, with King Messiah leading the way. Yet this new Teacher referred to it as starting so small that it could be likened to a mustard seed. To emphasize the point, He mentioned that the seed He was talking about was "the least of all seeds." This superlative description was relative; there are and were smaller seeds than the mustard, such as rue and poppy. However, each of these plants remains quite small in maturity, while the well-cultivated mustard plant is one of the largest common herbs, showcasing a striking contrast between its tiny seed and its expansive growth.
Moreover, the comparison "as small as a mustard seed"[Pg 291] was in every-day use among Jews of the time. The comparison employed by Jesus on another occasion evidences the common usage, as when He said: "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed ... nothing shall be impossible unto you."[631] It should be known that the mustard plant attains in Palestine a larger growth than in more northerly climes.[632] The lesson of the parable is easy to read. The seed is a living entity. When rightly planted it absorbs and assimilates the nutritive matters of soil and atmosphere, grows, and in time is capable of affording lodgment and food to the birds. So the seed of truth is vital, living, and capable of such development as to furnish spiritual food and shelter to all who come seeking. In both conceptions, the plant at maturity produces seed in abundance, and so from a single grain a whole field may be covered.
Moreover, the comparison "as small as a mustard seed"[Pg 291] was commonly used among Jews at the time. The comparison used by Jesus on another occasion shows this common usage when He said: "If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed ... nothing will be impossible for you."[631] It's important to note that the mustard plant grows larger in Palestine than in northern regions.[632] The lesson of the parable is straightforward. The seed is a living thing. When properly planted, it absorbs and takes in the nutrients from the soil and air, grows, and eventually provides shelter and food for the birds. Similarly, the seed of truth is vital, living, and capable of growing to provide spiritual nourishment and refuge for all who seek it. In both ideas, a mature plant produces an abundance of seeds, so from a single grain, an entire field can be covered.
THE LEAVEN.
"Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."[633]
"Another parable he told them: The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into three measures of flour until all of it was risen."[633]
Points of both similarity and contrast between this parable and the last are easily discerned. In each the inherent vitality and capacity for development, so essentially characteristic of the kingdom of God, are illustrated. The mustard seed however, typifies the effect of vital growth in gathering the substance of value from without; while the leaven or yeast disseminates and diffuses outward its influence throughout the mass of otherwise dense and sodden dough. Each of these processes represents a means whereby the Spirit of Truth is made effective. Yeast is no less truly a living organism than a mustard seed. As the microscopic yeast plant develops and multiplies within the dough, its[Pg 292] myriad living cells permeate the lump, and every bit of the leavened mass is capable of affecting likewise another batch of properly prepared meal. The process of leavening, or causing dough "to rise," by the fermentation of the yeast placed in the mass, is a slow one, and moreover as quiet and seemingly secret as that of the planted seed growing without the sower's further attention or concern.[634]
Points of both similarity and difference between this parable and the last are easy to see. In each, the essential vitality and potential for growth, which are key characteristics of the kingdom of God, are highlighted. The mustard seed represents the way vital growth gathers valuable substance from the outside, while the leaven or yeast spreads its influence throughout the otherwise dense and heavy dough. Each of these processes shows how the Spirit of Truth becomes effective. Yeast is just as truly a living organism as a mustard seed. As the tiny yeast cells grow and multiply within the dough, their countless living cells fill the mixture, and every part of the leavened mass can similarly affect another batch of properly prepared flour. The process of leavening, or making dough "rise," through the fermentation of the yeast in the mixture, is a slow one, as quiet and seemingly secret as the growth of the planted seed without any further attention from the sower.[Pg 292]
THE HIDDEN TREASURE.
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field."[635]
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field; when a man finds it, he hides it, and in his joy goes and sells everything he has to buy that field."[635]
This and the two parables following are recorded by Matthew only; and the place assigned them in his narrative indicates that they were spoken to the disciples alone, in the house, after the multitude had departed. The quest for treasure-trove is always fascinating. Instances of finding buried valuables were not uncommon in the time of which we speak, since the practise of so concealing treasure was usual with people exposed to bandit incursions and hostile invasion. Observe that the fortunate and happy man is represented as finding the treasure seemingly by accident rather than as a result of diligent search. He gladly sold all that he possessed to make possible his purchase of the field. The hidden treasure is the kingdom of heaven; when a man finds that, he ought to be ready to sacrifice all that he has, if by so doing he may gain possession. His joy in the new acquisition will be unbounded; and, if he but remain a worthy holder, the riches thereof shall be his beyond the grave.[636]
This and the two parables that follow are recorded only by Matthew; and their position in his narrative suggests that they were shared with the disciples alone, in a house, after the crowd had left. The search for hidden treasure is always intriguing. Instances of discovering buried valuables weren't uncommon during this time, as hiding treasure was a common practice among people who faced threats from bandits and invasions. Notice that the lucky man is depicted as finding the treasure almost by accident rather than through a diligent search. He willingly sold everything he had to purchase the field. The hidden treasure represents the kingdom of heaven; when someone finds it, they should be ready to give up everything they own to possess it. Their joy in this new discovery will be immense; and, as long as they remain a worthy holder, its riches will be theirs for eternity.[636]
Casuists have raised the question of propriety as to the man's course of action in the story, inasmuch as he concealed[Pg 293] the fact of his discovery from the owner of the field, to whom the treasure, they say, rightly belonged. Whatever opinion one may hold as to the ethics of the man's procedure, his act was not illegal, since there was an express provision in Jewish law that the purchaser of land became the legal owner of everything the ground contained.[637] Assuredly Jesus commended no dishonest course; and had not the story been in every detail probable, its effect as a parable would have been lost. The Master taught by this illustration that when once the treasure of the kingdom is found, the finder should lose no time nor shrink from any sacrifice needful to insure his title thereto.
Casuists have questioned the appropriateness of the man's actions in the story since he hid his discovery from the owner of the field, to whom the treasure supposedly rightfully belonged. Regardless of one's view on the ethics of his actions, what he did wasn't illegal, as Jewish law clearly stated that whoever bought the land became the legal owner of everything it contained. Jesus certainly didn’t endorse any dishonest behavior; if the story hadn't been plausible in every detail, its impact as a parable would have been diminished. The Master used this illustration to show that once the treasure of the kingdom is found, the finder should act quickly and not hesitate to make any necessary sacrifices to secure their claim to it.
THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE.
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it."[638]
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one pearl of great value, he went and sold everything he had to buy it."[638]
Pearls have always held high place among gems, and long before, as indeed ever since, the time of Christ, pearl-merchants have been active and diligent in seeking the largest and richest to be had. Unlike the man in the last parable, who found a hidden treasure with little or no search, the merchant in this story devoted his whole energy to the quest for goodly pearls, to find and secure which was his business. When at last he beheld the pearl that excelled all others, though it was, as of right it ought to have been, held at high cost, he gladly sold all his other gems; indeed he sacrificed "all that he had"—gems and other possessions—and purchased the pearl of great price. Seekers after truth may acquire much that is good and desirable, and not find the greatest truth of all, the truth that shall save them. Yet, if they seek persistently and with right intent, if they are really[Pg 294] in quest of pearls and not of imitations, they shall find. Men who by search and research discover the truths of the kingdom of heaven may have to abandon many of their cherished traditions, and even their theories of imperfect philosophy and "science falsely so called,"[639] if they would possess themselves of the pearl of great price. Observe that in this parable as in that of the hidden treasure, the price of possession is one's all. No man can become a citizen of the kingdom by partial surrender of his earlier allegiances; he must renounce everything foreign to the kingdom or he can never be numbered therein. If he willingly sacrifices all that he has, he shall find that he has enough. The cost of the hidden treasure, and of the pearl, is not a fixed amount, alike for all; it is all one has. Even the poorest may come into enduring possession; his all is a sufficient purchase price.
Pearls have always been highly valued among gems, and long before, as well as since, the time of Christ, pearl merchants have been active and diligent in their pursuit of the largest and finest pearls. Unlike the man in the last parable who stumbled upon hidden treasure with little or no effort, the merchant in this story dedicated all his energy to the search for valuable pearls, which was his business. When he finally saw the pearl that was better than all the others, and which was appropriately expensive, he gladly sold all his other gems; in fact, he sacrificed "all that he had"—gems and other belongings—and bought the pearl of great worth. Truth seekers may acquire many good and desirable things, yet not find the greatest truth of all, the truth that will save them. However, if they seek persistently and with the right intention, and if they are genuinely on the hunt for pearls and not imitations, they will find what they seek. Those who discover the truths of the kingdom of heaven through effort and inquiry may have to let go of many beloved traditions, and even their incomplete philosophies and "falsely so-called science," if they want to possess the pearl of great worth. Notice that in this parable, as in the one about the hidden treasure, the price of possession is everything a person has. No one can become a citizen of the kingdom by partially giving up their earlier commitments; they must renounce everything that doesn’t belong to the kingdom or they will never be counted among its citizens. If one willingly sacrifices all they have, they will find that they have enough. The cost of the hidden treasure, and of the pearl, isn’t a fixed amount that’s the same for everyone; it’s everything one possesses. Even the poorest can come into lasting possession; their all is a sufficient purchase price.
THE GOSPEL NET.
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."[640]
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, they pulled it to shore, sat down, and collected the good fish in containers, but threw away the bad ones. This is how it will be at the end of the age: the angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous, and they will throw the wicked into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."[640]
Men of many minds, men good and bad, all nationalities and races, are affected by the gospel of the kingdom. The "fishers of men"[641] are skilful, active, and comprehensive in their haul. The sorting takes place after the net is brought to shore; and, as the fisherman discards every bad fish while he saves the good, so shall the angels who do the bidding of the Son of Man separate the just and the wicked, preserving the one kind to life eternal; consigning the other to destruction.[Pg 295] Unwise efforts to carry the application of the parable beyond the Author's intent have suggested the criticism that whether the fish be good or bad they die. The good, however, die to usefulness, the bad to utter waste. Though all men die, they die not alike; some pass to rest, and shall come forth in the resurrection of the just; others go to a state of sorrow and disquiet there to anxiously and with dread await the resurrection of the wicked.[642] Similarity of application in the present parable as in that of the tares, is apparent in the emphasis given to the decreed separation of the just from the unjust, and in the awful fate of those who are fit subjects for condemnation. A further parallelism is noticed in the postponement of the judgment until the "end of the world," by which expression we may understand the consummation of the Redeemer's work, subsequent to the Millennium and the final resurrection of all who have had existence on earth.[643]
Men of various opinions, both good and bad, from all nationalities and races, are impacted by the gospel of the kingdom. The "fishers of men"[641] are skilled, active, and thorough in their catch. The sorting happens after the net is pulled to shore; just as the fisherman discards the bad fish while keeping the good, the angels who serve the Son of Man will separate the righteous from the wicked, preserving the righteous for eternal life and sending the wicked to destruction.[Pg 295] Unwise attempts to stretch the meaning of the parable beyond the Author's intent have led to the criticism that whether the fish are good or bad, they all die. However, the good die in terms of their usefulness, while the bad face total waste. Although all men die, they do not all die in the same way; some find rest and will rise in the resurrection of the righteous, while others enter a state of sorrow and unrest, anxiously and fearfully awaiting the resurrection of the wicked.[642] The similarity in application between this parable and that of the tares is evident in the emphasis on the predetermined separation of the just from the unjust, and in the grim fate of those deserving condemnation. Another parallel is noted in the delay of judgment until the "end of the world," which can be understood as the fulfillment of the Redeemer's work, following the Millennium and the final resurrection of everyone who has existed on earth.[643]
Following His delivery of this, the last of the group of parables recorded in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew, Jesus asked the disciples, "Have ye understood all these things?" They answered, "Yea, Lord." He impressed upon them that they should be ready, like well-taught teachers, to bring, from the store-house of their souls, treasures of truth both old and new, for the edification of the world.[644]
Following His delivery of this, the last of the group of parables recorded in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew, Jesus asked the disciples, "Do you understand all these things?" They answered, "Yes, Lord." He emphasized that they should be ready, like well-trained teachers, to bring from the storehouse of their souls treasures of truth, both old and new, for the edification of the world.[644]
CHRIST'S PURPOSE IN USING PARABLES.
As before stated, the Twelve and other disciples were surprized at the Lord's innovation of parabolic instruction. Prior to that time His doctrines had been set forth in unveiled plainness, as witness the explicit teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. It is noticeable that the introduction of parables occurred when opposition to Jesus was strong, and when scribes, Pharisees, and rabbis were alert in maintaining[Pg 296] a close watch upon His movements and His works, ever ready to make Him an offender for a word. The use of parables was common among Jewish teachers; and in adopting this mode of instruction Jesus was really following a custom of the time; though between the parables He spake and those of the scholars there is possible no comparison except that of most pronounced contrast.[645]
As mentioned before, the Twelve and other disciples were surprised by the Lord's new way of teaching through parables. Before this, His teachings had been expressed very clearly, as seen in the straightforward messages in the Sermon on the Mount. It's interesting to note that the use of parables began when opposition to Jesus was intense, and when scribes, Pharisees, and rabbis were closely monitoring His actions and efforts, always ready to accuse Him for what He said. While using parables was common for Jewish teachers, Jesus was really just following a practice of the time; however, there is no real comparison between the parables He told and those of the scholars, other than a striking contrast.
To the chosen and devoted followers who came asking the Master why He had changed from direct exposition to parables, He explained[646] that while it was their privilege to receive and understand the deeper truths of the gospel, "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" as He expressed it, with people in general, who were unreceptive and unprepared, such fulness of understanding was impossible. To the disciples who had already gladly accepted the first principles of the gospel of Christ, more should be given; while from those who had rejected the proffered boon, even what they had theretofore possessed should be taken away.[647] "Therefore," said He, "speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." That the state of spiritual darkness then existing among the Jews had been foreseen was instanced by a citation of Isaiah's words, in which the ancient prophet had told of the people becoming blind, deaf, and hard of heart respecting the things of God, whereby though they would both hear and see in a physical sense yet should they not understand.[648]
To the chosen and devoted followers who asked the Master why He had switched from direct teachings to parables, He explained[646] that while it was their privilege to receive and grasp the deeper truths of the gospel, "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," as He called it, for most people, who were not open or ready, such a complete understanding was impossible. To the disciples who had already eagerly accepted the basic principles of the gospel of Christ, more should be given; while from those who had turned away from the offered gift, even what they had previously possessed would be taken away.[647] "Therefore," He said, "I speak to them in parables: because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." The state of spiritual darkness present among the Jews had been foreseen, demonstrated by a quote from Isaiah, where the ancient prophet spoke of the people becoming blind, deaf, and hard-hearted concerning the things of God, so that although they would hear and see in a physical sense, they would not understand.[648]
There is plainly shown an element of mercy in the parabolic mode of instruction adopted by our Lord under the conditions prevailing at the time. Had He always taught in explicit declaration, such as required no interpretation, many among His hearers would have come under condemnation, inasmuch as they were too weak in faith and unprepared[Pg 297] in heart to break the bonds of traditionalism and the prejudice engendered by sin, so as to accept and obey the saving word. Their inability to comprehend the requirements of the gospel would in righteous measure give Mercy some claim upon them, while had they rejected the truth with full understanding, stern Justice would surely demand their condemnation.[649]
There is clearly an element of mercy in the way our Lord taught using parables given the circumstances at that time. If He had always taught in clear statements that required no interpretation, many of His listeners would have faced condemnation because they were too weak in faith and unprepared in heart to let go of traditional beliefs and the prejudices caused by sin, which would have allowed them to accept and follow the saving message. Their inability to understand the requirements of the gospel would rightly give Mercy some claim over them, while if they had rejected the truth with full understanding, tough Justice would undoubtedly demand their condemnation.[649]
That the lesson of the parables was comprehensible through study, prayer and search was intimated in the Teacher's admonishment: "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."[650] To the more studious inquirers, the Master added: "Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given. For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath."[651] Two men may hear the same words; one of them listens in indolence and indifference, the other with active mind intent on learning all that the words can possibly convey; and, having heard, the diligent man goes straightway to do the things commended to him, while the careless one neglects and forgets. The one is wise, the other foolish; the one has heard to his eternal profit, the other to his everlasting condemnation.[652]
That the lesson of the parables could be understood through study, prayer, and exploration was hinted at in the Teacher's warning: "Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear."[650] To the more diligent seekers, the Master added: "Be careful what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who listen, more will be given. For whoever has, more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what they think they have will be taken away."[651] Two people may hear the same words; one listens lazily and without care, the other with an eager mind focused on learning everything the words can offer; and, after hearing, the diligent person immediately acts on the instructions given to him, while the careless one ignores and forgets. One is wise, the other foolish; one has listened to his eternal benefit, the other to his everlasting ruin.[652]
Another example of the merciful adaptation of the word of truth to the varied capacities of the people who heard the parables is found in the psychological fact, that the incidents of an impressive though simple story will live, even in minds which for the time being are incapable of comprehending any meaning beyond that of the common-place story itself. Many a peasant who had heard the little incident of the sower and the four kinds of soil, of the tares sown by an enemy at night, of the seed that grew though the planter had temporarily[Pg 298] forgotten it, would be reminded by the recurring circumstances of his daily work; the gardener would recollect the story of the mustard seed whenever he planted afresh, or when he looked upon the umbrageous plant with birds nesting in its branches; the housewife would be impressed anew by the story of the leaven as she mixed and kneaded and baked; the fisherman at his nets would think again of the good fish and the bad and compare the sorting of his catch with the judgment to come. And then, when time and experience, including suffering perhaps, had prepared them for deeper thought, they would find the living kernel of gospel truth within the husk of the simple tale.
Another example of the compassionate way the truth adapts to the different understanding levels of those who heard the parables is found in the psychological fact that the events of a powerful yet simple story can stay in the minds of people who may not grasp any meaning beyond the ordinary story itself. Many a farmer who heard the little story of the sower and the four types of soil, of the weeds planted by an enemy at night, or of the seed that grew even after the planter temporarily forgot about it, would be reminded by the similar situations in their daily work; the gardener would recall the tale of the mustard seed whenever he planted again or saw the shady plant with birds nesting in its branches; the housewife would feel the impact of the leaven story as she mixed, kneaded, and baked; the fisherman by his nets would think again of the good fish and the bad, comparing the sorting of his catch to the judgment that is to come. Then, when time and experience, perhaps including suffering, have prepared them for deeper reflections, they would discover the core message of gospel truth within the outer layer of the simple tale.
PARABLES IN GENERAL.
The essential feature of a parable is that of comparison or similitude, by which some ordinary, well-understood incident is used to illustrate a fact or principle not directly expressed in the story. The popular thought that a parable necessarily rests on a fictitious incident is incorrect; for, inasmuch as the story or circumstance of the parable must be simple and indeed common-place, it may be real. There is no fiction in the parables we have thus far studied; the fundamental stories are true to life and the given circumstances are facts of experience. The narrative or incident upon which a parable is constructed may be an actual occurrence or fiction; but, if fictitious, the story must be consistent and probable, with no admixture of the unusual or miraculous. In this respect the parable differs from the fable, the latter being imaginative, exaggerated and improbable as to fact; moreover, the intent is unlike in the two, since the parable is designed to convey some great spiritual truth, while the so-called moral of the fable is at best suggestive only of worldly achievement and personal advantage. Stories of trees, animals and inanimate things talking together[Pg 299] or with men are wholly fanciful; they are fables or apologues whether the outcome be depicted as good or bad; to the parable these show contrast, not similarity. The avowed purpose of the fable is rather to amuse than to teach. The parable may embody a narrative as in the instances of the sower and the tares, or merely an isolated incident, as in those of the mustard seed and the leaven.
The main feature of a parable is comparison or similarity, where a common, well-known situation is used to illustrate a fact or principle not directly stated in the story. The common belief that a parable must be based on a made-up incident is wrong; since the story or situation in a parable needs to be simple and ordinary, it can actually be true. There’s no fiction in the parables we’ve studied so far; the core stories are real, and the situations presented are real-life facts. The story or incident that a parable is built on can be a real event or a fictional one; however, if it is fictional, the story has to be consistent and believable, without any unusual or miraculous elements. In this way, a parable differs from a fable, which is imaginative, exaggerated, and unlikely in terms of reality; moreover, their intents are different—parables aim to convey some significant spiritual truth, while the moral of a fable usually only hints at worldly success and personal gain. Stories about trees, animals, and inanimate objects talking to each other or to humans are entirely fictional; these are fables or apologues, regardless of whether the outcome is portrayed as good or bad; they present contrasts, not similarities, to parables. The main goal of a fable is more to entertain than to instruct. A parable can include a narrative, as seen in the examples of the sower and the tares, or just a single incident, like in those of the mustard seed and the leaven.
Allegories are distinguished from parables by greater length and detail of the story, and by the intimate admixture of the narrative with the lesson it is designed to teach; these are kept distinctly separate in the parable. Myths are fictitious stories, sometimes with historic basis of fact, but without symbolism of spiritual worth. A proverb is a short, sententious saying, in the nature of a maxim, connoting a definite truth or suggestion by comparison. Proverbs and parables are closely related, and in the Bible the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.[653] The Old Testament contains two parables, a few fables and allegories, and numerous proverbs; of the last-named we possess an entire book.[654] Nathan the prophet reproved King David by the parable of the poor man's ewe lamb, and so effective was the story that the king decreed punishment for the wealthy offender, and was overcome by sorrow and contrition when the prophet made application of his parable by the fateful words, "Thou art the man."[655] The story of the vineyard, which though fenced and well-tended yet brought forth only wild, useless fruit, was used by Isaiah to portray the sinful state of Israel in his attempt to awaken the people to lives of righteousness.[656]
Allegories are different from parables because they are longer and more detailed, with the story closely intertwined with the lesson being taught; in parables, these elements are kept separate. Myths are made-up stories, sometimes based on real events, but without any deeper spiritual meaning. A proverb is a brief, impactful saying, similar to a maxim, that conveys a specific truth or suggestion through comparison. Proverbs and parables are closely related, and in the Bible, the terms are sometimes interchangeable.[653] The Old Testament includes two parables, a few fables and allegories, and many proverbs; we even have an entire book dedicated to the latter.[654] Nathan the prophet confronted King David using the parable of the poor man's ewe lamb, and the story was so powerful that the king demanded punishment for the wealthy wrongdoer, feeling deep sorrow and regret when the prophet revealed the meaning by saying, "You are the man."[655] The story about the vineyard, which, despite being fenced and well-kept, only produced wild, useless fruit, was used by Isaiah to illustrate Israel's sinful condition in his effort to encourage the people to lead righteous lives.[656]
The parables of the New Testament, spoken by the Teacher of teachers, are of such beauty, simplicity, and effectiveness, as to stand unparalleled in literature.[Pg 300]
The parables of the New Testament, shared by the Teacher of teachers, are so beautiful, simple, and impactful that they are unmatched in literature.[Pg 300]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 19.
1. The First Group of Parables.—Many Bible scholars hold that the seven parables recorded in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew were spoken at different times and to different people, and that the writer of the first Gospel grouped them for convenience in recording and with prime consideration of their subjective interest. Some color is found for this claim in Luke's mention of some of these parables in different relations of both time and place; thus, the parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven are given (Luke 13:18, 21) as directly following the healing of the infirm woman in the synagog, and the rebuke to the hypocritical ruler. While we must admit that Matthew may have grouped with the parables spoken on that particular day some of other dates, it is probable that Jesus repeated some of His parables, as He certainly did other teachings, and thus presented the same lesson on more occasions than one. As a matter of fact each parable is a lesson in itself, and holds its high intrinsic value whether considered as an isolated story or in connection with related teachings. Let us give heed to the lesson of each whatever opinions men may promulgate as to the circumstances of its first delivery.
1. The First Group of Parables.—Many Bible scholars believe that the seven parables found in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew were told at different times and to different audiences, and that the author of the first Gospel organized them for convenience and focused on their subjective interest. Some evidence supports this idea in Luke's references to some of these parables in various contexts of time and place; for instance, the parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven are presented (Luke 13:18, 21) as occurring right after the healing of the disabled woman in the synagogue and the reprimand of the hypocritical ruler. While we must acknowledge that Matthew may have grouped some parables spoken on that specific day with others from different occasions, it’s likely that Jesus repeated some of His parables, just as He did with other teachings, presenting the same message multiple times. In fact, each parable stands as a lesson on its own and holds significant value, whether viewed as an independent story or in connection with similar teachings. Let’s pay attention to the lesson in each parable, regardless of what opinions people may express about the circumstances of its original delivery.
2. Local Setting for the Parable of the Sower.—Dr. R. C. Trench, in his excellent work Notes on the Parables of our Lord (p. 57, note), quotes Dean Stanley's description of existing conditions in the place where the Parable of the Sower was given by Jesus; and as there is reason to believe that the environment has changed but little since the days of Christ, the account is here reproduced: "A slight recess in the hillside close upon the plain disclosed at once in detail, and with a conjunction which I remember nowhere else in Palestine, every feature of the great parable. There was the undulating corn-field descending to the water's edge. There was the trodden pathway running through the midst of it, with no fence or hedge to prevent the seed falling here or there on either side of it, or upon it—itself hard with the constant tramp of horse and mule and human feet. There was the 'good' rich soil, which distinguishes the whole of that plain and its neighborhood from the bare hills elsewhere, descending into the lake, and which, where there is no interruption, produces one vast mass of corn. There was the rocky ground of the hillside protruding here and there through the corn-fields, as elsewhere, through the grassy slopes. There were the large bushes of thorn, the 'nabk' ... springing up, like the fruit-trees of the more inland parts, in the very midst of the waving wheat."
2. Local Setting for the Parable of the Sower.—Dr. R. C. Trench, in his excellent work Notes on the Parables of our Lord (p. 57, note), quotes Dean Stanley's description of the conditions in the location where Jesus delivered the Parable of the Sower. Since it’s believed that the surroundings have changed little since Christ's time, the account is presented here: "A slight dip in the hillside near the plain revealed, in detail, and in a way I haven't seen anywhere else in Palestine, every aspect of the great parable. There was the rolling cornfield sloping down to the water's edge. There was the worn pathway cutting through it, with no fence or hedge to stop the seed from falling on either side or directly onto it—hardened by the constant footsteps of horses, mules, and people. There was the 'good' rich soil that makes this plain and its surroundings stand out from the barren hills elsewhere, descending into the lake, which, without interruption, yields a vast expanse of corn. There was the rocky ground popping through the cornfields on the hillside, just like in the grassy slopes. There were the large thorn bushes, the 'nabk'... growing up, like the fruit trees in the more inland areas, right in the middle of the swaying wheat."
3. Tares.—This term occurs nowhere within the Bible except in this instance of the parable. Plainly any kind of weed, particularly a poisonous sort, such as would seriously depreciate the garnered crop, would serve the Master's purpose in the illustration. The traditional belief commonly held is that the plant referred to in the parable is the darnel weed, known to botanists[Pg 301] as Lolium temulenium, a species of bearded rye-grass. This plant closely resembles wheat in the early period of growth, and exists as a pest to the farmers in Palestine to-day; it is called by the Arabians "Zowan" or "Zawan" which name, says Arnot, citing Thompson, "bears some resemblance to the original word in the Greek text." The writer of the article "Tares" in Smith's Dictionary says: "Critics and expositors are agreed that the Greek plural zizania, A.V. 'tares,' of the parable (Matt 13:25) denotes the weed called 'bearded darnel' (Lolium temulentum), a widely-distributed grass, and the only species of the order that has deleterious properties. The bearded darnel before it comes into ear is very similar in appearance to wheat, and the roots of the two are often intertwined; hence the command that the 'tares' should be left till the harvest, lest while men plucked up the tares 'they should root up also the wheat with them.' This darnel is easily distinguishable from the wheat and barley when headed out, but when both are less developed, 'the closest scrutiny will often fail to detect it. Even the farmers, who in this country generally weed their fields, do not attempt to separate the one from the other ... The taste is bitter, and, when eaten separately, or even when diffused in ordinary bread, it causes dizziness, and often acts as a violent emetic.'" The secondary quotation is from Thompson's The Land and the Book, ii, 111, 112. It has been asserted that the darnel is a degenerated kind of wheat; and attempts have been made to give additional significance to our Lord's instructive parable by injecting this thought; there is no scientific warrant for the strained conception, however, and earnest students will not be misled thereby.
3. Tares.—This term is found nowhere else in the Bible except in this instance of the parable. Basically, any type of weed, especially a toxic one that would greatly reduce the quality of the harvested crop, would work for the Master's purpose in the illustration. The common belief is that the plant mentioned in the parable is the darnel weed, which botanists refer to as Lolium temulentum, a type of bearded rye-grass. This plant looks very similar to wheat in its early growth stages and is still a nuisance for farmers in Palestine today; it’s called "Zowan" or "Zawan" by Arabians, a name that, according to Arnot quoting Thompson, "bears some resemblance to the original Greek word." The author of the article "Tares" in Smith's Dictionary states: "Critics and commentators agree that the Greek plural zizania, translated 'tares' in the parable (Matt 13:25), refers to the plant known as 'bearded darnel' (Lolium temulentum), a commonly found grass and the only species in its family with harmful effects. Before it bears fruit, bearded darnel looks very much like wheat, and their roots often intertwine; thus, the instruction to leave the 'tares' until the harvest, to avoid uprooting the wheat along with it. This darnel can be easily identified from wheat and barley when mature, but when both are still young, 'even the closest inspection often fails to spot it. Even the farmers, who typically weed their fields here, don’t try to separate them...' It has a bitter taste and, when consumed on its own, or even mixed in regular bread, can cause dizziness and often leads to severe vomiting." The secondary quote is from Thompson's The Land and the Book, ii, 111, 112. Some have claimed that darnel is a degraded form of wheat; attempts have been made to add more depth to our Lord's meaningful parable with this idea, but there is no scientific basis for this strained interpretation, and serious scholars should not be misled by it.
4. The Wickedness of the Sower of Tares.—Attempts have been made to disparage the Parable of the Tares on the ground that it rests on an unusual if not unknown practise. Trench thus meets the criticism (Notes on the Parables, pp. 72, 73): "Our Lord did not imagine here a form of malice without example, but adduced one which may have been familiar enough to His hearers, one so easy of execution, involving so little risk, and yet effecting so great and lasting a mischief, that it is not strange, where cowardice and malice meet, that this should have been often the shape in which they displayed themselves. We meet traces of it in many quarters. In Roman law the possibility of this form of injury is contemplated; and a modern writer, illustrating Scripture from the manners and habits of the East, with which he had become familiar through a sojourn there, affirms the same to be now practised in India." In a subjoined note the author adds: "We are not without this form of malice nearer home. Thus in Ireland I have known an outgoing tenant, in spite at his eviction, to sow wild oats in the fields which he was leaving. These, like the tares in the parable, ripening and seeding themselves before the crops in which they were mingled, it became next to impossible to extirpate.";
4. The Wickedness of the Sower of Tares.—Some have tried to undermine the Parable of the Tares by claiming it’s based on an unusual, if not entirely unknown, practice. Trench addresses this criticism (Notes on the Parables, pp. 72, 73): "Our Lord didn’t invent a form of malice that was unprecedented. Instead, He referenced something that might have been quite familiar to His listeners—something easily executed, with minimal risk, yet causing significant and lasting harm. It’s not surprising that where cowardice and malice combine, this kind of behavior would frequently manifest. We see evidence of it in various places. Roman law acknowledges the potential for this type of injury, and a contemporary writer, who learned about the customs and lifestyles of the East during his time there, claims this is still practiced in India." In a note, the author adds: "We don't lack for this kind of malice closer to home. For instance, in Ireland, I’ve witnessed a departing tenant, out of spite during eviction, sow wild oats in the fields he was leaving behind. These, much like the tares in the parable, ripened and seeded before the crops they were mixed with, making it nearly impossible to get rid of them."
5. The Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly.—This parable has given rise to much discussion among expositors, the question being as to who is meant by the man who cast seed into the[Pg 302] ground. If, as in the parables of the Sower and the Tares, the Lord Jesus be the planter, then, some ask, how can it be said "that the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how," when all things are known unto Him? If on the other hand the planter represents the authorized teacher or preacher of the gospel, how can it be said that at the harvest time "he putteth in the sickle," since the final harvesting of souls is the prerogative of God? The perplexities of the critics arise from their attempt to find in the parable a literalism never intended by the Author. Whether the seed be planted by the Lord Himself, as when He taught in Person, or by any one of His authorized servants, the seed is alive and will grow. Time is required; the blade appears first and is followed by the ear, and the ear ripens in season, without the constant attention which a shaping of the several parts by hand would require. The man who figures in the parable is presented as an ordinary farmer, who plants, and waits, and in due time reaps. The lesson imparted is the vitality of the seed as a living thing, endowed by its Creator with the capacity to both grow and develop.
5. The Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly.—This parable has sparked a lot of discussion among scholars. The main question is about who is represented by the man who sows the seed into the[Pg 302]ground. If, like in the parables of the Sower and the Tares, Jesus is the planter, then some wonder how it can be said "that the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how," given that He knows everything. On the other hand, if the planter stands for an authorized teacher or preacher of the gospel, how can it be stated that at harvest time "he putteth in the sickle," since the final collection of souls is God's job? The confusion among critics comes from their attempt to find a literal meaning in the parable that the Author never intended. Whether the seed is sown by the Lord Himself, as when He taught in person, or by one of His authorized servants, the seed is alive and will grow. It takes time; the blade appears first, followed by the ear, and the ear ripens in due season, without needing the constant manual shaping that would be required otherwise. The man depicted in the parable is shown as an ordinary farmer who plants, waits, and eventually reaps. The key lesson is the vitality of the seed as a living thing, created by its Creator with the ability to grow and develop.
6. The Mustard Plant.—The wild mustard, which in the temperate zone seldom attains a height of more than three or four feet, reaches in semitropical lands the height of a horse and its rider (Thompson, The Land and the Book ii, 100). Those who heard the parable evidently understood the contrast between size of seed and that of the fully developed plant. Arnot, (The Parables, p. 102), aptly says: "This plant obviously was chosen by the Lord, not on account of its absolute magnitude, but because it was, and was recognized to be, a striking instance of increase from very small to very great. It seems to have been in Palestine, at that time, the smallest seed from which so large a plant was known to grow. There were, perhaps, smaller seeds, but the plants which sprung from them were not so great; and there were greater plants, but the seeds from which they sprung were not so small." Edersheim (i, p. 593) states that the diminutive size of the mustard seed was commonly used in comparison by the rabbis, "to indicate the smallest amount such as the least drop of blood, the least defilement, etc." The same author continues, in speaking of the grown plant: "Indeed, it looks no longer like a large garden-herb or shrub, but 'becomes' or rather appears like 'a tree'—as St. Luke puts it, 'a great tree,' of course, not in comparison with other trees, but with garden-shrubs. Such growth of mustard seed was also a fact well known at the time, and, indeed, still observed in the East.... And the general meaning would the more easily be apprehended, that a tree, whose wide-spreading branches afforded lodgment to the birds of heaven, was a familiar Old Testament figure for a mighty kingdom that gave shelter to the nations (Ezek. 31:6, 12; Dan. 4:12, 14, 21, 22). Indeed, it is specifically used as an illustration of the Messianic Kingdom (Ezek. 17:23)."
6. The Mustard Plant.—The wild mustard, which in temperate regions rarely grows taller than three or four feet, can reach the height of a horse and its rider in warmer climates (Thompson, The Land and the Book ii, 100). Those who heard the parable clearly understood the difference between the size of the seed and that of the fully grown plant. Arnot (The Parables, p. 102) wisely notes: "This plant was clearly chosen by the Lord, not because of its actual size, but because it was, and was recognized as, a remarkable example of growth from very small to very large. It seems to have been, at that time in Palestine, the smallest seed from which such a large plant was known to grow. There may have been smaller seeds, but the plants from those seeds were not as large; and there were larger plants, but their seeds were not as small." Edersheim (i, p. 593) mentions that the tiny size of the mustard seed was often used in comparisons by the rabbis to indicate the smallest amounts, such as the tiniest drop of blood, or the least defilement, etc. This author further explains, when discussing the grown plant: "Indeed, it no longer resembles a large garden herb or shrub, but rather appears like 'a tree'—as St. Luke describes it, 'a great tree,' not compared to other trees, but to garden shrubs. The remarkable growth of mustard seeds was a well-known fact at that time, and is still seen in the East.... The general meaning would more easily be understood, as a tree with wide-spreading branches providing a place for birds to nest was a familiar Old Testament image for a powerful kingdom that offered shelter to nations (Ezek. 31:6, 12; Dan. 4:12, 14, 21, 22). Indeed, it is specifically used to illustrate the Messianic Kingdom (Ezek. 17:23)."
7. The Symbolism of Leaven.—In the parable, the kingdom of heaven is likened unto leaven. In other scriptures, leaven is[Pg 303] figuratively mentioned as representing evil, thus, "the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" (Matt. 16:6, see also Luke 12:1), "the leaven of Herod" (Mark 8:15). These instances, and others (1 Cor. 5:7, 8) are illustrative of the contagion of evil. In the incident of the woman using leaven in the ordinary process of bread-making, the spreading, penetrating vital effect of truth is symbolized by the leaven. The same thing in different aspects may very properly be used to represent good in one instance and evil in another.
7. The Symbolism of Leaven.—In the parable, the kingdom of heaven is compared to leaven. In other scriptures, leaven is[Pg 303]figuratively mentioned as representing evil, such as "the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" (Matt. 16:6, see also Luke 12:1), and "the leaven of Herod" (Mark 8:15). These examples, along with others (1 Cor. 5:7, 8), illustrate the spread of evil. In the case of the woman using leaven in the usual process of making bread, the spreading and penetrating impact of truth is symbolized by the leaven. The same concept can effectively represent good in one context and evil in another.
8. Treasure Belonging to the Finder.—As to the justification of the man who found a treasure hidden in another's field and then, concealing the fact of his discovery, bought the field that he might possess the treasure, Edersheim (i, p. 595-6) says: "Some difficulty has been expressed in regard to the morality of such a transaction. In reply it may be observed, that it was, at least, in entire accordance with Jewish law. If a man had found a treasure in loose coins among the corn it would certainly be his if he bought the corn. If he had found it on the ground, or in the soil, it would equally certainly belong to him if he could claim ownership of the soil, and even if the field were not his own, unless others could prove their right to it. The law went so far as to adjudge to the purchaser of fruits anything found among these fruits. This will suffice to vindicate a question of detail, which, in any case, should not be too closely pressed in a parabolic history."
8. Treasure Belonging to the Finder.—Regarding the justification of the person who discovered a treasure hidden in someone else's field and then, keeping his discovery a secret, bought the field to claim the treasure, Edersheim (i, p. 595-6) states: "There has been some debate about the ethics of such a transaction. In response, it can be noted that it was, at the very least, fully in line with Jewish law. If someone found loose coins among the crops, they would definitely belong to him if he purchased the crops. If he found it on the surface or in the soil, it would just as certainly be his if he could claim ownership of the land, and even if the field wasn’t his own, unless others could prove their right to it. The law extended so far as to allow the buyer of fruits to claim anything found among those fruits. This should be enough to settle a question of detail, which, in any case, shouldn’t be overly scrutinized in a parabolic story."
9. Superiority of our Lord's Parables.—"Perhaps no other mode of teaching was so common among the Jews as that by parables. Only in their case, they were almost entirely illustrations of what had been said or taught; while in the case of Christ, they served as the foundation for His teaching.... In the one case it was intended to make spiritual teaching appear Jewish and national, in the other to convey spiritual teaching in a form adapted to the stand-point of the hearers. This distinction will be found to hold true, even in instances where there seems the closest parallelism between a Rabbinic and an Evangelic parable.... It need scarcely be said that comparison between such parables, as regards their spirit, is scarcely possible, except by way of contrast" (Edersheim, i, pp. 580-1). Geikie tersely says: "Others have uttered parables, but Jesus so far transcends them, that He may justly be called the creator of this mode of instruction" (ii, p. 145).
9. Superiority of our Lord's Parables.—"No other way of teaching was as common among the Jews as using parables. In their case, these were mainly illustrations of what had already been said or taught; while for Christ, they formed the basis of His teachings.... In one instance, the goal was to make spiritual teachings seem Jewish and national, whereas in the other, the aim was to present spiritual teachings in a way that suited the listeners' perspective. This distinction holds true even in cases where there appears to be a close similarity between a Rabbinic and an Evangelic parable.... It's hardly necessary to say that comparing these parables in terms of their spirit is mostly impossible, except by contrasting them" (Edersheim, i, pp. 580-1). Geikie succinctly notes: "Others have told parables, but Jesus surpasses them so much that He can truly be called the originator of this teaching style" (ii, p. 145).
10. Parables and Other Forms of Analogy.—"The parable is also clearly distinguishable from the proverb, though it is true that, in a certain degree, the words are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and as equivalent the one to the other. Thus 'Physician, heal thyself' (Luke 4:23) is termed a parable, being more strictly a proverb; so again, when the Lord had used that proverb, probably already familiar to His hearers 'If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch'; Peter said 'Declare unto us this parable' (Matt. 15:14, 15); and Luke 5:36 is a proverb or proverbial expression, rather than a parable, which name it bears.... So, upon the other hand,[Pg 304] those are called 'proverbs' in St. John, which if not strictly parables, yet claim much closer affinity to the parable than to the proverb, being in fact allegories; thus Christ's setting forth of His relations to His people under those of a shepherd to his sheep is termed a 'proverb,' though our translators, holding fast to the sense rather than to the letter, have rendered it a 'parable' (John 10:6; compare 16:25, 29). It is easy to account for this interchange of words. Partly it arose from one word in Hebrew signifying both parable and proverb."—Trench, Notes on the Parables, pp. 9, 10.
10. Parables and Other Forms of Analogy.—"The parable is clearly different from the proverb, although it's true that in some cases, the words are used interchangeably in the New Testament, treating one as equivalent to the other. For example, 'Physician, heal thyself' (Luke 4:23) is called a parable, but it's more accurately a proverb; similarly, when the Lord referenced that proverb, likely already known by His audience, 'If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch'; Peter asked, 'Explain this parable to us' (Matt. 15:14, 15); and Luke 5:36 refers to a proverb or proverbial phrase, rather than a parable, despite the name it carries.... On the other hand,[Pg 304] those are referred to as 'proverbs' in St. John which may not strictly be parables but are much closer to parables than to proverbs, being allegories; for instance, Christ's description of His relationship with His people as that of a shepherd to his sheep is labeled a 'proverb,' although our translators focused more on the meaning than the literal wording, rendering it a 'parable' (John 10:6; compare 16:25, 29). This exchange of terms is easy to understand. It partly comes from a single Hebrew word that means both parable and proverb."—Trench, Notes on the Parables, pp. 9, 10.
For the convenience of readers who may not have a dictionary at hand as they read, the following definitions are given:
For the convenience of readers who might not have a dictionary nearby while reading, here are the following definitions:
Allegory.—The setting forth of a subject under the guise of some other subject or aptly suggestive likeness.
Allegory.—Presenting a topic through the representation of another topic or a fittingly suggestive resemblance.
Apologue.—A fable or moral tale, especially one in which animals or inanimate things speak or act, and by which a useful lesson is suggested or taught.
Apologue.—A fable or moral story, particularly one where animals or non-living things talk or behave, and through which a valuable lesson is suggested or taught.
Fable.—A brief story or tale feigned or invented to embody a moral, and introducing animals and sometimes even inanimate things as rational speakers and actors; a legend or myth.
Fable.—A short story created to convey a moral lesson, featuring animals and sometimes even inanimate objects as characters that speak and act like humans; a legend or myth.
Myth.—A fictitious or conjectural narrative presented as historical, but without any basis of fact.
Myth.—A made-up or speculative story portrayed as historical, but lacking any factual basis.
Parable.—A brief narrative or descriptive allegory founded on real scenes or events such as occur in nature and human life, and usually with a moral or religious application.
Parable.—A short story or descriptive allegory based on real situations or events that happen in nature and human life, often with a moral or religious lesson.
Proverb.—A brief, pithy saying, condensing in witty or striking form the wisdom of experience; a familiar and widely known popular saying in epigrammatic form.
Proverb.—A short, punchy saying that captures the wisdom of experience in a clever or impactful way; a well-known and commonly used saying presented in a concise format.
11. Old Testament Parables, Etc.—"Of parables in the strictest sense the Old Testament contains only two" (2 Sam. 12:1-; and Isa. 5:1-). "Other stories, such as that of the trees assembled to elect a king (Judges 9:8), and of the thistle and cedar (2 Kings 14:9), are more strictly fables. Still others, such as Ezekiel's account of the two eagles and the vine (17:2-), and of the caldron (24:3-) are allegories. The small number of parabolic narratives to be found in the Old Testament must not, however, be taken as an indication of indifference toward this literary form as suitable for moral instruction. The number is only apparently small. In reality, similitudes, which, though not explicitly couched in the terms of fictitious narrative, suggest and furnish the materials for such narrative, are abundant."—Zenos, Stand. Bible Dict., article "Parables."
11. Old Testament Parables, Etc.—"In the strictest sense, the Old Testament contains only two parables" (2 Sam. 12:1-; and Isa. 5:1-). "Other stories, like the one about the trees gathering to choose a king (Judges 9:8), and the story of the thistle and the cedar (2 Kings 14:9), are more accurately considered fables. Additionally, stories such as Ezekiel's tale of the two eagles and the vine (17:2-), and the caldron (24:3-) are allegories. However, the small number of parabolic narratives in the Old Testament shouldn't be seen as a sign of indifference toward this literary form as a means of moral teaching. The number is only seemingly small. In reality, similarities and comparisons that, while not explicitly stated as fictional stories, suggest and provide the basis for such narratives are abundant."—Zenos, Stand. Bible Dict., article "Parables."
By applying the term "parable" in its broadest sense, to include all ordinary forms of analogy, we may list the following as the most impressive parables of the Old Testament. Trees electing a king (Judges 9:7-); the poor man's ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1-); the contending brothers and the avengers (2 Sam. 14:1-); story of the escaped captive (1 Kings 20:35-); the thistle and the cedar (2 Kings 14:9); the vineyard and its wild grapes (Isa. 5:1-); the eagles and the vine (Ezek. 17:3-); the lion's whelps (Ezek. 19:2-); the seething pot (Ezek. 24:3-).[Pg 305]
By using the term "parable" in its broadest sense to include all common forms of analogy, we can highlight the following as the most striking parables of the Old Testament. Trees choosing a king (Judges 9:7-); the poor man's ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1-); the quarreling brothers and the avengers (2 Sam. 14:1-); the story of the escaped captive (1 Kings 20:35-); the thistle and the cedar (2 Kings 14:9); the vineyard and its wild grapes (Isa. 5:1-); the eagles and the vine (Ezek. 17:3-); the lion's cubs (Ezek. 19:2-); the boiling pot (Ezek. 24:3-).[Pg 305]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[613] Mark 3:9.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 3:9.
[617] Mark 4:13.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 4:13.
[621] Matt. 13:24-30.
[622] Verses 36-43.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Verses 36-43.
[626] Mark 4:26-29.
[628] 1 Cor. 3:6.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Cor. 3:6.
[635] Matt. 13:44.
[636] Compare Matt. 6:19, 20.
[638] Matt. 13:45, 48.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 13:45, 48.
[639] 1 Tim. 6:20.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Tim. 6:20.
[640] Matt. 13:47-50.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 13:47-50.
[643] See chapter 42.
[644] Matt. 13:51, 52.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 13:51, 52.
[651] Mark 4:24, 25.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 4:24, 25.
[655] 2 Sam. 12:1-7, 13.
[656] Isa. 5:1-7.
CHAPTER 20.
"PEACE, BE STILL."
INCIDENTS PRELIMINARY TO THE VOYAGE.
Near the close of the day on which Jesus had taught the multitudes for the first time by parables, He said to the disciples, "Let us pass over unto the other side."[657] The destination so indicated is the east side of the sea of Galilee. While the boat was being made ready, a certain scribe came to Jesus and said: "Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest." Prior to that time, few men belonging to the titled or ruling class had offered to openly ally themselves with Jesus. Had the Master been mindful of policy and desirous of securing official recognition, this opportunity to attach to Himself as influential a person as a scribe would have received careful consideration if not immediate acceptance; but He, who could read the minds and know the hearts of men, chose rather than accepted. He had called men who were to be thenceforth His own, from their fishing boats and nets, and had numbered one of the ostracized publicans among the Twelve; but He knew them, every one, and chose accordingly. The gospel was offered freely to all; but authority to officiate as a minister thereof was not to be had for the asking; for that sacred labor, one must be called of God.[658]
Near the end of the day when Jesus had first taught the crowds using parables, He said to the disciples, "Let's go over to the other side."[657] The destination mentioned is the east side of the Sea of Galilee. While the boat was being prepared, a scribe approached Jesus and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." Until that point, few people from the ruling class had openly aligned themselves with Jesus. If He had been focused on strategy and wanting official recognition, He would have carefully considered, if not immediately accepted, the opportunity to be associated with such an influential person as a scribe; however, He, who could understand the thoughts and hearts of people, preferred to choose rather than just accept. He had called men to be His followers from their fishing boats and nets and had included one of the rejected tax collectors among the Twelve; but He knew each of them and chose accordingly. The gospel was freely offered to everyone, but the authority to serve as a minister wasn’t something you could just ask for; to engage in that sacred work, a person must be called by God.[658]
In this instance, Christ knew the character of the man, and, without wounding his feelings by curt rejection, pointed out the sacrifice required of one who would follow whithersoever the Lord went, saying: "The foxes have holes, and the[Pg 306] birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." As Jesus had no fixed place of abode, but went wherever His duty called Him, so was it necessary that they who represented Him, men ordained or set apart to His service, be ready to deny themselves the enjoyment of their homes and the comfort of family associations, if the duties of their calling so demanded. We do not read that the aspiring scribe pressed his offer.
In this situation, Christ understood the nature of the man, and, without hurting his feelings with a harsh refusal, highlighted the commitment needed from someone who wanted to follow Him wherever He went, saying: "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head." Since Jesus didn’t have a permanent home and traveled wherever His responsibilities took Him, it was important for those who represented Him—people appointed or set apart for His work—to be willing to give up the comfort of their homes and family ties if their duties required it. We don’t see that the eager scribe insisted on his offer.
Another man indicated his willingness to follow the Lord, but asked first for time to go and bury his father; to him Jesus said: "Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." Some readers have felt that this injunction was harsh, though such an inference is scarcely justified. While it would be manifestly unfilial for a son to absent himself from his father's funeral under ordinary conditions, nevertheless, if that son had been set apart to service of importance transcending all personal or family obligations, his ministerial duty would of right take precedence. Moreover, the requirement expressed by Jesus was no greater than that made of every priest during his term of active service, nor was it more afflicting than the obligation of the Nazarite vow,[659] under which many voluntarily placed themselves. The duties of ministry in the kingdom pertained to spiritual life; one dedicated thereto might well allow those who were negligent of spiritual things, and figuratively speaking, spiritually dead, to bury their dead.
Another man showed he was willing to follow the Lord but asked for time to go and bury his father. Jesus replied, "Follow me; let the dead bury their dead." Some readers have found this response to be harsh, although that interpretation is hardly justified. While it would clearly be unfilial for a son to miss his father's funeral under normal circumstances, if that son had been called to a service of greater importance that surpassed all personal or family obligations, his ministerial duty would naturally take precedence. Additionally, what Jesus asked was no more than what every priest had to do during their active service, nor was it any more distressing than the obligations of the Nazarite vow, under which many willingly placed themselves. The responsibilities of ministry in the kingdom were related to spiritual life; someone dedicated to that might reasonably allow those who were neglecting spiritual matters, and figuratively speaking, spiritually dead, to take care of their own.
A third instance is presented; a man who wanted to be a disciple of the Lord asked that, before entering upon his duties, he be permitted to go home and bid farewell to his family and friends. The reply of Jesus has become an aphorism in life and literature: "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."[660]
A third example is given: a man who wanted to be a follower of the Lord asked if he could go home and say goodbye to his family and friends before starting his duties. Jesus’ response has turned into a saying in life and literature: "No one who puts their hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."[660]
From Matthew's record we draw the inference that the first two of these candidates for discipleship offered themselves to our Lord as He stood on the shore or in the boat ready to begin the evening voyage across the lake. Luke places the instances in a different connection, and adds to the offers of the scribe and the man who would first bury his father, that of the one who wished to go home and then return to Christ. The three incidents may be profitably considered together, whether all occurred in the evening of that same eventful day or at different times.
From Matthew's account, we can infer that the first two candidates for discipleship approached our Lord as He was standing on the shore or in the boat, preparing to start the evening journey across the lake. Luke presents these events differently and includes the offers from the scribe and the man who wanted to bury his father, as well as another person who wanted to go home before returning to Christ. These three incidents can be effectively considered together, whether they all happened on the same important day or at different times.
STILLING THE STORM.[661]
The instruction to launch forth and cross to the opposite side of the lake was given by Jesus, who probably desired a respite after the arduous labors of the day. No time had been lost in unnecessary preparation; "they took him, even as he was, into the ship," and set out without delay. Even on the water some of the eager people tried to follow; for a number of small boats, "little ships" as Mark styles them, accompanied the vessel on which Jesus was embarked; but these lesser craft may have turned back, possibly on account of the approaching storm; anyway, we do not hear of them further.
The command to set off and cross to the other side of the lake came from Jesus, who likely wanted a break after a long day of work. They didn't waste any time on unnecessary preparations; "they took him, even as he was, into the ship," and left quickly. Even on the water, some eager people tried to follow him; several small boats, "little ships" as Mark calls them, accompanied the boat that Jesus was on, but these smaller vessels might have turned back, possibly due to the approaching storm; in any case, we don't hear about them again.
Jesus found a resting place near the stern of the ship and soon fell asleep. A great storm arose,[662] and still He slept. The circumstance is instructive as it evidences at once the reality of the physical attributes of Christ, and the healthy, normal condition of His body. He was subject to fatigue and bodily exhaustion from other causes, as are all men; without food He grew hungry; without drink He thirsted; by labor He became weary. The fact that after a day of strenuous effort He could calmly sleep, even amidst the turmoil of a tempest, indicates an unimpaired nervous[Pg 308] system and a good state of health. Nowhere do we find record of Jesus having been ill. He lived according to the laws of health, yet never allowed the body to rule the spirit; and His daily activities, which were of a kind to make heavy demands on both physical and mental energy, were met with no symptoms of nervous collapse nor of functional disturbance. Sleep after toil is natural and necessary. The day's work done, Jesus slept.
Jesus found a spot to rest near the back of the ship and soon fell asleep. A massive storm broke out,[662] and He still slept. This situation is revealing, as it shows both the physical reality of Christ and the healthy, normal state of His body. He experienced fatigue and exhaustion like everyone else; without food, He felt hungry; without drink, He felt thirsty; from hard work, He grew tired. The fact that after a long day of intense effort He could sleep peacefully even in the midst of a storm indicates that His nervous system was functioning well and He was in good health. There's no record of Jesus being sick. He lived in accordance with health principles but never let His body take precedence over His spirit; His daily actions, which demanded a lot of both physical and mental energy, showed no signs of nervous breakdown or functional issues. Rest after work is normal and necessary. After a day's work, Jesus slept.
Meanwhile the storm increased in fury; the wind rendered the boat unmanageable; waves beat over the side; so much water was shipped that the vessel seemed about to founder. The disciples were terror-stricken; yet through it all Jesus rested peacefully. In their extremity of fear, the disciples awakened Him, crying out, according to the several independent accounts, "Master, Master, we perish"; "Lord, save us: we perish"; and, "Master, carest thou not that we perish?" They were abjectly frightened, and at least partly forgetful that there was with them One whose voice even death had to obey. Their terrified appeal was not wholly devoid of hope nor barren of faith: "Lord, save us" they cried. Calmly He replied to their piteous call, "Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?"
Meanwhile, the storm grew stronger; the wind made the boat uncontrollable; waves crashed over the sides; so much water came in that it seemed like the boat was about to sink. The disciples were terrified; yet through it all, Jesus remained at peace. In their extreme fear, the disciples woke Him, shouting, according to the various accounts, "Master, Master, we're going to drown"; "Lord, save us: we're going to drown"; and, "Master, don't you care that we're going to drown?" They were completely scared and mostly forgot that the One with them had a voice to command even death. Their desperate plea had some hope and a hint of faith: "Lord, save us," they cried. Calmly, He responded to their desperate call, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?"
Then He arose; and out through the darkness of that fearsome night, into the roaring wind, over the storm-lashed sea, went the voice of the Lord as He "rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm." Turning to the disciples, He asked in tones of gentle yet unmistakable reproof: "Where is your faith?" and "How is it that ye have no faith?" Gratitude for rescue from what but a moment before had seemed impending death was superseded by amazement and fear. "What manner of man is this," they asked one of another, "that even the wind and the sea obey him?"
Then He got up; and out through the darkness of that terrifying night, into the howling wind, over the stormy sea, went the voice of the Lord as He "rebuked the wind and said to the sea, 'Peace, be still.' And the wind stopped, and there was a great calm." Turning to the disciples, He asked with a tone of gentle yet clear reproach: "Where is your faith?" and "How is it that you have no faith?" Gratitude for being saved from what just moments before had seemed like certain death was replaced by awe and fear. "What kind of man is this," they asked each other, "that even the wind and the sea obey him?"
Among the recorded miracles of Christ, none has elicited greater diversity in comment and in attempt at elucidation[Pg 309] than has this marvelous instance of control over the forces of nature. Science ventures no explanation. The Lord of earth, air, and sea spoke and was obeyed. He it was who, amidst the black chaos of creation's earliest stages, had commanded with immediate effect—Let there be light; Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters; Let the dry land appear—and, as He had decreed, so it was. The dominion of the Creator over the created is real and absolute. A small part of that dominion has been committed to man[663] as the offspring of God, tabernacled in the very image of his divine Father. But man exercizes that delegated control through secondary agencies, and by means of complicated mechanism. Man's power over the objects of his own devizing is limited. It is according to the curse evoked by Adam's fall, which came through transgression, that by the strain of his muscles, by the sweat of his brow, and by stress of his mind, shall he achieve. His word of command is but a sound-wave in air, except as it is followed by labor. Through the Spirit that emanates from the very Person of Deity, and which pervades all space, the command of God is immediately operative.
Among the recorded miracles of Christ, none has sparked more diverse commentary and attempts at explanation[Pg 309] than this remarkable instance of control over the forces of nature. Science offers no explanation. The Lord of earth, air, and sea spoke and was obeyed. He was the one who, amid the dark chaos of creation's earliest moments, commanded with immediate effect—Let there be light; Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters; Let the dry land appear—and as He decreed, so it happened. The Creator's dominion over creation is real and absolute. A small part of that dominion has been given to man[663] as the offspring of God, formed in the very image of his divine Father. But man exercises that delegated control through secondary means and complicated mechanisms. His power over the things he creates is limited. According to the curse that resulted from Adam's fall, which came through transgression, he must work through the strain of his muscles, the sweat of his brow, and the stress of his mind to achieve anything. His command is merely a sound-wave in the air unless it is followed by effort. Through the Spirit that comes from the very essence of Deity and fills all space, God's command is immediately effective.
Not man alone, but also the earth and all the elemental forces pertaining thereto came under the Adamic curse[664] and as the soil no longer brought forth only good and useful fruits, but gave of its substance to nurture thorns and thistles, so the several forces of nature ceased to be obedient to man as agents subject to his direct control. What we call natural forces—heat, light, electricity, chemical affinity—are but a few of the manifestations of eternal energy through which the Creator's purposes are subserved; and these few, man is able to direct and utilize only through mechanical contrivance and physical adjustment. But the earth shall yet be "renewed and receive its paradisaical glory"; then[Pg 310] soil, water, air, and the forces acting upon them, shall directly respond to the command of glorified man, as now they obey the word of the Creator.[665]
Not just humans, but also the earth and all its elemental forces fell under the Adamic curse[664]. As the soil no longer produced only good and useful crops but instead yielded thorns and thistles, the various natural forces stopped being obedient to humanity and no longer acted under our direct control. What we refer to as natural forces—heat, light, electricity, chemical attraction—are just a few expressions of eternal energy through which the Creator’s purposes are achieved; and these few forces can only be directed and used by humans through mechanical means and physical adjustments. But the earth will eventually be "renewed and restored to its paradisiacal glory"; then[Pg 310] the soil, water, air, and the forces acting on them will respond directly to the commands of glorified humanity, just as they currently obey the word of the Creator.[665]
QUIETING THE DEMONS.[666]
Jesus and the disciples with Him landed on the eastern or Perean side of the lake, in a region known as the country of the Gadarenes or Gergesenes. The precise spot has not been identified, but it was evidently a country district apart from the towns.[667] As the party left the boat, two maniacs, who were sorely tormented by evil spirits, approached. Matthew states there were two; the other writers speak of but one; it is possible that one of the afflicted pair was in a condition so much worse than that of his companion that to him is accorded greater prominence in the narrative; or, one may have run away while the other remained. The demoniac was in a pitiful plight. His frenzy had become so violent and the physical strength incident to his mania so great that all attempts to hold him in captivity had failed. He had been bound in chains and fetters, but these he had broken asunder by the aid of demon power; and he had fled to the mountains, to the caverns that served as tombs, and there he had lived more like a wild beast than a man. Night and day his weird, terrifying shrieks had been heard, and through dread of meeting him people traveled by other ways rather than pass near his haunts. He wandered about naked, and in his madness often gashed his flesh with sharp stones.
Jesus and the disciples with Him arrived on the eastern, or Perean, side of the lake, in a area known as the country of the Gadarenes or Gergesenes. The exact location hasn't been pinpointed, but it clearly was a rural area separate from the towns.[667] As they got off the boat, two men who were seriously tormented by evil spirits came up to them. Matthew mentions there were two; the other writers only refer to one; it’s possible one of the afflicted was in such worse condition that he took precedence in the story, or maybe one ran away while the other stayed. The demoniac was in a terrible state. His frenzy had escalated to such violence and his physical strength due to his mania was so overwhelming that attempts to control him had failed. He had been chained and shackled, but he broke free with the help of the demonic power; and he had fled to the mountains, to the caves that served as tombs, where he lived more like a wild animal than a human. Night and day, his chilling, terrifying screams could be heard, and out of fear of encountering him, people took different routes to avoid his territory. He roamed around naked, and in his madness, often cut himself with sharp stones.
Seeing Jesus, the poor creature ran toward Him, and, impelled by the power of his demon control, prostrated himself before Christ, the while crying out with a loud voice: "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God?" As Jesus commanded the evil spirits to leave, one or more of them, through the voice of the man,[Pg 311] pleaded to be left alone, and with blasphemous presumption exclaimed: "I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not." Matthew records the further question addressed to Jesus: "Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" The demons, by whom the man was possessed and controlled, recognized the Master, whom they knew they had to obey; but they pleaded to be left alone until the decreed time of their final punishment would come.[668]
Seeing Jesus, the troubled man ran towards Him and, driven by the power of the demons controlling him, fell to the ground before Christ, crying out loudly, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?" As Jesus ordered the evil spirits to leave, one or more of them, speaking through the man, begged to be left alone, saying with disrespectful arrogance, "I urge you by God, don’t torment me." Matthew records the demons asking Jesus, "Have you come here to punish us before the time?" The demons that possessed and controlled the man recognized the Master, whom they knew they had to obey, but they begged to be left alone until the time of their final punishment arrived.[Pg 311][668]
Jesus asked, "What is thy name?" and the demons within the man answered, "My name is Legion, for we are many." The fact of the man's dual consciousness or multi-personality is here apparent. So complete was his possession by wicked spirits that he could no longer distinguish between his individual personality and theirs. The devils implored that Jesus would not banish them from that country; or as Luke records in words of awful import, "that he would not command them to go out into the deep."[669] In their wretched plight, and out of diabolical eagerness to find abode in bodies of flesh even though of beasts, they begged that, being compelled to leave the man they be allowed to enter a herd of hogs feeding nearby. Jesus gave permission; the unclean demons entered the swine; and the whole herd, numbering about two thousand, went wild, stampeded in terror, ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and were drowned. The swineherds were frightened, and, hastening to the town, told what had happened to the hogs. People came out in crowds to see for themselves; and all were astounded to behold the once wild man of whom they had all been afraid, now clothed, and restored to a normal state of mind, sitting quietly and reverently at the feet of Jesus. They were afraid of One who could work such wonders, and, conscious of their sinful unworthiness, begged Him to leave their country.[670]
Jesus asked, "What is your name?" and the demons inside the man replied, "My name is Legion, for we are many." This shows the man's dual consciousness or multiple personalities. He was so completely possessed by evil spirits that he could no longer tell the difference between his own personality and theirs. The demons begged Jesus not to send them away from that area; as Luke records with grave importance, "that he would not command them to go out into the deep." In their miserable state, and driven by a wicked desire to inhabit physical bodies, even of animals, they pleaded to be allowed to enter a nearby herd of pigs. Jesus agreed; the unclean demons entered the pigs, and the entire herd, about two thousand in number, went crazy, stampeded in fear, ran down a steep bank into the sea, and drowned. The swineherds were terrified and rushed back to town to tell what had happened to the pigs. People rushed out in crowds to see for themselves, and they were all amazed to find the once wild man, whom they had all feared, now dressed and calmly sitting at the feet of Jesus, restored to his right mind. They were afraid of someone who could perform such miracles and, feeling unworthy of their sins, asked Him to leave their region.
The man who had been rid of the demons feared not; in his heart love and gratitude superseded all other feelings; and as Jesus returned to the boat he prayed that he might go also. But Jesus forbade, saying: "Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee." The man became a missionary, not alone in his home town but throughout Decapolis, the region of the ten cities; wherever he went he told of the marvelous change Jesus had wrought on him.
The man who had been freed from his demons felt no fear; in his heart, love and gratitude replaced all other emotions. As Jesus got back into the boat, he asked to go with him. But Jesus said no, telling him, "Go home to your friends and share how much the Lord has done for you and how he has shown you mercy." The man became a missionary, not just in his hometown but throughout Decapolis, the area of the ten cities; wherever he went, he shared the incredible change Jesus had made in his life.
The testimony of wicked and unclean spirits to the divinity of Christ as the Son of God is not confined to this instance. We have already considered the case of the demoniac in the synagog at Capernaum;[671] and another instance appeared, when Jesus, withdrawing from the towns in Galilee, betook Himself to the sea shore, and was followed by a great multitude comprizing Galileans and Judeans, and people from Jerusalem and Idumea, and from beyond Jordan (i.e. from Perea), and inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon, amongst whom He had healed many of divers diseases; and those who were in bondage to unclean spirits had fallen down and worshiped Him; while the demons cried out: "Thou art the Son of God."[672]
The testimony of evil and unclean spirits to the divinity of Christ as the Son of God isn't limited to this instance. We've already looked at the case of the demon-possessed man in the synagogue at Capernaum;[671] and another example occurred when Jesus, stepping away from the towns in Galilee, went to the seashore. A large crowd made up of Galileans, Judeans, people from Jerusalem and Idumea, those from beyond the Jordan (i.e., Perea), and residents of Tyre and Sidon followed Him. Among them, He healed many with various diseases; those who were tormented by unclean spirits fell down and worshiped Him while the demons shouted, "You are the Son of God."[672]
In the course of the short journey considered in this chapter, the power of Jesus as Master of earth, men and devils, was manifest in miraculous works of the most impressive kind. We cannot classify the Lord's miracles as small and great, nor as easy and difficult of accomplishment; what one may consider the least is to another of profound import. The Lord's word was sufficient in every instance. To the wind and the waves, and to the demon-ridden mind of the man possessed, He had but to speak and be obeyed. "Peace, be still."[Pg 313]
During the short journey discussed in this chapter, Jesus' power as Master over the earth, people, and demons was shown through miraculous works in a truly impressive way. We can’t really categorize the Lord's miracles as big or small, or as easy or hard to achieve; what might seem minor to one person could be deeply significant to someone else. The Lord's word was enough in every situation. To the wind and the waves, and to the troubled mind of the possessed man, He simply had to speak, and they obeyed. "Peace, be still."[Pg 313]
THE RAISING OF THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS.[673]
Jesus and His attendants recrossed the lake from the land of Gadara to the vicinity of Capernaum, where He was received with acclamation by a multitude of people, "for they were all waiting for him." Immediately after landing, Jesus was approached by Jairus, one of the rulers of the local synagog, who "besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live."
Jesus and His followers crossed back across the lake from the area of Gadara to near Capernaum, where a large crowd welcomed Him enthusiastically, "for they were all waiting for him." As soon as they landed, Jairus, one of the leaders of the local synagogue, approached Jesus urgently, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Please come and lay your hands on her so that she can be healed and live."
The fact of this man's coming to Jesus, with the spirit of faith and supplication, is an evidence of the deep impression the ministry of Christ had made even in priestly and ecclesiastical circles. Many of the Jews, rulers and officials as well as the people in common, believed in Jesus;[674] though few belonging to the upper classes were willing to sacrifice prestige and popularity by acknowledging their discipleship. That Jairus, one of the rulers of the synagog, came only when impelled by grief over the impending death of his only daughter, a girl of twelve years, is no evidence that he had not before become a believer; certainly at this time his faith was genuine and his trust sincere, as the circumstances of the narrative prove. He approached Jesus with the reverence due One whom he considered able to grant what he asked, and fell at the Lord's feet, or as Matthew says, worshiped Him. When the man had started from his home to seek aid of Jesus, the maiden was at the point of death; he feared lest she had died in the interval. In the very brief account given in the first Gospel, he is reported as saying to Jesus: "My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her and she shall live."[675] Jesus went with the imploring father, and many followed.
The fact that this man came to Jesus with faith and a plea shows how deeply Christ's ministry had impacted even the religious leaders. Many Jews, including rulers and officials, as well as ordinary people, believed in Jesus; though few from the upper classes were willing to risk their prestige and popularity by admitting they were His followers. Jairus, one of the synagogue leaders, only approached Jesus when he was driven by grief over his only daughter’s imminent death at the age of twelve, but this doesn't mean he hadn't already become a believer; his faith was definitely genuine and his trust sincere, as the story shows. He approached Jesus with the respect owed to someone he believed could grant his request and fell at the Lord's feet, or as Matthew describes it, worshipped Him. When he left his home to seek Jesus’ help, his daughter was near death; he worried that she might have died while he was away. In the brief account given in the first Gospel, he tells Jesus, “My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay your hand upon her and she shall live.” Jesus went with the pleading father, and many followed.
On the way to the house an incident occurred to hinder progress. A sorely afflicted woman was healed, under circumstances of peculiar interest; this occurrence we shall consider presently. No intimation is given that Jairus showed impatience or displeasure over the delay; he had placed trust in the Master and awaited His time and pleasure; and while Christ was engaged in the matter of the suffering woman, messengers came from the ruler's house with the saddening word that the girl was dead. We may infer that even these dread tidings of certainty failed to destroy the man's faith; he seems to have still looked to the Lord for help, and those who had brought the message asked, "Why troublest thou the Master any further?" Jesus heard what was said, and sustained the man's sorely-taxed faith by the encouraging behest: "Be not afraid, only believe." Jesus permitted none of His followers save three of the apostles to enter the house with Himself and the bereaved but trusting father. Peter and the two brothers James and John were admitted.
On the way to the house, something happened that slowed them down. A very troubled woman was healed in a particularly interesting situation; we’ll discuss this shortly. There’s no sign that Jairus showed any impatience or annoyance over the delay; he trusted the Master and waited for His timing. While Christ was attending to the suffering woman, messengers arrived from Jairus's house with the heartbreaking news that the girl had died. We can assume that even this terrible news didn’t shake the man’s faith; he still seemed to hope for help from the Lord. Those who delivered the message asked, "Why bother the Master anymore?" Jesus heard them and strengthened the man's struggling faith with the reassuring command: "Don’t be afraid, just believe." Jesus only allowed three of His apostles to enter the house with Him and the grieving yet hopeful father. Peter and the two brothers, James and John, were allowed in.
The house was no place of such respectful silence or subdued quiet as we now consider appropriate to the time and place of death; on the contrary it was a scene of tumult, but that condition was customary in the orthodox observances of mourning at the time.[676] Professional mourners, including singers of weird dirges, and minstrels who made great noise with flutes and other instruments, had already been summoned to the house. To all such Jesus said, on entering: "Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead but sleepeth." It was in effect a repetition of His command uttered on a then recent occasion—Peace, be still. His words drew scorn and ridicule from those who were paid for the noise they made, and who, if what He said proved true, would lose this opportunity of professional service. Moreover, they knew the maid was dead; preparations for the funeral, which custom required should follow death as speedily[Pg 315] as possible, were already in progress. Jesus ordered these people out, and restored peace to the house.[677] He then entered the death chamber, accompanied only by the three apostles and the parents of the girl. Taking the dead maiden by the hand He "said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise." To the astonishment of all but the Lord, the girl arose, left her bed, and walked. Jesus directed that food be given her, as bodily needs, suspended by death, had returned with the girl's renewal of life.
The house was not the quiet, respectful place we think is appropriate for death; instead, it was chaotic, which was normal for the mourning rituals of the time. Professional mourners, including singers of eerie dirges and musicians playing loud flutes and other instruments, had already been called to the house. When Jesus entered, he said, "Why are you making such a fuss and crying? The girl isn't dead; she's just sleeping." This was similar to His earlier command—"Peace, be still." His words were met with mockery from those who were paid to create noise, and who would miss out on work if what He said turned out to be true. Besides, they knew the girl was dead; funeral preparations, which were expected to happen quickly after death, were already underway. Jesus told them to leave and brought calm back to the house. He then went into the room where the girl lay, accompanied only by three apostles and the girl’s parents. He took her hand and said, "Talitha cumi," which means, "Girl, I say to you, get up." To everyone's surprise except Jesus, the girl got up, left her bed, and walked. Jesus instructed that she be given something to eat, as her bodily needs, which were interrupted by death, had returned with her revival.
The Lord imposed an obligation of secrecy, charging all present to refrain from telling what they had seen. The reasons for this injunction are not stated. In some other instances a similar instruction was given to those who had been blessed by Christ's ministrations; while on many occasions of healing no such instructions are recorded, and in one case at least the man who had been relieved of demons was told to go and tell how great a thing had been done for him.[678] In His own wisdom Christ knew when to prudently forbid and when to permit publication of His doings. Though the grateful parents, the girl herself, and the three apostles who had been witnesses of the restoration, may all have been loyal to the Lord's injunction of silence, the fact that the maiden had been raised to life could not be kept secret, and the means by which so great a wonder had been wrought would certainly be inquired into. The minstrels and the wailers who had been expelled from the place while it was yet a house of mourning, and who had scornfully laughed at the Master's assertion that the maiden was asleep and not dead as they thought, would undoubtedly, spread reports. It is not surprizing, therefore, to read in Matthew's short version of the history, that the fame of the miracle "went abroad into all that land."
The Lord required everyone present to keep what they had seen a secret. The reasons for this instruction aren't explained. In other cases, a similar command was given to those who had experienced Christ's miracles; however, there are many healing instances where no such instructions were noted, and at least once a man who had been freed from demons was told to go and share how great things had been done for him.[678] Christ, in His wisdom, knew when to wisely forbid and when to allow the sharing of His actions. Although the grateful parents, the girl herself, and the three apostles who witnessed the miracle may have stuck to the Lord's command for silence, the fact that the girl had been brought back to life couldn't be kept hidden, and people would definitely want to know how such a wonder occurred. The musicians and mourners who had been sent away while it was still a house of mourning, and who scornfully laughed at the Master's claim that the girl was just asleep and not dead as they thought, would surely spread the news. It’s not surprising, then, to read in Matthew's brief account that the news of the miracle "spread throughout all that land."
RESTORATION TO LIFE AND RESURRECTION.
The vital distinction between a restoration of the dead to a resumption of mortal life, and the resurrection of the body from death to a state of immortality, must be thoughtfully heeded. In each of the instances thus far considered—that of the raising of the dead man of Nain,[679] and that of the daughter of Jairus, as also the raising of Lazarus to be studied later—the miracle consisted in reuniting the spirit and the body in a continuation of the interrupted course of mortal existence. That the subject of each of these miracles had to subsequently die is certain. Jesus Christ was the first of all men who have lived on earth to come forth from the tomb an immortalized Being; He is therefore properly designated as "the first fruits of them that slept."[680]
The important difference between bringing the dead back to life and resurrecting the body from death to a state of immortality must be carefully considered. In each of the examples we've looked at so far—like the raising of the dead man from Nain,[679] the daughter of Jairus, and later the raising of Lazarus—the miracle involved reuniting the spirit and body to continue their interrupted mortal lives. It’s clear that each of these individuals eventually died again. Jesus Christ was the first person in history to rise from the tomb as an immortal being; that’s why he is rightly called "the first fruits of them that slept."[680]
Though both Elijah and Elisha, many centuries prior to the time of Christ, were instrumental in restoring life to the dead, the former to the widow's son in Zareptha, the latter to the child of the Shunammite woman,[681] in these earlier miracles the restoration was to mortal existence, not to immortality. It is instructive to observe the difference in the procedure of each of the Old Testament prophets mentioned as compared with that of Christ in analogous miracles. By both Elijah and Elisha the wonderful change was brought about only after long and labored ministrations, and earnest invocation of the power and intervention of Jehovah; but Jehovah, embodied in flesh as Jesus Christ, did nothing outwardly but command, and the bonds of death were immediately broken. He spoke in His own name and by inherent authority, for by the power with which He was invested He held control of both life and death.
Though both Elijah and Elisha, many centuries before Christ, played key roles in bringing the dead back to life—the former with the widow's son in Zareptha and the latter with the child of the Shunammite woman,[681] in these earlier miracles, the revival was to earthly life, not eternal life. It’s interesting to see how different the methods of each of these Old Testament prophets were compared to Christ in similar miracles. Both Elijah and Elisha achieved these miraculous changes only after extensive efforts and sincere prayers for Jehovah’s power and intervention; however, Jehovah, in the flesh as Jesus Christ, simply commanded, and the chains of death were instantly broken. He spoke in His own name and with inherent authority because, through the power He possessed, He had control over both life and death.
A REMARKABLE HEALING BY THE WAY.[682]
While Jesus was walking to the house of Jairus with a great crowd of people thronging about Him, the progress of the company was arrested by another case of suffering. In the throng was a woman who for twelve years had been afflicted with a serious ailment involving frequent hemorrhage. She had spent in medical treatment all she had owned, and "had suffered many things of many physicians," but had steadily grown worse. She worked her way through the crowd, and, approaching Jesus from behind, touched His robe; "For she said, If I may touch but his clothes I shall be whole." The effect was more than magical; immediately she felt the thrill of health throughout her body, and knew that she had been healed of her affliction. Her object attained, the blessing she sought being now secured, she tried to escape notice, by hastily dropping back into the crowd. But her touch was not unheeded by the Lord. He turned to look over the throng and asked, "Who touched my clothes?" or as Luke puts it, "Who touched me?" As the people denied, the impetuous Peter speaking for himself and the others said: "Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?" But Jesus answered: "Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me."
While Jesus was walking to Jairus's house with a large crowd around Him, their journey was interrupted by another suffering case. Among the crowd was a woman who had been dealing with a serious condition involving frequent bleeding for twelve years. She had used all her resources on medical treatments and "had suffered many things from many doctors," but instead of getting better, she continued to feel worse. She made her way through the crowd and, approaching Jesus from behind, touched His cloak, saying to herself, "If I can just touch His clothes, I will be healed." The impact was incredible; immediately she felt a surge of health throughout her body and realized she had been healed of her illness. Having achieved her goal and secured the blessing she sought, she tried to slip away unnoticed, blending back into the crowd. But the Lord noticed her touch. He turned to the crowd and asked, "Who touched my clothes?" or as Luke puts it, "Who touched me?" As the people denied it, the impulsive Peter, speaking for himself and the others, said, "Master, the crowd is pressing around you, and you ask, 'Who touched me?'" But Jesus replied, "Somebody touched me, for I know that power has gone out from me."
The woman, finding that she could not escape identification, came tremblingly forward, and, kneeling before the Lord, confessed what she had done, her reason for so doing, and the beneficent result. If she had expected censure her fears were promptly set at rest, for Jesus, addressing her by a term of respect and kindness, said: "Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace," and as Mark adds, "be whole of thy plague."
The woman, realizing she couldn't avoid being identified, stepped forward nervously and knelt before the Lord, confessing what she had done, why she did it, and the positive outcome. If she expected criticism, her worries were quickly eased, as Jesus spoke to her with respect and kindness, saying: "Daughter, take heart: your faith has made you well; go in peace," and as Mark adds, "be free from your suffering."
This woman's faith was sincere and free from guile,[Pg 318] nevertheless it was in a sense defective. She believed that the influence of Christ's person, and even that attaching to His raiment, was a remedial agency, ample to cure her malady; but she did not realize that the power to heal was an inherent attribute to be exercized at His will, and as the influence of faith might call it forth. True, her faith had already been in part rewarded, but of greater worth to her than the physical cure of her illness would be the assurance that the divine Healer had granted the desire of her heart, and that the faith she had manifested was accepted by Him. To correct her misapprehension and to confirm her faith, Jesus gently subjected her to the necessary ordeal of confession, which must have been made easier through her consciousness of the great relief already experienced. He confirmed the healing and let her depart with the comforting assurance that her recovery was permanent.
This woman's faith was genuine and sincere,[Pg 318] but in some ways, it was lacking. She believed that the presence of Christ and even the touch of His clothing could heal her condition; however, she didn't realize that the power to heal was an inherent quality that He could use at His discretion and that her faith could help bring it out. While her faith had already begun to pay off, what would mean more to her than the physical healing would be the assurance that the divine healer had granted her heart's desire and that her faith had been accepted by Him. To clarify her misunderstanding and strengthen her faith, Jesus gently put her through the necessary process of confession, which she likely found easier because of the relief she had already felt. He confirmed her healing and let her go with the comforting knowledge that her recovery was permanent.
In contrast with the many cases of healing in connection with which the Lord charged the beneficiaries that they should tell none how or by whom they had been relieved, we see here that publicity was made sure by His own action, and that too, when secrecy was desired by the recipient of the blessing. The purposes and motives of Jesus may be but poorly understood by man; but in this woman's case we see the possibility of stories strange and untrue getting afloat, and it appears to have been the wiser course to make plain the truth then and there. Moreover the spiritual worth of the miracle was greatly enhanced by the woman's confession and by the Lord's gracious assurance.
In contrast to many healing cases where Jesus instructed those healed not to tell anyone how or by whom they were helped, here we see that He made sure the event was public through His own actions, even when the person receiving the blessing wanted to keep it a secret. People may not fully grasp Jesus' intentions, but in this woman's situation, there was a risk of strange and false stories spreading, and it seemed wiser to clarify the truth right then and there. Additionally, the spiritual significance of the miracle was greatly increased by the woman's confession and by Jesus' kind reassurance.
Observe the significant assertion, "Thy faith hath made thee whole." Faith is of itself a principle of power;[683] and by its presence or absence, by its fulness or paucity, even the Lord was and is influenced, and in great measure controlled, in the bestowal or withholding of blessings; for He ministers according to law, and not with caprice or uncertainty.[Pg 319] We read that at a certain time and place Jesus "could there do no mighty work" because of the people's unbelief.[684] Modern revelation specifies that faith to be healed is one of the gifts of the Spirit, analogous to the manifestations of faith in the work of healing others through the exercize of the power of the Holy Priesthood.[685]
Notice the important statement, "Your faith has made you whole." Faith is inherently a source of power; [683] and its presence or absence, as well as its abundance or scarcity, can influence and largely control even the Lord in giving or withholding blessings. He acts according to law, not whims or uncertainty.[Pg 319] We read that at one point, Jesus "could not perform any mighty works" because of the people's lack of belief.[684] Modern revelation clarifies that faith to be healed is a gift of the Spirit, similar to the manifestations of faith in healing others through the exercise of the power of the Holy Priesthood.[685]
Our Lord's inquiry as to who had touched Him in the throng affords us another example of His asking questions in pursuance of a purpose, when He could readily have determined the facts directly and without aid from others. There was a special purpose in the question, as every teacher finds a means of instruction in questioning his pupils.[686] But there is in Christ's question, "Who touched me?" a deeper significance than could inhere in a simple inquiry as to the identity of an individual; and this is implied in the Lord's further words: "Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me." The usual external act by which His miracles were wrought was a word or a command, sometimes accompanied by the laying on of hands, or by some other physical ministration as in anointing the eyes of a blind man.[687] That there was an actual giving of His own strength to the afflicted whom He healed is evident from the present instance. Passive belief on the part of a would-be recipient of blessing is insufficient; only when it is vitalized into active faith is it a power; so also of one who ministers in the authority given of God, mental and spiritual energy must be operative if the service is to be effective.
Our Lord's question about who had touched Him in the crowd gives us another example of Him asking questions with a specific purpose, even when He could easily have known the facts on His own. There was a particular reason behind the question, just like any teacher finds a way to instruct their students through questioning.[686] But in Christ's question, "Who touched me?" there’s a deeper meaning beyond just asking for someone's identity; this is suggested by His further words: "Somebody has touched me, for I feel that power has gone out from me." Typically, His miracles were performed through a word or command, sometimes followed by laying on of hands or some other physical action, like anointing a blind man’s eyes.[687] It's clear that He was actually sharing His own strength with those He healed in this case. Simply believing passively isn't enough for someone seeking a blessing; only when that belief turns into active faith does it become powerful. Similarly, anyone ministering with authority from God must also channel mental and spiritual energy for their service to be effective.
THE BLIND SEE AND THE DUMB SPEAK.[688]
Two other instances of miraculous healing are chronicled by Matthew as closely following the raising of the daughter of Jairus. As Jesus passed down the streets of Capernaum,[Pg 320] presumably on His departure from the house of the ruler of the synagog, two blind men followed Him, crying out: "Thou son of David, have mercy on us." This title of address was voiced by others at sundry times, and in no case do we find record of our Lord disclaiming it or objecting to its use.[689] Jesus paused not to heed this call of the blind, and the two sightless men followed Him, even entering the house after Him. Then He spoke to them, asking: "Believe ye that I am able to do this?" And they replied, "Yea, Lord." Their persistency in following the Lord was evidence of their belief that in some way, though to them unknown and mysterious, He could help them; and they promptly and openly confessed that belief. Our Lord touched their eyes, saying: "According to your faith be it unto you." The effect was immediate; their eyes were opened. They were explicitly instructed to say nothing of the matter to others; but, rejoicing in the inestimable blessing of sight, they "spread abroad his fame in all that country." So far as we can unravel the uncertain threads of sequence in the works of Christ, this is the earliest instance, recorded with attendant details, of His giving sight to the blind. Many remarkable cases follow.[690]
Two other miraculous healings are described by Matthew as happening right after Jesus raised Jairus' daughter. As Jesus walked through the streets of Capernaum,[Pg 320] likely leaving the house of the synagogue leader, two blind men followed Him, shouting, "Son of David, have mercy on us." This title was used by others at different times, and there’s no record of Jesus denying it or objecting to it.[689] Jesus didn’t stop to respond to the blind men’s call, and they followed Him right into the house. Then He asked them, "Do you believe that I can do this?" They answered, "Yes, Lord." Their determination to follow Him showed they believed that, somehow, He could help them; they openly confessed that belief. Jesus touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith, let it be done to you." Immediately, their eyes were opened. They were told not to share this with anyone, but filled with joy from the incredible gift of sight, they "spread His fame throughout the region." From what we can gather about the timeline of Jesus' works, this is the earliest recorded instance, with details, of Him giving sight to the blind. Many remarkable cases follow.[690]
It is worthy of note that in blessing the sightless by the exercize of His healing power, Jesus usually ministered by some physical contact in addition to uttering the authoritative words of command or assurance. In this instance, as also in that of two blind men who sat by the wayside, He touched the sightless eyes; in the giving of sight to the blind indigent in Jerusalem He anointed the man's eyes with clay; to the eyes of another He applied saliva.[691] An analogous circumstance is found in the healing of one who was deaf and defective of speech, in which instance the Lord put His fingers into the man's ears and touched his tongue.[692] In no[Pg 321] case can such treatment be regarded as medicinal or therapeutic. Christ was not a physician who relied upon curative substances, nor a surgeon to perform physical operations; His healings were the natural results of the application of a power of His own. It is conceivable that confidence, which is a stepping-stone to belief, as that in turn is to faith, may have been encouraged by these physical ministrations, strengthened, and advanced to a higher and more abiding trust in Christ, on the part of the afflicted who had not sight to look upon the Master's face and derive inspiration therefrom, nor hearing to hear His uplifting words. There is apparent not alone an entire absence of formula and formalism in His ministration, but a lack of uniformity of procedure quite as impressive.
It’s worth noting that when healing the blind, Jesus typically used physical touch along with speaking authoritative words of command or reassurance. In this case, just like with the two blind men sitting by the roadside, He touched the blind man’s eyes; when giving sight to a blind beggar in Jerusalem, He anointed the man's eyes with clay; and for another person, He applied saliva to his eyes.[691] A similar situation occurred when He healed a deaf man who also had a speech problem, where the Lord put His fingers in the man’s ears and touched his tongue.[692] In no[Pg 321] case should this approach be seen as medical treatment. Christ wasn’t a doctor using healing substances or a surgeon performing operations; His healings were simply the natural results of a power that came from Him. It’s possible that these physical actions helped build confidence, which is a step towards belief, and then towards faith, strengthening the afflicted individuals who couldn’t see the Master’s face for inspiration or hear His uplifting words. There’s a clear absence of formulas and rigid rituals in His healing methods, as well as a noticeable lack of uniformity in how He approached each case.
As the two men, once sightless but now seeing, departed, others came, bringing a dumb friend whose affliction seems to have been primarily due to the malignant influence of an evil spirit rather than to any organic defect. Jesus rebuked the wicked spirit—cast out the demon that had obsessed the afflicted one and held him in the tyranny of speechlessness. The man's tongue was loosened, he was freed from the evil incubus, and was no longer dumb.[693]
As the two men, who were once blind but now could see, left, others arrived, bringing along a mute friend whose condition seemed to stem mostly from the harmful influence of an evil spirit rather than any physical issue. Jesus confronted the wicked spirit—He drove out the demon that had tormented the afflicted man and kept him from speaking. The man’s tongue was freed, he was liberated from the evil presence, and could speak again.[693]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 20.
1. Storms on the Lake of Galilee.—It is a matter of record that sudden and violent storms are common on the lake or sea of Galilee; and the tempest that was quieted by the Lord's word of command was of itself no unusual phenomenon, except perhaps in its intensity. Another incident connected with a storm on this small body of water is of scriptural record, and will be considered later in the text (Matt. 14:22-26; Mark 6:45-56; John 6:15-21). Dr. Thompson (The Land and the Book ii:32) gives a description founded on his personal experience on the shores of the lake: "I spent a night in that Wady Shukaiyif, some three miles up it, to the left of us. The sun had scarcely set when the wind began to rush down toward the lake, and it continued all night long with constantly increasing violence, so that when we reached the shore next morning the face of the lake was a[Pg 322] huge boiling caldron. The wind howled down every wady from the north-east and east with such fury that no efforts of rowers could have brought a boat to shore at any point along that coast.... To understand the causes of these sudden and violent tempests, we must remember that the lake lies low—six hundred feet lower than the ocean; that the vast and naked plateaus of the Jaulan rise to a great height, spreading backward to the wilds of the Hauran, and upward to snowy Hermon; and the water-courses have cut out profound ravines and wild gorges, converging to the head of this lake, and that these act like gigantic funnels to draw down the cold winds from the mountains."
1. Storms on the Lake of Galilee.—It is well-known that sudden and intense storms are common on the Lake or Sea of Galilee; the storm that the Lord calmed with His command was not unusual in itself, except perhaps for its intensity. Another event related to a storm on this small body of water is recorded in scripture and will be discussed later in the text (Matt. 14:22-26; Mark 6:45-56; John 6:15-21). Dr. Thompson (The Land and the Book ii:32) shares a description based on his personal experience by the lake: "I spent a night in that Wady Shukaiyif, about three miles up to the left of us. The sun had barely set when the wind started rushing down toward the lake, and it continued all night with increasing force, so that when we reached the shore the next morning, the lake looked like a[Pg 322] massive boiling cauldron. The wind howled down every wady from the northeast and east with such intensity that no amount of rowing could have brought a boat to shore at any point along that coast.... To understand what causes these sudden and violent storms, we need to remember that the lake lies low—600 feet below sea level; the vast, bare plateaus of the Jaulan rise to great heights, extending back to the wilds of Hauran and upward to snow-capped Hermon; and the waterways have carved out deep ravines and wild gorges that converge at the head of the lake, acting like giant funnels to pull down the cold winds from the mountains."
2. The Earth Before and After Its Regeneration.—That the earth itself fell under the curse incident to the fall of the first parents of the race, and that even as man shall be redeemed so shall the earth be regenerated, is implied in Paul's words: "Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole Creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (Rom. 8:21-23). The present author has written elsewhere: "According to the scriptures, the earth has to undergo a change analogous to death, and to be regenerated in a manner comparable to a resurrection. References to the elements melting with heat, and to the earth being consumed and passing away, such as occur in many scriptures already cited, are suggestive of death; and the new earth, really the renewed or regenerated planet, which is to result, may be compared with a resurrected organism. The change has been likened unto a transfiguration (Doc. and Cov. 63:20, 21). Every created thing has been made for a purpose; and everything that fills the measure of its creation is to be advanced in the scale of progression, be it an atom or a world, an animalcule, or man—the direct and literal offspring of Deity. In speaking of the degrees of glory provided for His creations, and of the laws of regeneration and sanctification, the Lord, in a revelation dated 1832, speaks plainly of the approaching death and subsequent quickening of the earth. These are his words:—'And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law. Wherefore it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.' (Doc. and Cov. 88:25-26.)"
2. The Earth Before and After Its Regeneration.—The earth itself was affected by the curse that came from the fall of humanity's first parents, and just as humanity will be redeemed, the earth will also be renewed, as suggested by Paul's words: "Because the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as children, the redemption of our bodies" (Rom. 8:21-23). The author has also noted elsewhere: "According to the scriptures, the earth must go through a change similar to death, and be renewed in a way that resembles a resurrection. Descriptions of elements melting with heat and the earth being consumed and passing away, as found in many already cited scriptures, suggest death; and the new earth, truly the renewed or regenerated planet that will emerge, can be compared to a resurrected being. This change has been compared to a transfiguration (Doc. and Cov. 63:20, 21). Everything that exists has a purpose; and anything that fulfills its intended purpose will advance in the hierarchy of existence, whether it's an atom or a planet, a microorganism, or humanity—the direct and literal offspring of God. When discussing the levels of glory available for His creations and the principles of renewal and sanctification, the Lord, in a revelation from 1832, clearly mentions the impending death and eventual revival of the earth. His words are:—'And again, truly I say to you, the earth abides by the law of a celestial kingdom, for it fulfills the measure of its creation and does not transgress the law. Therefore, it shall be sanctified; yes, even though it will die, it shall be revived, and it shall remain under the power that revives it, and the righteous shall inherit it.' (Doc. and Cov. 88:25-26.)"
The vital Spirit that emanates from God and is coextensive with space, may operate directly and with as positive effect upon inanimate things, and upon energy in its diverse manifestations known to us as the forces of nature, as upon organized intelligences, whether yet unembodied, in the flesh, or disembodied. Thus, the Lord may speak directly to the earth, the air, the sea, and be heard and obeyed, for the divine affluence, which is the[Pg 323] sum of all energy and power may and does operate throughout the universe. In the course of a revelation from God to Enoch, the earth is personified, and her groans and lamentations over the wickedness of men were heard by the prophet: "And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?" Enoch pleaded: "O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth?" Following further revelation as to the then future course of mankind in sin and in the rejection of the Messiah who was to be sent, the prophet wept with anguish, and asked of God "When shall the earth rest?" It was then shown unto him that the crucified Christ shall return to earth and establish a millennial reign of peace: "And the Lord said unto Enoch: As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfil the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah; and the day shall come that the earth shall rest, but before that day the heavens shall be darkened, and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth; and the heavens shall shake, and also the earth; and great tribulations shall be among the children of men." And the glorious assurance followed "that for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest." (P. of G.P., Moses 7:48, 49, 58, 60, 61, 64.)
The vital Spirit that comes from God and is everywhere may work directly and effectively on inanimate objects, as well as on energy in its various forms known to us as the forces of nature, just as it does on intelligent beings, whether they are unembodied, in the flesh, or disembodied. So, the Lord can speak directly to the earth, the air, the sea, and be heard and obeyed, because the divine power, which is the[Pg 323] sum of all energy and strength, can and does operate throughout the universe. During a revelation from God to Enoch, the earth is given human qualities, and her cries and sorrows over humanity's wickedness were heard by the prophet: "And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?" Enoch pleaded: "O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth?" After further revelation about the future sinful path of humanity and the rejection of the Messiah who was to come, the prophet wept in distress and asked God, "When shall the earth rest?" It was then revealed to him that the crucified Christ would return to earth and establish a time of peace: "And the Lord said unto Enoch: As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfill the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah; and the day shall come that the earth shall rest, but before that day the heavens shall be darkened, and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth; and the heavens shall shake, and also the earth; and great tribulations shall be among the children of men." And the glorious assurance followed "that for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest." (P. of G.P., Moses 7:48, 49, 58, 60, 61, 64.)
A partial description of the earth in its regenerated state has been given through the prophet Joseph Smith in the present dispensation: "This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ's." (Doc. and Cov. 130:9).
A partial description of the earth in its renewed state has been provided by the prophet Joseph Smith in this time period: "This earth, in its holy and eternal condition, will be like crystal and will serve as a Urim and Thummim for the people living on it, allowing all things related to a lower kingdom, or all lower-order kingdoms, to be revealed to those who live here; and this earth will belong to Christ." (Doc. and Cov. 130:9).
That Jesus Christ, in the exercize of His powers of Godship, should speak directly to the wind or the sea and be obeyed, is no less truly in accord with the natural law of heaven, than that He should effectively command a man or an unembodied spirit. That through faith even mortal man may set in operation the forces that act upon matter and with assurance of stupendous results has been explicitly declared by Jesus Christ: "For verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shill remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you" (Matt. 17:20; compare Mark 11:23; Luke 17:6).
That Jesus Christ, exercising His divine powers, could speak directly to the wind or the sea and have them obey Him is truly in line with the natural laws of heaven, just as He can command a person or a spirit without a body. Jesus Christ has clearly stated that through faith, even ordinary people can activate the forces that influence matter and achieve incredible results: "For truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you" (Matt. 17:20; compare Mark 11:23; Luke 17:6).
3. The Land of the Gergesenes.—Attempts have been made to discredit the account of Christ's healing the demoniac in "the country of the Gadarenes" (Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26) on the claim that the ancient town of Gadara the capital of the district (see Josephus, Wars, iii, 7:1), was too far inland to make possible the precipitous dash of the swine into the sea from that place. Others[Pg 324] lay stress on the fact that Matthew differs from the two other Gospel-historians, in specifying "the country of the Gergesenes" (8:28). As stated in the text, a whole region or section is referred to, not a town. The keepers of the swine ran off to the towns to report the disaster that had befallen their herd. In that district of Perea there were at the time towns named respectively Gadara, Gerasa, and Gergesa; the region in general, therefore, could properly be called the land of the Gadarenes or of the Gergesenes. Farrar (Life of Christ, p. 254 note) says: "After the researches of Dr. Thompson (The Land and the Book, ii:25), there can be no doubt that Gergesa ... was the name of a little town nearly opposite Capernaum, the ruined site of which is still called Kerza or Gersa by the Bedawin. The existence of this little town was apparently known both to Origen, who first introduced the reading, and to Eusebius and Jerome; and in their day a steep declivity near it, where the hills approach to within a little distance from the lake, was pointed out as the scene of the miracle."
3. The Land of the Gergesenes.—Some have tried to challenge the story of Christ healing the demon-possessed man in "the country of the Gadarenes" (Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26), arguing that the ancient town of Gadara, which was the capital of the area (see Josephus, Wars, iii, 7:1), was too far from the sea for the pigs to rush into it from there. Others[Pg 324] point out that Matthew differs from the other two Gospel writers by stating "the country of the Gergesenes" (8:28). As mentioned in the text, it refers to an entire region or area, not just a single town. The pig herders ran to the towns to report the disaster that had struck their herd. At that time, there were towns in the district of Perea called Gadara, Gerasa, and Gergesa; therefore, the area could accurately be referred to as the land of the Gadarenes or of the Gergesenes. Farrar (Life of Christ, p. 254 note) states: "After the research of Dr. Thompson (The Land and the Book, ii:25), there is no doubt that Gergesa ... was the name of a small town directly across from Capernaum, the ruins of which are still known as Kerza or Gersa by the Bedouins. The existence of this small town was known to Origen, who first introduced the term, as well as Eusebius and Jerome; and in their time, a steep slope nearby, where the hills come very close to the lake, was identified as the location of the miracle."
4. Jesus Entreated to Leave the Country.—The people were frightened over the power possessed by Jesus, as demonstrated in the cure of the demoniac, and in the destruction of the swine, which latter occurrence, however, was not in pursuance of His command. It was the fear that sinful men feel in the presence of the Righteous. They were not prepared for other manifestations of divine power, and they dreaded to think who among them might be directly affected thereby should it be exerted. We must judge the people mercifully, however, if at all. They were in part heathen, and had but superstitious conceptions of Deity. Their prayer that Jesus leave them brings to mind the ejaculation of Simon Peter in his witnessing one of Christ's miracles: "Depart from me: for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Luke 5:8).
4. Jesus Asked to Leave the Country.—The people were scared by the power Jesus displayed, particularly in curing the man possessed by demons and in the loss of the swine, which actually wasn't something He commanded. They felt the fear that sinful people experience in the presence of someone righteous. They weren't ready for any more displays of divine power and were anxious about who among them might be affected if it happened again. However, we should judge the people kindly, if at all. They were partly non-Jewish and had only superstitious ideas about God. Their request for Jesus to leave reminds us of Simon Peter's plea when he witnessed one of Christ's miracles: "Depart from me: for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Luke 5:8).
5. "Dead," or "At the Point of Death."—According to Luke (8:42) the daughter of Jairus "lay a dying" when the grief-stricken father sought help of the Lord; Mark (5:23) reports the man as stating that the girl lay "at the point of death." These two accounts agree; but Matthew (9:18) represents the father as saying: "My daughter is even now dead." Unbelieving critics have dwelt at length on what they designate an inconsistency if not a contradiction in these versions; and yet both accounts embodied in the three records are plainly true. The maid was seemingly breathing her last, she was in the very throes of death, when the father hurried away. Before he met Jesus he felt that the end had probably come; nevertheless his faith endured. His words attest his trust, that even had his daughter actually died since he left her side, the Master could recall her to life. He was in a state of frenzied grief, and still his faith held true.
5. "Dead," or "At the Point of Death."—According to Luke (8:42), the daughter of Jairus was "dying" when her heartbroken father sought help from the Lord; Mark (5:23) reports the man stating that the girl was "at the point of death." These two accounts are consistent, but Matthew (9:18) has the father saying, "My daughter is even now dead." Skeptical critics have focused heavily on what they call an inconsistency, if not a contradiction, in these versions; however, both accounts reflected in the three records are clearly true. The girl was seemingly breathing her last, in the very throes of death when the father hurried away. Before he met Jesus, he felt that the end had probably come; yet his faith remained strong. His words reflect his belief that even if his daughter had actually died since he left her side, the Master could bring her back to life. He was in a state of intense grief, but his faith remained steadfast.
6. Mourning Customs Among Orientals.—Observances that to us seem strange, weird, and out of place, prevailed from very early times among oriental peoples, some of which customs were common to the Jews in the days of Christ. Noise and tumult, including screeching lamentations by members of the bereaved family and by professional mourners, as also the din of instruments,[Pg 325] were usual accompaniments of mourning. Geikie, citing Buxtorf's quotation from the Talmud, gives place to the following: "Even a poor Israelite was required to have not fewer than two flute players and one mourning woman at the death of his wife; but if he be rich all things are to be done according to his quality." In Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, we read: "The number of words (about eleven Hebrew and as many Greek) employed in scripture to express the various actions characteristic of mourning, shows in a great degree the nature of Jewish customs in this respect. They appear to have consisted chiefly in the following particulars: (1) Beating upon the breast or other parts of the body. (2) Weeping and screaming in an excessive degree. (3) Wearing sad-colored garments. (4) Songs of lamentation. (5) Funeral feasts. (6) Employment of persons, especially women, to lament. One marked feature of oriental mourning is what may be called its studied publicity, and the careful observance of prescribed ceremonies (Gen. 23:2; Job 1:20; 2:8; Isa. 15:3; etc.)."
6. Mourning Customs Among Orientals.—Practices that seem strange, unusual, and out of place to us have been around for a long time among Eastern cultures, some of which were shared by the Jews during the time of Christ. Loud noises and chaos, including wailing by family members and professional mourners, along with the clamor of instruments,[Pg 325] were typical parts of mourning. Geikie, referencing Buxtorf’s quote from the Talmud, states: "Even a poor Israelite was expected to hire at least two flute players and one mourning woman when his wife died; if he was wealthy, everything should be done according to his means." In Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, we find: "The various words used in scripture (about eleven in Hebrew and as many in Greek) to describe the different mourning practices indicate the nature of Jewish customs in this regard. These practices mainly included: (1) Hitting the breast or other parts of the body. (2) Excessive weeping and screaming. (3) Wearing dark-colored clothing. (4) Songs of mourning. (5) Funeral feasts. (6) Hiring people, especially women, to mourn. A significant aspect of Eastern mourning is its intentional publicity and the careful adherence to set rituals (Gen. 23:2; Job 1:20; 2:8; Isa. 15:3; etc.)."
7. "Not Dead, but Sleepeth."—That the daughter of Jairus was dead is placed beyond reasonable doubt by the scriptural record. Our Lord's statement to the noisy mourners that "the damsel is not dead but sleepeth" told that her sleep was to be of short duration. It was a rabbinical and common custom of the time to speak of death as a sleep, and those who laughed Jesus to scorn for His statement chose to construe His words in a sense of such literalism as the context scarcely warrants. It is noticeable that the Lord used a strictly equivalent expression with respect to the death of Lazarus. "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth," said He, "but I go that I may awake him out of sleep." The literal construction placed upon these words by the apostles evoked the plain declaration "Lazarus is dead" (John 11:11, 14). In the Talmud death is repeatedly designated as sleep—hundreds of times says Lightfoot, a recognized authority on Hebrew literature.
7. "Not Dead, but Asleep."—The scriptural record clearly confirms that Jairus’ daughter was dead. When Jesus told the loud mourners, "The girl is not dead but sleeping," He meant that her sleep would be short-lived. It was a common Jewish practice at the time to refer to death as sleep, and those who mocked Jesus for His words interpreted them too literally given the context. It's worth noting that Jesus used a similar expression when referring to Lazarus’ death. He said, "Our friend Lazarus is asleep, but I’m going to wake him up." The apostles took His words literally, prompting the straightforward statement, "Lazarus is dead" (John 11:11, 14). In the Talmud, death is often described as sleep—Lightfoot, a recognized expert on Hebrew literature, notes this happens hundreds of times.
8. Why Did Jesus Make Inquiries?—We have already considered many instances of Christ's possession of what man would call superhuman knowledge, extending even to the reading of unuttered thoughts. Some people find difficulty in reconciling this superior quality with the fact that Jesus often asked questions even on matters of minor circumstance. We should realize that even complete knowledge may not preclude the propriety of making inquiries, and, moreover, that even omniscience does not imply ever-present consciousness of all that is. Undoubtedly through his paternal heritage of divine attributes, Jesus had the power of ascertaining for Himself, by means not possessed by others, any facts He might have desired to know; nevertheless we find Him repeatedly asking questions on circumstantial detail (Mark 9:21; 8:27; Matt. 16:13; Luke 8:45); and this He did even after His resurrection (Luke 24:41; John 21:5; B. of M., 3 Nephi 17:7).
8. Why Did Jesus Ask Questions?—We’ve already looked at many examples of Christ having what man would call superhuman knowledge, including the ability to read unspoken thoughts. Some people struggle to understand how this extraordinary ability aligns with the fact that Jesus often asked questions, even about minor details. We should understand that even having complete knowledge doesn’t mean it’s inappropriate to ask questions. Furthermore, being all-knowing doesn’t mean being constantly aware of everything at every moment. It's clear that due to His divine nature, Jesus could find out any information He wanted to know in ways that others couldn’t; however, we see Him repeatedly asking questions about specific details (Mark 9:21; 8:27; Matt. 16:13; Luke 8:45), and He did this even after His resurrection (Luke 24:41; John 21:5; B. of M., 3 Nephi 17:7).
That catechization is one of the most effective means of mind development is exampled in the methods followed by the[Pg 326] best of human teachers. Trench (Notes on the Miracles, pp. 148-9), thus instructively points the lesson as illustrated by our Lord's question concerning the woman who was healed of her issue of blood: With little force "can it be urged that it would have been inconsistent with absolute truth for the Lord to profess ignorance, and to ask the question which He did ask, if all the while He perfectly knew what He thus seemed implicitly to say that He did not know. A father among his children, and demanding Who committed this fault? himself conscious, even while he asks, but at the same time willing to bring the culprit to a full confession, and so to put him in a pardonable state, can he be said, in any way to violate the law of the highest truth? The same offense might be found in Elisha's 'Whence comest thou, Gehazi?' (2 Kings 5:25) when his heart went with his servant all the way that he had gone; and even in the question of God Himself to Adam, 'Where art thou?' (Gen. 3:9), and to Cain, 'Where is Abel thy brother?' (Gen. 4:9). In every case there is a moral purpose in the question, an opportunity given even at the latest moment for making good at least a part of the error by its unreserved confession."
That teaching is one of the most effective ways to develop the mind is shown in the methods used by the[Pg 326] best human teachers. Trench (Notes on the Miracles, pp. 148-9) illustrates this with our Lord's question about the woman who was healed of her issue of blood: It's hard to argue that it would have been inconsistent with absolute truth for the Lord to claim ignorance and ask the question He did if He truly knew what He appeared to imply He did not know. A father among his children asking, "Who did this?" can be aware of the answer while still wanting to get the culprit to confess fully, thereby putting them in a position for forgiveness. Can we say he violates the principle of the highest truth in any way? The same issue arises with Elisha's question, "Where have you been, Gehazi?" (2 Kings 5:25) when he already knew where his servant had gone; and even in God's questions to Adam, "Where are you?" (Gen. 3:9) and to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" (Gen. 4:9). In each case, there is a moral intention behind the question, an opportunity given even at the last moment for acknowledging at least a part of the wrongdoing through honest confession.
9. The Blind See.—In his treatment of the miraculous healing of the two blind men who had followed Jesus into the house, Trench (Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, p. 152) says: "We have here the first of those many healings of the blind recorded (Matt. 12:22; 20:30; 21:14; John 9) or alluded to (Matt. 11:5) in the Gospels; each of them a literal fulfilment of that prophetic word of Isaiah concerning the days of Messiah: 'Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened' (35:5). Frequent as these miracles are, they yet will none of them be found without distinguishing features of their own. That they should be so numerous is nothing wonderful, whether we regard the fact from a natural or spiritual point of view. Regarded naturally they need not surprize us if we keep in mind how far commoner a calamity is blindness in the East than with us. Regarded from a spiritual point of view we have only to remember how commonly sin is contemplated in Scripture as a moral blindness (Deut. 28:29; Isa. 59:10; Job 12:25; Zeph. 1:17), and deliverance from sin as a removal of this blindness (Isa. 6:9, 10; 43:8; Eph. 1:18; Matt. 15:14); and we shall at once perceive how fit it was that He who was the 'light of the world' should often accomplish works which symbolized so well that higher work which He came into the world to accomplish."
9. The Blind See.—In his discussion of the miraculous healing of the two blind men who followed Jesus into the house, Trench (Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, p. 152) states: "This is the first of many healings of the blind recorded (Matt. 12:22; 20:30; 21:14; John 9) or mentioned (Matt. 11:5) in the Gospels; each one a literal fulfillment of the prophetic word of Isaiah about the days of the Messiah: 'Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened' (35:5). While these miracles are frequent, each one has its own unique features. Their abundance is not surprising, whether we look at it from a natural or spiritual perspective. From a natural viewpoint, it should not astonish us if we remember how much more common blindness is in the East than in our context. From a spiritual perspective, we just need to recall how often sin is viewed in Scripture as moral blindness (Deut. 28:29; Isa. 59:10; Job 12:25; Zeph. 1:17), and how deliverance from sin is seen as a release from this blindness (Isa. 6:9, 10; 43:8; Eph. 1:18; Matt. 15:14); we can easily understand why it was fitting for the one who was the 'light of the world' to frequently perform acts that symbolized the greater purpose for which He came into the world."
10. Imputation of Satanic Agency.—Observe that in the matter of healing the dumb demoniac referred to in the text, Christ was charged with being in league with the devil. Although the people, impressed by the manifestation of divine power in the healing, exclaimed in reverence, "It was never so seen in Israel," the Pharisees, intent on counteracting the good effect of the Lord's miraculous ministration, said "He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils." (Matt. 9:32-34.) For further treatment of this inconsistent and, strictly speaking blasphemous charge, see pages 265-269.[Pg 327]
10. Accusation of Satanic Influence.—Notice that in the case of healing the mute demoniac mentioned in the text, Christ was accused of being in collusion with the devil. Even though the crowd, amazed by the display of divine power in the healing, exclaimed in awe, "We've never seen anything like this in Israel," the Pharisees, determined to undermine the positive impact of the Lord's miraculous work, claimed, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons." (Matt. 9:32-34.) For more on this inconsistent and, strictly speaking, blasphemous accusation, see pages 265-269.[Pg 327]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[657] Mark 4:35.
[664] Gen. 3:17-19.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Gen. 3:17-19.
[668] Compare Rev. 20:3.
Compare Rev. 20:3.
[683] "Articles of Faith," v:11-13.
[688] Matt. 9:27-35.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 9:27-35.
[692] Mark 7:32-37.
CHAPTER 21.
THE APOSTOLIC MISSION, AND EVENTS RELATED THERETO.
JESUS AGAIN IN NAZARETH.[694]
It will be remembered that, in the early days of His public ministry, Jesus had been rejected by the people of Nazareth, who thrust Him out from their synagog and tried to kill Him.[695] It appears that subsequent to the events noted in our last chapter, He returned to the town of His youth, and again raised His voice in the synagog, thus mercifully affording the people another opportunity to learn and accept the truth. The Nazarenes, as they had done before, now again openly expressed their astonishment at the words He spoke, and at the many miraculous works He had wrought; nevertheless they rejected Him anew, for He came not as they expected the Messiah to come; and they refused to know Him save as "the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon;" all of whom were common folk as were also His sisters. "And they were offended at him."[696] Jesus reminded them of the proverb then current among the people, "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." Their unbelief was so dense as to cause Him to marvel;[697] and because of their lack of faith He was unable to accomplish any great work except to heal a few exceptional believers upon whom He laid His hands. Leaving Nazareth, He entered upon His third tour of the Galilean towns and villages, preaching and teaching as He went.[698][Pg 328]
It will be remembered that, in the early days of His public ministry, Jesus was rejected by the people of Nazareth, who kicked Him out of their synagogue and tried to kill Him.[695] It seems that after the events mentioned in our last chapter, He returned to the town where He grew up and spoke again in the synagogue, giving the people another chance to learn and accept the truth. The people of Nazareth, just like before, expressed their amazement at the things He said and the many miraculous works He performed; however, they rejected Him once again because He didn’t come the way they expected the Messiah to. They only saw Him as "the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joses, Jude, and Simon;" all of whom were regular people, just like His sisters. "And they were offended at him."[696] Jesus reminded them of the saying that was popular among the people, "A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own home." Their disbelief was so strong that it amazed Him;[697] and because of their lack of faith, He could only perform a few healings for a couple of exceptional believers He touched. Leaving Nazareth, He began His third tour of the Galilean towns and villages, preaching and teaching as He went.[698][Pg 328]
THE TWELVE CHARGED AND SENT.[699]
About this time, also, Jesus inaugurated a notable expansion of the ministry of the kingdom, by sending forth the Twelve on assigned missions. Since their ordination the apostles had been with their Lord, learning from Him by public discourse and private exposition, and acquiring invaluable experience and training through that privileged and blessed companionship. The purpose of their ordination was specified—"that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."[700] They had been pupils under the Master's watchful guidance for many months; and now they were called to enter upon the duties of their calling as preachers of the gospel and individual witnesses of the Christ. By way of final preparation they were specifically and solemnly charged.[701] Some of the instructions given them on this occasion had particular reference to their first mission, from which they would in due time return and report; other directions and admonitions were to be of effect throughout their ministry, even after the Lord's ascension.
At this time, Jesus began a significant expansion of the kingdom's ministry by sending out the Twelve on specific missions. Since their ordination, the apostles had been with Him, learning from Him through public teachings and private discussions while gaining valuable experience and training from their special and blessed association. The purpose of their ordination was clear—"that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."[700] They had been students under the Master's attentive guidance for many months, and now they were called to take on their roles as preachers of the gospel and personal witnesses of Christ. As a final preparation, they were given specific and serious instructions.[701] Some of the guidance they received was specifically related to their first mission, from which they would eventually return to report; other directions and warnings were meant to apply throughout their ministry, even after the Lord's ascension.
They were directed to confine their ministrations for the time being "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and not to open a propaganda among the Gentiles,[702] nor even in Samaritan cities. This was a temporary restriction, imposed in wisdom and prudence; later, as we shall see, they were directed to preach among all nations, with the world for their field.[703] The subject of their discourses was to be that upon which they had heard the Master preach—"the kingdom of heaven is at hand." They were to exercize the authority of the Holy Priesthood as conferred upon them by ordination; it was a specified part of their mission to "heal[Pg 329] the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils," as occasion presented itself; and they were commanded to give freely, even as they had freely received. Personal comfort and bodily needs they were not to provide for; the people were to be proved as to their willingness to receive and assist those who came in the name of the Lord; and the apostles themselves were to learn to rely upon a Provider more to be trusted than man; therefore money, extra clothing, and things of mere convenience were to be left behind. In the several towns they entered they were to seek entertainment and leave their blessing upon every worthy family into which they were received. If they found themselves rejected by a household or by a town as a whole, they were to shake the dust from their feet on leaving, as a testimony against the people;[704] and it was decreed that, in the day of judgment, the place so denounced would fare worse than wicked Sodom and Gomorrha upon which fire from heaven had descended.
They were told to limit their efforts for now "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and not to spread their message among the Gentiles,[702] nor even in Samaritan towns. This was a temporary guideline, made with wisdom and caution; later, as we will see, they were instructed to preach to all nations, with the entire world as their mission field.[703] The focus of their messages was to be what they had heard the Master teach—"the kingdom of heaven is at hand." They were to use the authority of the Holy Priesthood that had been given to them through ordination; it was a key part of their mission to "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons," when the opportunity arose; and they were commanded to give generously, just as they had freely received. They were not meant to provide for personal comfort or physical needs; the people were to be tested on their willingness to receive and help those who came in the name of the Lord; and the apostles themselves were to learn to depend on a Provider who was more trustworthy than man; therefore, they were to leave behind money, extra clothing, and items of mere convenience. In each town they entered, they were to look for hospitality and leave their blessing on every deserving family that welcomed them. If they were rejected by a household or an entire town, they were to shake the dust off their feet as they left, as a testimony against the people;[704] and it was declared that, on the day of judgment, the place that rejected them would be worse off than the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which had faced fire from heaven.
The apostles were told to be prudent, to give no needless offense, but to be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves; for they were sent forth as sheep into the midst of wolves. They were not to recklessly entrust themselves to the power of men; for wicked men would persecute them, seek to arraign them before councils and courts, and to afflict them in the synagogs. Moreover they might expect to be brought before governors and kings, under which extreme conditions, they were to rely upon divine inspiration as to what they should say, and not depend upon their own wisdom in preparation and premeditation; "For," said the Master, "it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."[705]
The apostles were instructed to be careful, not to cause unnecessary offense, but to be savvy like snakes and innocent like doves; they were being sent out like sheep among wolves. They were not to foolishly trust in human power; wicked people would persecute them, try to bring them before councils and courts, and trouble them in synagogues. Additionally, they could expect to be taken before governors and kings, and in those challenging situations, they were to depend on divine guidance for what to say, rather than relying on their own understanding or preparation; "For," said the Master, "it's not you who speaks, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." [705]
They were not to trust even the claims of kinship for protection, for families would be divided over the truth,[Pg 330] brother against brother, children against parents, and the resulting strife would be deadly. These servants of Christ were told that they would be hated of all men, but were assured that their sufferings were to be for His name's sake. They were to withdraw from the cities that persecuted them, and go to others; and the Lord would follow them, even before they would be able to complete the circuit of the cities of Israel. They were admonished to humility, and were always to remember that they were servants, who ought not to expect to escape when even their Master was assailed. Nevertheless they were to be fearless, hesitating not to preach the gospel in plainness; for the most their persecutors could do was to kill the body, which fate was as nothing compared to that of suffering destruction of the soul in hell.
They shouldn’t trust even family ties for protection, because families would be torn apart over the truth, with brother against brother and children against parents, leading to deadly conflicts. These followers of Christ were warned that they would be hated by everyone, but they were reassured that their suffering was for His name. They were instructed to leave the cities that persecuted them and go to others; the Lord would be with them, even before they could reach all the cities of Israel. They were reminded to be humble and to always remember that they were servants, who shouldn’t expect to escape when even their Master faced attacks. However, they were to be courageous, bold in preaching the gospel; because at most, their persecutors could only kill the body, which is nothing compared to the threat of suffering the destruction of the soul in hell.
Assurance of the Father's watchful care was impressed upon them by the simple reminder that though sparrows were sold two for a farthing, and yet not a sparrow could be sacrificed without the Father's concern, they, who were of more value than many sparrows, would not be forgotten. They were solemnly warned that whosoever would freely confess the Christ before men would be acknowledged by Him in the Father's presence, while they who denied Him before men would be denied in heaven. And again they were told that the gospel would bring strife, whereby households would be disrupted; for the doctrine the Lord had taught would be as a sword to cut and divide. The duties of their special ministry were to supersede the love for kindred; they must be willing to leave father, mother, son, or daughter, whatever the sacrifice; for, said Jesus "He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
Assurance of the Father's watchful care was impressed upon them by the simple reminder that even though sparrows were sold two for a penny, not a single sparrow could fall without the Father's concern. They, who were worth more than many sparrows, would not be forgotten. They were solemnly warned that anyone who openly confessed Christ before others would be acknowledged by Him in the Father's presence, while those who denied Him before people would be denied in heaven. They were also told that the gospel would bring conflict, causing disruption within families; for the teachings of the Lord would be like a sword to cut and divide. Their duties in ministry were to take precedence over their love for family; they must be willing to leave behind father, mother, son, or daughter, no matter the sacrifice; for, Jesus said, "Anyone who does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
The significance of this figure must have been solemnly impressive, and actually terrifying; for the cross was a symbol of ignominy, extreme suffering, and death. However, should they lose their lives for His sake, they would[Pg 331] find life eternal; while he who was not willing to die in the Lord's service should lose his life in a sense at once literal and awful. They were never to forget in whose name they were sent; and were comforted with the assurance that whoever received them would be rewarded as one who had received the Christ and His Father; and that though the gift were only that of a cup of cold water, the giver should in no wise lose his reward.
The importance of this figure must have been seriously impressive and even frightening; the cross was a symbol of disgrace, extreme suffering, and death. However, if they were to lose their lives for His sake, they would[Pg 331] find eternal life; while anyone who wasn’t willing to die in the Lord's service would lose their life in a way that was both literal and horrifying. They were to always remember in whose name they were sent; and they were comforted by the assurance that anyone who welcomed them would be rewarded as if they had welcomed Christ and His Father; and that even if the gift was just a cup of cold water, the giver would not lose their reward.
Thus charged and instructed, the twelve special witnesses of the Christ set out upon their mission, traveling in pairs,[706] while Jesus continued His personal ministry.
Thus charged and instructed, the twelve special witnesses of Christ set out on their mission, traveling in pairs,[706] while Jesus continued His personal ministry.
THE TWELVE RETURN.
We are without definite information as to the duration of the apostles' first mission, and as to the extent of the field they traversed. The period of their absence was marked by many important developments in the individual labors of Jesus. It is probable that during this time our Lord visited Jerusalem, on the occasion mentioned by John as coincident with the unnamed feast of the Jews.[707] While the apostles were absent, Jesus was visited by the Baptist's disciples, as we have already seen[708] and the return of the Twelve occurred near the time of the infamous execution of John the Baptist in prison.[709]
We don't have clear information about how long the apostles were on their first mission or how far they traveled. During their time away, many significant events took place in Jesus's personal ministry. It's likely that during this period, our Lord went to Jerusalem for the feast mentioned by John, which is unnamed.[707] While the apostles were gone, Jesus was visited by the disciples of the Baptist, as we've already noted[708], and the return of the Twelve happened around the time of the notorious execution of John the Baptist in prison.[709]
The missionary labors of the apostles greatly augmented the spread of the new doctrine of the kingdom, and the name and works of Jesus were proclaimed throughout the land. The people of Galilee were at that time in a state of discontent threatening open insurrection against the government; their unrest had been aggravated by the murder of the Baptist. Herod Antipas, who had given the fatal order, trembled in his palace. He heard, with fear due to inward[Pg 332] conviction of guilt, of the marvelous works wrought by Jesus, and in terror averred that Christ could be none other than John Baptist returned from the tomb. His fawning courtiers essayed to allay his fears by saying that Jesus was Elijah, or some other of the prophets whose advent had been predicted; but the conscience-stricken Herod said: "It is John whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead." Herod desired to see Jesus; perhaps through the fascination of fear, or with the faint hope that sight of the renowned Prophet of Nazareth might dispel his superstitious dread that the murdered John had returned to life.
The missionary efforts of the apostles significantly increased the spread of the new teachings of the kingdom, and the name and deeds of Jesus were announced throughout the region. At that time, the people of Galilee were unhappy, on the brink of rebelling against the government; their dissatisfaction had been heightened by the murder of the Baptist. Herod Antipas, who had given the deadly command, was nervous in his palace. He listened, filled with fear from a deep sense of guilt, to the incredible works performed by Jesus, and in panic insisted that Christ could only be John the Baptist come back from the dead. His sycophantic courtiers tried to calm his fears by suggesting that Jesus was Elijah or some other prophet whose return had been foretold; but the guilty Herod replied, "It is John whom I beheaded: he has risen from the dead." Herod wanted to see Jesus, perhaps out of a mix of fear and the faint hope that meeting the famous Prophet of Nazareth might ease his superstitious fear that the murdered John had come back to life.
Upon the completion of their missionary tour, the apostles rejoined the Master and reported to Him both what they had taught and what they had done by way of authoritative ministration. They had preached the gospel of repentance in all the cities, towns, and villages to which they had gone; they had anointed with oil many afflicted ones, and the power of their priesthood had been attested by consequent healings; even unclean spirits and devils had been subject unto them.[710] They found Jesus attended by great multitudes; and they had little opportunity of private conference with Him; "for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat." The apostles must have heard in gladness the Lord's invitation: "Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest awhile." In quest of seclusion, Jesus and the Twelve withdrew from the throng, and privately entered a boat in which they crossed to a rural spot adjacent to the city of Bethsaida.[711] Their departure had not been unobserved, however, and eager crowds hastened along the shore, and partly around the northerly end of the lake, to join the party at the landing place. From John's account we are led to infer that, before[Pg 333] the arrival of great numbers, Jesus and His companions had ascended the hillside near the shore, where, for a short time they had rested. As the multitude gathered on the lower slopes, our Lord looked upon them as upon sheep without a shepherd; and, yielding to their desire and to His own emotions of divine pity, He taught them many things, healed their afflicted ones, and comforted their hearts with compassionate tenderness.
After finishing their missionary tour, the apostles rejoined the Master and shared with Him what they had taught and what they had accomplished through their authoritative ministry. They preached the gospel of repentance in all the cities, towns, and villages they visited; they anointed many suffering individuals with oil, and the power of their priesthood was confirmed by the healings that followed; even unclean spirits and demons were subject to them.[710] They found Jesus surrounded by large crowds; they had little chance for private conversation with Him, "for there were many coming and going, and they had no time even to eat." The apostles must have felt joy at the Lord's invitation: "Come ye yourselves apart into a deserted place, and rest for a while." Seeking some peace, Jesus and the Twelve left the crowd and privately got into a boat to cross to a rural area near the city of Bethsaida.[711] However, their departure did not go unnoticed, and eager crowds hurried along the shore, partly around the north end of the lake, to catch up with the group at the landing spot. From John's account, we infer that, before the large crowds arrived, Jesus and His companions went up the hillside near the shore, where they rested for a short time. As the multitude gathered on the lower slopes, our Lord looked at them like sheep without a shepherd; and responding to their needs and His own feelings of divine compassion, He taught them many things, healed their sick, and comforted their hearts with kindness.
FIVE THOUSAND FED IN THE DESERT.[712]
So intent were the people on hearing the Lord's words, and so concerned in the miraculous relief resulting from His healing ministrations, that they remained in the wilderness, oblivious to the passing of the hours, until the evening approached. It was the springtime, near the recurrence of the annual Passover festival, the season of grass and flowers.[713] Jesus, realizing that the people were hungry, asked Philip, one of the Twelve, "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" The purpose of the question was to test the apostle's faith; for the Lord had already determined as to what was to be done. Philip's reply showed surprize at the question, and conveyed his thought that the suggested undertaking was impossible. "Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little," said he. Andrew added that there was a lad present who had five barley loaves, and two small fishes, "But," said he, "what are they among so many?"
So focused were the people on listening to the Lord's words, and so concerned about the miraculous healing they experienced, that they stayed in the wilderness, unaware of how much time had passed, until evening began to fall. It was springtime, close to the annual Passover festival, the season of grass and flowers.[713] Jesus, realizing that the people were hungry, asked Philip, one of the Twelve, "Where can we buy bread for these people to eat?" The purpose of the question was to test the apostle's faith; for the Lord already knew what He was going to do. Philip's response showed surprise at the question and conveyed his belief that the task was impossible. "Two hundred denarii worth of bread isn't enough for them, so that everyone may have a little," he said. Andrew added that there was a boy there with five barley loaves and two small fish, but he said, "But what are they among so many?"
Such is John's account; the other writers state that the apostles reminded Jesus of the lateness of the hour, and urged that He send the people away to seek for themselves food and lodging in the nearest towns. It appears most probable that the conversation between Jesus and Philip occurred earlier in the afternoon;[714] and that as the hours sped,[Pg 334] the Twelve became concerned and advized that the multitude be dismissed. The Master's reply to the apostles was: "They need not depart; give ye them to eat." In amazed wonder they replied: "We have here but five loaves and two fishes;" and Andrew's despairing comment is implied again—What are they among so many?
This is John's version; the other writers mention that the apostles reminded Jesus it was getting late and suggested He send the people away to find food and lodging in nearby towns. It seems likely that the conversation between Jesus and Philip took place earlier in the afternoon;[714] and as time went on,[Pg 334] the Twelve became concerned and advised that the crowd be dismissed. Jesus responded to the apostles: "They don’t need to go away; you give them something to eat." In astonishment, they replied: "We only have five loaves and two fish," and Andrew's desperate remark is again implied—What good is that for such a large crowd?
Jesus gave command, and the people seated themselves on the grass in orderly array; they were grouped in fifties and hundreds; and it was found that the multitude numbered about five thousand men, beside women and children. Taking the loaves and the fishes, Jesus looked toward heaven and pronounced a blessing upon the food; then, dividing the provisions, He gave to the apostles severally, and they in turn distributed to the multitude. The substance of both fish and bread increased under the Master's touch; and the multitude feasted there in the desert, until all were satisfied. To the disciples Jesus said: "Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost;" and twelve baskets were filled with the surplus.
Jesus commanded the people to sit down on the grass in an organized way; they were grouped in fifties and hundreds. It turned out that the crowd numbered about five thousand men, not counting women and children. Taking the loaves and fish, Jesus looked up to heaven and blessed the food; then, He divided the provisions and gave them to the apostles, who in turn passed them out to the crowd. The fish and bread multiplied under His touch, and everyone feasted there in the wilderness until they were all satisfied. Jesus told the disciples, "Gather up the leftovers so that nothing is wasted," and they filled twelve baskets with the surplus.
As to the miracle itself, human knowledge is powerless to explain. Though wrought on so great a scale, it is no more nor less inexplicable than any other of the Lord's miraculous works. It was a manifestation of creative power, by which material elements were organized and compounded to serve a present and pressing need. The broken but unused portion exceeded in bulk and weight the whole of the original little store. Our Lord's direction to gather up the fragments was an impressive object-lesson against waste; and it may have been to afford such lesson that an excess was supplied. The fare was simple, yet nourishing, wholesome and satisfying. Barley bread and fish constituted the usual food of the poorer classes of the region. The conversion of water into wine at Cana was a qualitative transmutation; the feeding of the multitude involved a quantitative[Pg 335] increase; who can say that one, or which, of these miracles of provision was the more wonderful?
As for the miracle itself, human understanding can't explain it. Even though it happened on such a large scale, it's just as mysterious as any of the Lord's other miraculous actions. It was a display of creative power, where physical elements were arranged and combined to meet an immediate need. The leftover portion was larger in size and weight than the original small supply. Our Lord's instruction to collect the scraps served as a powerful lesson against waste; perhaps an excess was provided specifically to teach this lesson. The food was simple but nourishing, healthy, and satisfying. Barley bread and fish were the typical fare for the poorer classes in the area. The transformation of water into wine at Cana was a change in quality; the feeding of the multitude involved a quantitative increase. Who can say which of these provisions was more miraculous?
The multitude, now fed and filled, gave some consideration to the miracle. In Jesus, by whom so great a work had been wrought, they recognized One having superhuman powers. "This is of a truth the prophet that should come into the world," said they—the Prophet whose coming had been foretold by Moses and who should be like unto himself. Even as Israel had been miraculously fed during the time of Moses, so now was bread provided in the desert by this new Prophet. In their enthusiasm the people proposed to proclaim Him king, and forcibly compel Him to become their leader. Such was their gross conception of Messianic supremacy. Jesus directed His disciples to depart by boat, while He remained to dismiss the now excited multitude. The disciples hesitated to leave their Master; but He constrained them and they obeyed. His insistence, that the Twelve depart from both Himself and the multitude, may have been due to a desire to protect the chosen disciples against possible infection by the materialistic and unrighteous designs of the throng to make Him king. By means that are not detailed, He caused the people to disperse; and, as night came on, He found that for which He had come in quest, solitude and quiet. Ascending the hill, He chose a secluded place, and there remained in prayer during the greater part of the night.
The crowd, now satisfied and full, reflected on the miracle. In Jesus, who had performed such an amazing act, they recognized someone with extraordinary powers. "This is truly the prophet who is supposed to come into the world," they said—the Prophet that Moses had predicted who would be like him. Just as Israel had been miraculously fed during Moses' time, so too was bread provided in the desert by this new Prophet. Excited by this, the people wanted to declare Him king and force Him to become their leader. Such was their naive view of Messianic authority. Jesus told His disciples to leave by boat while He stayed behind to send away the now thrilled crowd. The disciples hesitated to leave Him, but He urged them to go, and they complied. His insistence that the Twelve separate from both Him and the crowd may have been to protect them from being influenced by the materialistic and unrighteous intentions of the crowd wanting to make Him king. In a way that isn’t explained, He caused the people to disperse; and as night fell, He found what He had been seeking: solitude and peace. He climbed the hill, chose a quiet place, and spent most of the night in prayer.
"IT IS I; BE NOT AFRAID."[715]
The return by boat proved to be a memorable journey for the disciples. They encountered a boisterous head-wind, which of course rendered impossible the use of sails; and though they toiled heavily at the oars the vessel became practically unmanageable and wallowed in the midst of the[Pg 336] sea.[716] Though they had labored through the night they had progressed less than four miles on their course; to turn and run before the wind would have been to invite disastrous wreck; their sole hope lay in their holding the vessel to the wind by sheer power of muscle. Jesus, in His place of solitary retirement, was aware of their sad plight, and along in the fourth watch,[717] that is, between three and six o'clock in the morning, He came to their assistance, walking upon the storm-tossed water as though treading solid ground. When the voyagers caught sight of Him as He approached the ship in the faint light of the near-spent night, they were overcome by superstitious fears, and cried out in terror, thinking that they saw a ghostly apparition. "But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid."
The boat ride back turned out to be quite a memorable trip for the disciples. They faced a strong headwind, which made it impossible to use the sails. Even though they worked hard at the oars, the boat became nearly impossible to handle and swayed in the middle of the[Pg 336] sea.[716] Despite rowing all night, they had made less than four miles in their journey; turning to run with the wind would have led to disaster, and their only hope was to keep the boat facing into the wind using sheer muscle power. Jesus, in His place of solitary retreat, knew about their difficult situation, and in the fourth watch,[717] between three and six in the morning, He came to help them, walking on the stormy water as if it were solid ground. When the disciples caught sight of Him approaching the boat in the dim light of the early morning, they were filled with superstitious fear and cried out in terror, thinking they saw a ghost. "But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, 'Take courage; it is I; don't be afraid.'"
Relieved by these assuring words, Peter, impetuous and impulsive as usual, cried out: "Lord, if[718] it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water." Jesus assenting, Peter descended from the ship and walked toward his Master; but as the wind smote him and the waves rose about him, his confidence wavered and he began to sink. Strong swimmer though he was,[719] he gave way to fright, and cried, "Lord, save me." Jesus caught him by the hand, saying: "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"
Relieved by these comforting words, Peter, as impulsive as ever, shouted, "Lord, if it’s really you, tell me to come to you on the water." Jesus agreed, and Peter got out of the boat and walked toward his Master. But when the wind hit him and the waves rose around him, his confidence faltered and he started to sink. Even though he was a strong swimmer, he panicked and yelled, "Lord, save me." Jesus grabbed his hand and said, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"
From Peter's remarkable experience, we learn that the power by which Christ was able to walk the waves could be made operative in others, provided only their faith was enduring. It was on Peter's own request that he was permitted to attempt the feat. Had Jesus forbidden him, the man's faith might have suffered a check; his attempt, though attended by partial failure, was a demonstration of the efficacy of faith in the Lord, such as no verbal teaching could[Pg 337] ever have conveyed. Jesus and Peter entered the vessel; immediately the wind ceased, and the boat soon reached the shore. The amazement of the apostles, at this latest manifestation of the Lord's control over the forces of nature, would have been more akin to worship and less like terrified consternation had they remembered the earlier wonders they had witnessed; but they had forgotten even the miracle of the loaves, and their hearts had hardened.[720] Marveling at the power of One to whom the wind-lashed sea was a sustaining floor, the apostles bowed before the Lord in reverent worship, saying: "Of a truth thou art the Son of God."[721]
From Peter's amazing experience, we learn that the power that allowed Christ to walk on water could also be activated in others, as long as their faith remained strong. It was at Peter's own request that he was allowed to try this feat. If Jesus had stopped him, Peter's faith might have been weakened; his attempt, even though it faced some failure, showed how powerful faith in the Lord can be, more than any verbal teaching could ever express. Jesus and Peter got into the boat; immediately the wind died down, and the boat soon reached the shore. The apostles' amazement at this latest display of the Lord's control over nature would have felt more like worship and less like fear if they had remembered the earlier miracles they had seen; but they had forgotten even the miracle of the loaves, and their hearts had become hardened. Marveling at the power of One who could treat the stormy sea as solid ground, the apostles bowed before the Lord in respectful worship, saying: "Truly, you are the Son of God."
Aside from the marvelous circumstances of its literal occurrence, the miracle is rich in symbolism and suggestion. By what law or principle the effect of gravitation was superseded, so that a human body could be supported upon the watery surface, man is unable to affirm. The phenomenon is a concrete demonstration of the great truth that faith is a principle of power, whereby natural forces may be conditioned and controlled.[722] Into every adult human life come experiences like unto the battling of the storm-tossed voyagers with contrary winds and threatening seas; ofttimes the night of struggle and danger is far advanced before succor appears; and then, too frequently the saving aid is mistaken for a greater terror. As came unto Peter and his terrified companions in the midst of the turbulent waters, so comes to all who toil in faith, the voice of the Deliverer—"It is I; be not afraid."
Aside from the amazing circumstances of its literal occurrence, the miracle is full of symbolism and meaning. No one can say what law or principle allowed the effects of gravity to be overridden so that a human body could float on the water's surface. This phenomenon is a clear demonstration of the profound truth that faith is a source of power, allowing natural forces to be influenced and managed.[722] Everyone experiences times in adulthood that are like the struggles of storm-tossed sailors battling against strong winds and dangerous seas; often, the night of struggle and peril is well advanced before help arrives, and too often, the help is mistaken for an even greater threat. Just as Peter and his frightened companions heard the voice of the Deliverer amid the chaotic waters, so too does the voice of reassurance come to all who work in faith—"It is I; do not be afraid."
IN THE LAND OF GENNESARET.
The night voyage, in the course of which Jesus had reached the boat with its frightened occupants while "in the midst of the sea," ended at some point within the district[Pg 338] known as the land of Gennesaret, which, as generally believed, embraced the rich and fertile region in the vicinity of Tiberias and Magdala. Of the natural beauties, for which the region was famed much has been written.[723] Word of our Lord's presence there spread rapidly, and, from "all that country round about" the people flocked to Him, bringing their afflicted to receive of His beneficence by word or touch. In the towns through which He walked, the sick were laid in the streets that the blessing of His passing might fall upon them; and many "besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment; and as many as touched him were made whole."[724] Bounteously did He impart of His healing virtue to all who came asking with faith and confidence. Thus, accompanied by the Twelve, He wended His way northward to Capernaum, making the pathway bright by the plentitude of His mercies.
The night journey, during which Jesus joined the terrified people on the boat while "in the middle of the sea," ended somewhere in the area known as the land of Gennesaret, which is widely believed to include the rich and fertile land near Tiberias and Magdala. Much has been said about the natural beauty for which this region was famous.[723] News of our Lord's presence there quickly spread, and people came from "all the surrounding areas," bringing their sick loved ones to receive His kindness through His words or touch. In the towns He passed through, the sick were laid in the streets in hopes that they might be blessed by His presence; many "begged Him to let them touch even the hem of His garment, and everyone who touched Him was healed."[724] Generously, He shared His healing power with everyone who approached Him with faith and trust. Thus, accompanied by the Twelve, He traveled northward to Capernaum, brightening the way with His abundant mercies.
IN SEARCH OF LOAVES AND FISHES.[725]
The multitude who, on the yesterday, had partaken of His bounty on the other side of the lake, and who dispersed for the night after their ineffectual attempt to force upon Him the dignity of earthly kingship, were greatly surprized in the morning to discover that He had departed. They had seen the disciples leave in the only boat there present, while Jesus had remained on shore; and they knew that the night tempest had precluded the possibility of other boats reaching the place. Nevertheless their morning search for Him was futile; and they concluded that He must have returned by land round the end of the lake. As the day advanced some boats were sighted, bound for the western coast; these they hailed, and, securing passage, crossed to Capernaum.[Pg 339]
The crowd that had enjoyed His generosity the day before on the other side of the lake, and had dispersed for the night after their unsuccessful attempt to pressure Him into accepting an earthly kingship, were greatly surprised in the morning to find that He had left. They had seen the disciples take the only boat available while Jesus had stayed on shore; and they knew that the nighttime storm made it impossible for other boats to reach the area. Still, their morning search for Him was in vain; they concluded that He must have returned by land around the end of the lake. As the day went on, they spotted some boats heading for the western coast; they called out to them and secured passage to Capernaum.[Pg 339]
Their difficulty in locating Jesus was at an end, for His presence was known throughout the town. Coming to Him, probably as He sat in the synagog, for on this day He taught there, some of the most intrusive of the crowd asked, brusquely and almost rudely, "Rabbi, when camest thou hither?" To this impertinent inquiry Jesus deigned no direct reply; in the miracle of the preceding night the people had no part, and no account of our Lord's movements was given them. In tone of impressive rebuke Jesus said unto them: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." Their concern was for the bread and fishes. One who could supply them with victuals as He had done must not be lost sight of.
Their search for Jesus was over, as everyone in town knew where He was. They approached Him, likely while He was sitting in the synagogue where He was teaching that day. Some of the more intrusive members of the crowd asked bluntly, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" Jesus chose not to answer their rude question directly; the crowd had no part in the miracle from the previous night, and they weren't informed about His movements. With a tone of serious rebuke, Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell you, you seek me not because you witnessed the miracles, but because you had the loaves and were satisfied." Their real interest was in the bread and fish. Someone who could provide food like that shouldn't be overlooked.
The Master's rebuke was followed by admonition and instruction: "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." This contrast between material and spiritual food they could not entirely fail to understand, and some of them asked what they should do to serve God as Jesus required. The answer was: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." That Jesus was referring to Himself, none could doubt; and straightway they demanded of Him further evidence of His divine commission; they would see greater signs. The miracle of the loaves and fishes was nearly a day old; and its impressiveness as evidence of Messianic attributes was waning. Moses had fed their fathers with manna in the desert, they said; and plainly they regarded a continued daily supply as a greater gift than a single meal of bread and fish, however much the latter may have been appreciated in the exigency of hunger. Moreover, the manna was heavenly food;[726] whereas the bread He had given them was of earth, and only common barley bread[Pg 340] at that. He must show them greater signs, and give them richer provender, before they would accept Him as the One whom they at first had taken Him to be and whom He now declared Himself to be.
The Master's criticism was followed by advice and guidance: "Don't work for food that spoils, but for food that lasts for eternity, which the Son of Man will give you; God the Father has approved Him." They couldn't miss the difference between physical and spiritual nourishment, and some of them asked what they needed to do to serve God as Jesus asked. The answer was: "This is God's work, that you believe in the one He has sent." It was clear that Jesus was talking about Himself, and immediately they asked Him for more proof of His divine authority; they wanted to see greater signs. The miracle of the loaves and fishes was nearly a day old, and its impact as evidence of His Messianic qualities was fading. They mentioned how Moses had fed their ancestors with manna in the desert, implying that a daily supply was a better gift than a single meal of bread and fish, no matter how much they appreciated it when they were hungry. Also, the manna was heavenly food, whereas the bread He provided was earthly and just common barley bread. He needed to show them greater signs and provide them with more substantial food before they would accept Him as the One they initially thought He was and whom He now claimed to be.
CHRIST, THE BREAD OF LIFE.[727]
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." They were mistaken in assuming that Moses had given them manna; and after all, the manna had been but ordinary food in that those who ate of it hungered again; but now the Father offered them bread from heaven such as would insure them life.
"Then Jesus said to them, "Truly, I tell you, Moses didn’t give you that bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." They were wrong to think that Moses provided them with manna; after all, the manna was just regular food since those who ate it still got hungry again. But now the Father was offering them bread from heaven that would guarantee them eternal life."
As the Samaritan woman at the well, on hearing the Lord speak of water that would satisfy once for all, had begged impulsively and with thought only of physical convenience, "Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw,"[728] so these people, eager to secure so satisfying a food as that of which Jesus spake, implored: "Lord, evermore give us this bread." Perhaps this request was not wholly gross; there may have been in the hearts of some of them at least a genuine desire for spiritual nourishment. Jesus met their appeal with an explanation: "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." He reminded them that though they had seen Him they believed not His words; and assured them that those who really accepted Him would do as the Father directed. Then, without metaphor or symbolism, He affirmed: "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." And the Father's will was that all who would accept the Son should have everlasting life.
As the Samaritan woman at the well heard the Lord talk about water that would satisfy her permanently, she impulsively asked, thinking only of her physical needs, "Sir, give me this water, so I won’t thirst anymore or have to come here to draw it,"[728] similarly, these people, eager to obtain the fulfilling food Jesus mentioned, pleaded, "Lord, give us this bread forever." Perhaps this request wasn't entirely shallow; some of them might have genuinely wanted spiritual nourishment. Jesus responded to their appeal with an explanation: "I am the bread of life: whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." He reminded them that even though they had seen Him, they didn't believe His words; and assured them that those who truly accepted Him would follow what the Father commanded. Then, without using metaphors or symbols, He stated clearly: "I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me." And the Father’s will was that everyone who accepts the Son should have eternal life.
There were present in the synagog some of the rulers—Pharisees, scribes, rabbis—and these, designated collectively as the Jews, criticized Jesus, and murmured against Him because He had said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." They averred that He could do nothing more than any man could do; He was known to them as the son of Joseph, and as far as they knew was of ordinary earthly parentage, and yet He had the temerity to declare that He had come down from heaven. Chiefly to this class rather than to the promiscuous crowd who had hastened after Him, Jesus appears to have addressed the remainder of His discourse. He advized them to cease their murmurings; for it was a certainty that they could not apprehend His meaning, and therefore would not believe Him, unless they had been "taught of God" as the prophets had written;[729] and none could come to Him in the sense of accepting His saving gospel unless the Father drew them to the Son; and none save those who were receptive, willing, and prepared, could be so drawn.[730] Yet belief in the Son of God is an indispensable condition to salvation, as Jesus indicated in His affirmation: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
In the synagogue, there were some of the leaders—Pharisees, scribes, and rabbis—who collectively referred to as the Jews, criticized Jesus and complained about Him because He had said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They insisted that He could do nothing more than any other person could; they knew Him as the son of Joseph, and as far as they were concerned, He had ordinary earthly parents, yet He had the nerve to claim that He came down from heaven. It seems that Jesus primarily addressed his remaining comments to this group rather than to the mixed crowd that had rushed after Him. He urged them to stop their complaints; it was clear that they couldn't understand Him and therefore wouldn't believe Him unless they had been "taught by God," as the prophets had written; and no one could come to Him in terms of accepting His saving message unless the Father drew them to the Son; and only those who were open, willing, and prepared could be drawn. Yet faith in the Son of God is an essential requirement for salvation, as Jesus stated in His declaration: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me has eternal life."
Then, reverting to the symbolism of the bread, He reiterated: "I am the bread of life." In further elucidation He explained that while their fathers did truly eat manna in the wilderness, yet they were dead; whereas the bread of life of which He spake would insure eternal life unto all who partook thereof. That bread, He averred, was His flesh. Against this solemn avowal the Jews complained anew, and disputed among themselves, some asking derisively: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat." Emphasizing the doctrine, Jesus continued: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,[Pg 342] ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever."
Then, going back to the symbolism of the bread, He repeated: "I am the bread of life." To clarify further, He explained that while their ancestors really did eat manna in the wilderness, they still died; however, the bread of life He was talking about would guarantee eternal life to everyone who consumed it. He stated that this bread was His flesh. In response to this serious declaration, the Jews complained again and argued among themselves, with some mockingly asking: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Emphasizing His point, Jesus continued: "Truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,[Pg 342] you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; not like the manna your ancestors ate and died. Whoever eats this bread will live forever."
There was little excuse for the Jews pretending to understand that our Lord meant an actual eating and drinking of His material flesh and blood. The utterances to which they objected were far more readily understood by them than they are by us on first reading; for the representation of the law and of truth in general as bread, and the acceptance thereof as a process of eating and drinking, were figures in every-day use by the rabbis of that time.[731] Their failure to comprehend the symbolism of Christ's doctrine was an act of will, not the natural consequence of innocent ignorance. To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ was and is to believe in and accept Him as the literal Son of God and Savior of the world, and to obey His commandments. By these means only may the Spirit of God become an abiding part of man's individual being, even as the substance of the food he eats is assimilated with the tissues of his body.
There was little reason for the Jews to pretend they didn’t understand that our Lord meant a real eating and drinking of His physical flesh and blood. The statements they objected to were much clearer to them than they are to us when we first read them; the idea of the law and truth being compared to bread, and the acceptance of that as a sort of eating and drinking, were common expressions used by the rabbis of that time.[731] Their inability to grasp the symbolism of Christ's message was a matter of choice, not just a result of innocent ignorance. To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ was and is to believe in and accept Him as the true Son of God and Savior of the world, and to follow His commandments. Only through these means can the Spirit of God become an integral part of a person's being, just as the substance of the food he eats is absorbed into the tissues of his body.
It is not sufficing to accept the precepts of Christ as we may adopt the doctrines of scientists, philosophers, and savants, however great the wisdom of these sages may be; for such acceptance is by mental assent or deliberate exercize of will, and has relation to the doctrine only as independent of the author. The teachings of Jesus Christ endure because of their intrinsic worth; and many men respect His aphorisms, proverbs, parables, and His profoundly philosophical precepts, who yet reject Him as the Son of[Pg 343] God, the Only Begotten in the flesh, the God-Man in whom were united the attributes of Deity with those of humanity, the chosen and foreordained Redeemer of mankind, through whom alone may salvation be attained. But the figure used by Jesus—that of eating His flesh and drinking His blood as typical of unqualified and absolute acceptance of Himself as the Savior of men, is of superlative import; for thereby are affirmed the divinity of His Person, and the fact of His pre-existent and eternal Godship. The sacrament of the Lord's supper, established by the Savior on the night of His betrayal, perpetuates the symbolism of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, by the partaking of bread and wine in remembrance of Him.[732] Acceptance of Jesus as the Christ implies obedience to the laws and ordinances of His gospel; for to profess the One and refuse the other is but to convict ourselves of inconsistency, insincerity, and hypocrisy.
It’s not enough to simply accept the teachings of Christ as we might embrace the theories of scientists, philosophers, and experts, no matter how wise they may be; this kind of acceptance is just a mental agreement or a conscious choice, relating to the ideas themselves rather than the person behind them. The teachings of Jesus Christ endure because they have inherent value; many people admire His sayings, proverbs, parables, and deep philosophical principles while still rejecting Him as the Son of God, the Only Begotten in the flesh, the God-Man who unites divine and human attributes, the chosen and destined Redeemer of humanity, through whom salvation can only be achieved. However, the image Jesus used—of eating His flesh and drinking His blood to symbolize complete and total acceptance of Him as the Savior of mankind—is extremely significant; it affirms both His divine identity and the reality of His pre-existent and eternal Godhood. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper, established by the Savior on the night of His betrayal, continues this symbolism of consuming His flesh and blood through the sharing of bread and wine in remembrance of Him.[732] Accepting Jesus as the Christ means adhering to the laws and ordinances of His gospel; to claim one while rejecting the other only exposes our own inconsistencies, insincerities, and hypocrisy.
A CRUCIAL TEST—MANY TURN AWAY.[733]
The truth respecting Himself, as taught by the Lord in this, His last, discourse in the synagog at Capernaum, proved to be a test of faith through which many fell away. Not alone critical Jews of the official class, whose hostility was openly avowed, but those who had professed some measure of belief in Him were affected. "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" Jesus, cognizant of their disaffection, asked: "Doth this offend you?" and added: "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" His ascension, which was to follow His death and resurrection, is here definitely implied. The spiritual significance of His teachings was put beyond question by the explanation that only through the Spirit could they comprehend;[Pg 344] "Therefore," He added, "said I unto you, that no man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father."
The truth about Himself, as taught by the Lord in His final speech at the synagogue in Capernaum, became a test of faith that caused many to turn away. It wasn't just the openly hostile official Jews, but also those who had shown some level of belief in Him who were impacted. "Many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, 'This is a hard teaching; who can accept it?'" Jesus, aware of their discontent, asked, "Does this offend you?" and added, "What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?" His ascension, which would follow His death and resurrection, is clearly hinted at here. The spiritual significance of His teachings was made clear when He explained that they could only understand through the Spirit;[Pg 344] "Therefore," He continued, "I said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him by my Father."
Many deserted Him, and from that time sought Him no more. The occasion was crucial; the effect was that of sifting and separation. The portentous prediction of the Baptist-prophet had entered upon the stage of fulfilment: "One mightier than I cometh ... Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."[734] The fan was in operation, and much chaff was blown aside.
Many abandoned Him, and from that moment, they stopped looking for Him. The situation was critical; the result was a sorting and dividing. The dramatic prediction of the Baptist-prophet was beginning to come true: "Someone more powerful than I is coming... His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will clean out His threshing floor and gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."[734] The winnowing fork was in action, and a lot of chaff was blown away.
It appears that even the Twelve were unable to comprehend the deeper meaning of these latest teachings; they were puzzled, though none actually deserted. Nevertheless, the state of mind of some was such as to evoke from Jesus the question: "Will ye also go away?" Peter, speaking for himself and his brethren, answered with pathos and conviction: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."[735] The spirit of the Holy Apostleship was manifest in this confession. Though they were unable to comprehend in fulness the doctrine, they knew Jesus to be the Christ, and were faithful to Him while others turned away into the dark depths of apostasy.
It seems that even the Twelve couldn't grasp the deeper meaning of these recent teachings; they were confused, but no one actually left. Still, some were in such a state of mind that it led Jesus to ask, "Are you going to leave too?" Peter, speaking for himself and the others, replied with emotion and certainty: "Lord, where would we go? You have the words of eternal life."[735] The spirit of the Holy Apostleship was evident in this response. Even though they couldn't fully understand the doctrine, they recognized Jesus as the Christ and remained loyal to Him while others turned away into the shadows of disbelief.
While Peter spoke for the apostolic body as a whole, there was among them one who silently revolted; the treacherous Iscariot, who was in worse plight than an openly avowed apostate, was there. The Lord knew this man's heart, and said: "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" The historian adds: "He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve."[Pg 345]
While Peter spoke for all the apostles, there was one among them who secretly rebelled; the deceitful Iscariot, who was in a worse situation than someone who openly left, was present. The Lord knew this man's heart and said, "Did I not choose you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" The historian adds, "He was talking about Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for he was the one who would betray him, being one of the twelve."[Pg 345]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 21.
1. Jesus at Nazareth.—As no one of the Gospel-writers records two occasions of our Lord's ministry in Nazareth, and as the separate accounts appearing in the synoptic Gospels closely resemble one another in a few particulars, some commentators hold that our Lord preached to His townsmen in Nazareth and was rejected by them but once. Luke's account (4:14-30) refers to an occasion immediately following the first return of Jesus to Galilee after His baptism and temptations, and directly preceding the preliminary call of the fishermen-disciples, who afterward were numbered among the apostles. Matthew (13:53-58) and Mark (6:1-6) chronicle a visit of Jesus to Nazareth later than the occasion of the first teaching in parables, and the events immediately following the same. We have good reason for accepting Luke's record as that of an early incident, and the accounts given by Matthew and Mark as those of a later visit.
1. Jesus in Nazareth.—Since none of the Gospel writers mention two instances of Jesus' ministry in Nazareth, and because the separate accounts in the synoptic Gospels are quite similar in some details, some commentators believe that Jesus preached to His hometown in Nazareth and was rejected by them just once. Luke's account (4:14-30) talks about an event that occurred right after Jesus returned to Galilee following His baptism and temptations, and just before He called the fishermen-disciples, who later became apostles. Matthew (13:53-58) and Mark (6:1-6) describe a visit of Jesus to Nazareth that happened after the initial teaching in parables and the events that followed. We have good reason to accept Luke's account as an early incident, while the accounts from Matthew and Mark reflect a later visit.
2. Gentiles.—In a general way the Jews designated all other peoples as Gentiles; though the same Hebrew word is rendered in the Old Testament variously, as "Gentiles" (Gen. 10:5; Judg. 4:2, 13, 16; Isa. 11:10; etc.), "nations" (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31, 32; 14:1, 9; etc.), and "heathen" (Neh. 5:8; Psa. 2:1, 8, etc.), the essential element of designation being that of foreigners. In Smith's Dict. of the Bible, we read "It [the name 'Gentiles'] acquired an ethnographic and also an invidious meaning, as other nations were idolatrous, rude, hostile, etc., yet the Jews were able to use it in a purely technical, geographical sense, when it was usually translated 'nations.'" Dr. Edward E. Nourse, writing for the Standard Bible Dictionary, says: "In New Testament times, the Jew divided mankind into three classes, (1) Jews, (2) Greeks (Hellenes, made to include Romans, thus meaning the civilized peoples of the Roman Empire, often rendered 'Gentiles' in Authorized Version), and (3) barbarians (the uncivilized, Acts 28:4; Rom. 1:14; 1 Cor. 14:11)." The injunction laid by Jesus upon the Twelve—"Go not into the way of the Gentiles"—was to restrain them for the time being from attempting to make converts among the Romans and Greeks, and to confine their ministry to the people of Israel.
2. Gentiles.—In general, Jews referred to all other peoples as Gentiles. The same Hebrew word is translated in various ways in the Old Testament, such as "Gentiles" (Gen. 10:5; Judg. 4:2, 13, 16; Isa. 11:10; etc.), "nations" (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31, 32; 14:1, 9; etc.), and "heathen" (Neh. 5:8; Psa. 2:1, 8, etc.), with the main idea being that of foreigners. In Smith's Dict. of the Bible, it states, "The name 'Gentiles' acquired an ethnographic and also a negative meaning, as other nations were seen as idolatrous, uncivilized, hostile, etc., yet the Jews could use it in a purely technical, geographical sense, where it was usually translated 'nations.'" Dr. Edward E. Nourse, writing for the Standard Bible Dictionary, mentions: "In New Testament times, Jews classified humanity into three groups: (1) Jews, (2) Greeks (Hellenes, which included Romans, thus meaning the civilized peoples of the Roman Empire and often translated as 'Gentiles' in the Authorized Version), and (3) barbarians (the uncivilized, Acts 28:4; Rom. 1:14; 1 Cor. 14:11)." The directive Jesus gave to the Twelve—"Do not go down the path of the Gentiles"—was meant to keep them from trying to convert Romans and Greeks at that time and to focus their ministry on the people of Israel.
3. Shaking the Dust from the Feet.—To ceremonially shake the dust from one's feet as a testimony against another was understood by the Jews to symbolize a cessation of fellowship and a renunciation of all responsibility for consequences that might follow. It became an ordinance of accusation and testimony by the Lord's instructions to His apostles as cited in the text. In the current dispensation, the Lord has similarly directed His authorized servants to so testify against those who wilfully and maliciously oppose the truth when authoritatively presented (see Doc. and Cov. 24:15; 60:15; 75:20; 84:92; 99:4). The responsibility of testifying before the Lord by this accusing symbol[Pg 346] is so great that the means may be employed only under unusual and extreme conditions, as the Spirit of the Lord may direct.
3. Shaking the Dust from the Feet.—Ceremonially shaking the dust off one’s feet as a way to testify against someone was understood by the Jews to mean that the fellowship has ended and that they renounce any responsibility for the consequences that might follow. It became a formal act of accusation and testimony as instructed by the Lord to His apostles as noted in the text. In today's context, the Lord has similarly directed His authorized servants to testify against those who intentionally and maliciously oppose the truth when it is presented authoritatively (see Doc. and Cov. 24:15; 60:15; 75:20; 84:92; 99:4). The responsibility of testifying before the Lord in this way is so serious that it should only be done under rare and extreme circumstances, as guided by the Spirit of the Lord. [Pg 346]
4. The Two Bethsaidas.—It is held by many Bible students that Bethsaida, in the desert region adjoining which Jesus and the Twelve sought rest and seclusion, was the town of that name in Perea, on the eastern side of the Jordan, and known more specifically as Bethsaida Julias to distinguish it from Bethsaida in Galilee, which latter was close to Capernaum. The Perean village of Bethsaida had been enlarged and raised to the rank of a town by the tetrarch, Philip, and by him had been named Julias in honor of Julia, daughter of the reigning emperor. The Gospel narratives of the voyage by which Jesus and His companions reached the place, and of the return therefrom, are conformable to the assumption that Bethsaida Julias in Perea and not Bethsaida in Galilee, was the town to which the "desert place" referred to was an outlying district.
4. The Two Bethsaidas.—Many Bible scholars believe that Bethsaida, the desert area where Jesus and the Twelve went to find rest and privacy, was the town of that name in Perea, on the eastern side of the Jordan, specifically known as Bethsaida Julias to differentiate it from Bethsaida in Galilee, which was near Capernaum. The village of Bethsaida in Perea had been expanded and upgraded to town status by the tetrarch, Philip, who named it Julias in honor of Julia, the daughter of the reigning emperor. The Gospel accounts of the journey Jesus and His companions took to reach this location and their return support the view that the "desert place" mentioned refers to Bethsaida Julias in Perea and not the Bethsaida in Galilee.
5. The Earlier and the Later Evening.—Matthew specifies two evenings of the day on which the five thousand were fed; thus "when it was evening" the disciples asked Jesus to send away the multitude; and later, after the miraculous feeding and after the disciples had left by boat, and after the crowds had departed, "when the evening was come" Jesus was alone on the mountain (Matt. 14:15, 23; compare Mark 6:35, 47). Trench Notes on the Miracles, (p. 217) says: "St. Matthew and St. Mark with him, makes two evenings to this day—one which had already commenced before the preparations for the feeding of the multitude had begun (verse 15), the other now, when the disciples had entered into the ship and set forth on their voyage (verse 23). And this was an ordinary way of speaking among the Jews, the first evening being very much our afternoon ... the second evening being the twilight, or from six o'clock to twilight, on which absolute darkness followed." See Smith's Dict., article "Chronology," from which the following excerpt is taken: "'Between the two evenings' (margin of Exo. 12:6; Numb. 9:3; 28:4) is a natural division between the late afternoon when the sun is low, and the evening when his light has not wholly disappeared, the two evenings into which the natural evening would be cut by the commencement of the civil day if it began at sunset."
5. The Earlier and the Later Evening.—Matthew highlights two evenings on the day when the five thousand were fed; first, "when it was evening," the disciples asked Jesus to send the crowd away; and later, after the miraculous feeding, after the disciples had left by boat, and after the crowds had dispersed, "when the evening came," Jesus was alone on the mountain (Matt. 14:15, 23; compare Mark 6:35, 47). Trench Notes on the Miracles, (p. 217) notes: "St. Matthew and St. Mark, with him, identify two evenings on this day—one that had already started before the preparations for feeding the crowd began (verse 15), and the other when the disciples had boarded the ship and set off on their journey (verse 23). This was a common way of speaking among the Jews, with the first evening being similar to our afternoon ... the second evening being twilight, or from six o'clock until dusk, when total darkness would follow." See Smith's Dict., article "Chronology," from which the following excerpt is taken: "'Between the two evenings' (margin of Exo. 12:6; Numb. 9:3; 28:4) represents a natural division between late afternoon when the sun is low and the evening when its light hasn't completely vanished, with the two evenings being segmented by the start of the civil day if it begins at sunset."
6. Watches of the Night.—During the greater part of Old Testament time, the people of Israel divided the night into three watches, each of four hours, such a period being that of individual sentinel duty. Before the beginning of the Christian era, however, the Jews had adopted the Roman order of four night-watches, each lasting three hours. These were designated numerically, e.g. the fourth watch mentioned in the text (see Matt. 14:25), or as even, midnight, cock-crowing, and morning (see Mark 13:35). The fourth watch was the last of the three-hour periods between sunset and sunrise, or between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and therefore extended from 3 to 6 o'clock in the morning.
6. Watches of the Night.—For most of the time covered in the Old Testament, the people of Israel divided the night into three watches, each lasting four hours, with each watch being a period for individual sentry duty. However, before the Christian era began, the Jews had adopted the Roman system of four night watches, each lasting three hours. These were referred to numerically, such as the fourth watch mentioned in the text (see Matt. 14:25), or as evening, midnight, cockcrow, and morning (see Mark 13:35). The fourth watch was the last of the three-hour periods between sunset and sunrise, specifically from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., and it lasted from 3 to 6 o'clock in the morning.
7. The Hem of the Garment.—The faith of those who believed that if they could but touch the border of the Lord's garment they would be healed, is in line with that of the woman[Pg 347] who was healed of her long-standing malady by so touching His robe (see Matt. 9:21; Mark 5:27, 28; Luke 8:44). The Jews regarded the border or hem of their outer robes as of particular importance, because of the requirement made of Israel in earlier days (Numb. 15:38, 39) that the border be fringed and supplied with a band of blue, as a reminder to them of their obligations as the covenant people. The desire to touch the hem of Christ's robe may have been associated with this thought of sanctity attaching to the hem or border.
7. The Hem of the Garment.—The faith of those who believed that if they could just touch the edge of the Lord's garment, they would be healed, aligns with that of the woman[Pg 347] who was cured of her long-term illness by touching His robe (see Matt. 9:21; Mark 5:27, 28; Luke 8:44). The Jews viewed the border or hem of their outer robes as especially significant, due to the earlier instructions given to Israel (Numb. 15:38, 39) that the border should be fringed and have a blue thread, serving as a reminder of their responsibilities as the covenant people. The wish to touch Christ's robe may have been linked to this sense of holiness associated with the hem or border.
8. Traditions Concerning Manna.—The supplying of manna to the Israelites incident to the exodus and the long travel in the wilderness, was rightly regarded as a work of surpassing wonder (Exo. 16:14-36; Numb. 11:7-9; Deut. 8:3, 16; Josh. 5:12; Psa. 78:24, 25). Many traditions, some of them perniciously erroneous, gathered about the incident, and were transmitted with invented additions from generation to generation. In the time of Christ the rabbinical teaching was that the manna on which the fathers had fed was literally the food of the angels, sent down from heaven; and that it was of diverse taste and flavor to suit all ages, conditions, or desires; to one it tasted like honey, to another as bread, etc.; but in all Gentile mouths it was bitter. Moreover it was said that the Messiah would give an unfailing supply of manna to Israel when He came amongst them. These erroneous conceptions in part explain the demand of those who had been fed on barley loaves and fishes, for a sign that would surpass the giving of manna in the olden days, as evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus.
8. Traditions About Manna.—The provision of manna to the Israelites during the exodus and their long journey in the wilderness was rightly seen as an incredible miracle (Exo. 16:14-36; Numb. 11:7-9; Deut. 8:3, 16; Josh. 5:12; Psa. 78:24, 25). Many traditions, some seriously flawed, developed around this event and were passed down with made-up additions through the generations. By the time of Christ, rabbinical teachings claimed that the manna eaten by the ancestors was literally angelic food sent down from heaven; that it had different tastes and flavors to fit all ages, situations, or desires—some found it sweet like honey, others tasted it as bread, etc.; but to all Gentiles, it was bitter. It was also said that the Messiah would provide an everlasting supply of manna to Israel when He arrived among them. These misconceptions partly explain why those who had been fed with barley loaves and fish asked for a sign that would outshine the manna of old as proof of Jesus's Messiahship.
9. Faith a Gift of God.—"Though within the reach of all who diligently strive to gain it, faith is nevertheless a divine gift, and can be obtained only from God (Matt. 16:17; John 6:44, 65; Eph. 2:8; 1 Cor. 12:9; Rom. 12:3; Moroni 10:11). As is fitting for so priceless a pearl, it is given to those only who show by their sincerity that they are worthy of it, and who give promise of abiding by its dictates. Although faith is called the first principle of the Gospel of Christ, though it be in fact the foundation of all religion, yet even faith is preceded by sincerity of disposition and humility of soul, whereby the word of God may make an impression upon the heart (Rom. 10:17). No compulsion is used in bringing men to a knowledge of God; yet, as fast as we open our hearts to the influences of righteousness, the faith that leads to life eternal will be given us of our Father."—Articles of Faith, v:16.
9. Faith is a Gift from God.—"Although it's available to everyone who actively seeks it, faith is ultimately a divine gift that can only be received from God (Matt. 16:17; John 6:44, 65; Eph. 2:8; 1 Cor. 12:9; Rom. 12:3; Moroni 10:11). As befits such a precious treasure, it is granted only to those who demonstrate their sincerity and prove they are worthy of it, and who promise to follow its guidance. Even though faith is referred to as the primary principle of the Gospel of Christ, and is indeed the foundation of all religion, it is still preceded by a sincere mindset and humility of spirit, which allows the word of God to resonate in the heart (Rom. 10:17). There is no force in leading people to understand God; however, as we open our hearts to the influences of righteousness, the faith that leads to eternal life will be bestowed upon us by our Father."—Articles of Faith, v:16.
10. Spiritual Symbolism of Eating.—"The idea of eating, as a metaphor for receiving spiritual benefit, was familiar to Christ's hearers, and was as readily understood as our expressions—'devouring a book,' or 'drinking in' instruction. In Isaiah 3:1, the words 'the whole stay of bread,' were explained by the rabbis as referring to their own teaching, and they laid it down as a rule, that wherever, in Ecclesiastes, allusion was made to food or drink, it meant study of the law, and the practise of good works. It was a saying among them—'In the time of the Messiah the Israelites will be fed by Him.' Nothing was more common in[Pg 348] the schools and synagogs than the phrases of eating and drinking, in a metaphorical sense. 'Messiah is not likely to come to Israel,' said Hillel, 'for they have already eaten Him'—that is, greedily received His words—'in the days of Hezekiah.' A current conventionalism in the synagogs was that the just would 'eat the Shekinah.' It was peculiar to the Jews to be taught in such metaphorical language. Their rabbis never spoke in plain words, and it is expressly said that Jesus submitted to the popular taste, for 'without a parable spake he not unto them' (Mark 4:34)."—Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, vol. i, p. 184.
10. Spiritual Symbolism of Eating.—"The concept of eating as a way to receive spiritual nourishment was well-known to Christ's listeners, similar to how we use phrases like 'devouring a book' or 'drinking in' information. In Isaiah 3:1, the expression 'the whole stay of bread' was interpreted by the rabbis as referring to their own teachings, and they established a guideline that wherever Ecclesiastes mentioned food or drink, it actually meant studying the law and performing good deeds. There was a saying among them that 'In the time of the Messiah, the Israelites will be fed by Him.' In schools and synagogues, it was common to use eating and drinking as metaphors. 'The Messiah is unlikely to come to Israel,' Hillel said, 'because they have already consumed Him'—meaning they have eagerly accepted His teachings—'in the days of Hezekiah.' A common saying in the synagogues was that the righteous would 'eat the Shekinah.' It was unique to the Jews to be taught in this metaphorical way. Their rabbis never spoke plainly, and it is specifically noted that Jesus catered to the popular sentiment, for 'without a parable, He spoke not unto them' (Mark 4:34)."—Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, vol. i, p. 184.
11. The Crucial Nature of the Discourse.—Commenting on the effect of our Lord's discourse (John 6:26-71), Edersheim (vol. ii, p. 36) says: "Here then we are at the parting of the two ways; and just because it was the hour of decision, did Christ so clearly set forth the highest truths concerning Himself, in opposition to the views which the multitude entertained about the Messiah. The result was yet another and a sorer defection. Upon this many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him. Nay, the searching trial reached even unto the hearts of the Twelve. Would they also go away? It was an anticipation of Gethsemane—its first experience. But one thing kept them true. It was the experience of the past. This was the basis of their present faith and allegiance. They could not go back to their old past; they must cleave to Him. So Peter spake it in name of them all: Lord, to whom shall we go? Words of eternal life hast thou! Nay, and more than this, as the result of what they had learned: And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God. It is thus, also, that many of us, whose thoughts may have been sorely tossed, and whose foundations terribly assailed, may have found our first resting-place in the assured, unassailable spiritual experience of the past. Whither can we go for words of eternal life, if not to Christ? If He fails us, then all hope of the eternal is gone. But He has the words of eternal life—and we believed when they first came to us; nay, we know that He is the Holy One of God. And this conveys all that faith needs for further learning. The rest will He show when He is transfigured in our sight. But of these Twelve Christ knew one to be a devil—like that angel, fallen from highest height to lowest depth. The apostasy of Judas had already commenced in his heart. And the greater the popular expectancy and disappointment had been, the greater the reaction and the enmity that followed. The hour of decision was past, and the hand on the dial pointed to the hour of His death."[Pg 349]
11. The Crucial Nature of the Discourse.—Commenting on the impact of Jesus’ teaching (John 6:26-71), Edersheim (vol. ii, p. 36) states: "Here we stand at a crossroads; and precisely because it was a time for decisions, Christ clearly presented the deepest truths about Himself, contrasting them with the beliefs that the crowd had about the Messiah. The outcome was yet another painful departure. Many of His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him. Even the hearts of the Twelve were tested. Would they also leave? It was a glimpse of Gethsemane—its first experience. But one thing kept them loyal. It was their past experiences. This formed the foundation of their current faith and commitment. They couldn’t return to their former life; they had to cling to Him. So Peter spoke for them all: Lord, where else would we go? You have the words of eternal life! Furthermore, from what they had learned: And we have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God. In the same way, many of us, whose thoughts may have been severely shaken and whose foundations have been greatly challenged, may have found our initial grounding in the secure, unshakeable spiritual experiences of the past. Where else can we turn for words of eternal life if not to Christ? If He lets us down, then all hope for the eternal is lost. But He has the words of eternal life—and we believed them when they first reached us; indeed, we know He is the Holy One of God. This encompasses all that faith requires for further growth. He will reveal more when He is shown in His glory. But among these Twelve, Christ knew one was a traitor—a devil, like an angel who fell from the highest heights to the lowest depths. Judas’ betrayal had already begun to fester in his heart. The greater the public expectation and disappointment had been, the stronger the backlash and hostility that followed. The moment of decision had passed, and the clock pointed to the hour of His death."[Pg 349]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[694] Matt. 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6.
[700] Mark 3:14.
[706] Mark 6:7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 6:7.
[710] Mark 6:12, 13; Luke 9:10. Note similar testimony of the Seventy, who were sent out at a later time, and who returned rejoicing in the power that had been manifest in their ministry; Luke 10:17.
[710] Mark 6:12, 13; Luke 9:10. Note the similar testimony from the Seventy, who were sent out later and came back celebrating the power that showed in their work; Luke 10:17.
[720] Mark 6:52.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 6:52.
[721] Note that this is the first occurrence of this title in the Synoptic Gospels, as applied to Jesus by mortals; compare an earlier instance of its application by Nathanael, John 1:49.
[721] Note that this is the first time this title appears in the Synoptic Gospels, used for Jesus by people; see an earlier use of it by Nathanael in John 1:49.
[723] Josephus, Wars. iii, 10:7, 8.
[725] John 6:22-27.
[727] John 6:32-59.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 6:32-59.
[733] John 6:59-71.
CHAPTER 22.
A PERIOD OF DARKENING OPPOSITION.
Our Lord's last recorded discourse in the synagog at Capernaum, which followed close upon the miracle of feeding the five thousand and that of walking upon the water, marked the beginning of another epoch in the development of His life's work. It was the season of an approaching Passover festival;[736] and at the next succeeding Passover, one year later, as shall be shown, Jesus would be betrayed to His death. At the time of which we now speak, therefore, He was entering upon the last year of His ministry in the flesh. But the significance of the event is other and greater than that of a chronological datum-plane. The circumstance marked the first stage of a turn in the tide of popular regard toward Jesus, which theretofore had been increasing, and which now began to ebb. True, He had been repeatedly criticized and openly assailed by complaining Jews on many earlier occasions; but these crafty and even venomous critics were mostly of the ruling classes; the common people had heard Him gladly, and indeed many of them continued so to do;[737] nevertheless His popularity, in Galilee at least, had begun to wane. The last year of His earthly ministration was inaugurated by a sifting of the people who professed to believe His word, and this process of test, trial, and separation, was to continue to the end.
Our Lord's final recorded speech in the synagogue at Capernaum came right after the miracle of feeding the five thousand and walking on water, signaling the start of a new phase in His mission. It was close to the Passover festival; and at the next Passover, one year later, as we will see, Jesus would be betrayed to His death. At this time, He was entering the last year of His earthly ministry. However, the importance of this event goes beyond just a chronological marker. It marked the beginning of a shift in public opinion towards Jesus, which had been rising but was now starting to decline. While He had faced criticism and attacks from some Jewish leaders before, the common people had generally welcomed Him, and many continued to do so; nevertheless, His popularity, at least in Galilee, was starting to fade. The last year of His earthly ministry began with a sorting of those who claimed to believe in Him, and this process of testing, trials, and separation would continue until the end.
We are without information as to Jesus having attended this Passover feast; and it is reasonable to infer that in view of the increasing hostility on the part of the rulers, He refrained from going to Jerusalem on the occasion. Conjecture[Pg 350] as to whether any of the Twelve went up to the festival is profitless; we are not told. Certain it is that immediately after this time, the detectives and spies, who had been sent from Jerusalem into Galilee to watch Jesus, became more active than ever in their critical espionage. They dogged His footsteps, noted every act, and every instance of omission of traditional or customary observance, and were constantly on the alert to make Him out an offender.
We don’t have any information about Jesus attending this Passover feast, and it’s reasonable to assume that, given the growing hostility from the leaders, He chose not to go to Jerusalem for the occasion. Speculating[Pg 350] on whether any of the Twelve went to the festival is pointless; we just don’t know. What is certain is that right after this, the detectives and spies sent from Jerusalem to monitor Jesus became more proactive than ever in their critical surveillance. They followed His every move, recorded every action, and every time He didn’t follow traditional customs, always ready to label Him as an offender.
CEREMONIAL WASHINGS, "AND MANY SUCH LIKE THINGS,"[738]
Shortly after the Passover to which allusion has been made, and probably in accordance with a plan decided upon by the Jewish rulers, Jesus was visited by a delegation of Pharisees and scribes who had come from Jerusalem, and who made protest against the disregard of traditional requirements by His followers. It appears that the disciples, and almost certainly the Master Himself, had so far transgressed "the tradition of the elders" as to omit the ceremonial washing of hands before eating; the Pharisaic critics found fault, and came demanding explanation, and justification if such were possible. Mark tells us that the disciples were charged with having eaten with "defiled", or, as the marginal reading gives it, with "common" hands; and he interpolates the following concise and lucid note concerning the custom which the disciples were said to have ignored: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables."[739] It should be borne in mind that[Pg 351] the offense charged against the disciples was that of ceremonial uncleanness, not physical uncleanliness or disregard of sanitary propriety; they were said to have eaten with common or defiled hands, not specifically with dirty fingers. In all the externals of their man-made religionism, the Jews were insistent on scrupulous exactitude; every possibility of ceremonial defilement was to be carefully guarded against, and the effects thereof had to be counteracted by prescribed washings.[740]
Shortly after the Passover mentioned earlier, and likely as part of a plan set by the Jewish leaders, Jesus was visited by a group of Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem. They protested against His followers ignoring traditional practices. It seems the disciples, and probably Jesus as well, had violated "the tradition of the elders" by not performing the ceremonial hand washing before eating. The Pharisees criticized them and asked for an explanation and justification if possible. Mark tells us that the disciples were accused of eating with "defiled," or as the marginal note states, "common" hands. He includes this clear and concise note about the customs the disciples supposedly neglected: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, unless they wash their hands frequently, do not eat, holding to the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, unless they wash, they do not eat. And there are many other things they observe, such as the washing of cups, pots, brass vessels, and tables." It is important to note that the complaint against the disciples was about ceremonial uncleanness, not physical uncleanliness or hygiene; they were said to have eaten with common or defiled hands, not specifically with dirty fingers. In their strict adherence to man-made religious practices, the Jews were very particular; every risk of ceremonial defilement needed to be carefully avoided, and any resulting issues had to be resolved through specific washings.
To the question: "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread", Jesus gave no direct reply; but asked as a rejoinder: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" To the Pharisaic mind this must have been a very sharp rebuke; for rabbinism held that rigorous compliance with the traditions of the elders was more important than observance of the law itself; and Jesus in His counter question put their cherished traditions as in direct conflict with the commandment of God. Adding to their discomfiture, He cited the prophecy of Isaiah, and applied to them whom He designated hypocrites, the prophet's words: "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."[741] With deserved severity Jesus carried the lesson home to their consciences, declaring that they had laid aside the commandments of God in order that they might follow the traditions of men.
To the question: "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat," Jesus didn’t give a direct answer. Instead, He asked, "Why do you break God’s commandment for the sake of your tradition?" This must have felt like a harsh criticism to the Pharisees because rabbinic teachings emphasized strict adherence to the traditions of the elders over the law itself. In His counter-question, Jesus put their beloved traditions directly against God’s commandment. To further unsettle them, He quoted the prophecy of Isaiah and applied the prophet's words to those He called hypocrites: "Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching human rules as doctrines.'" With appropriate severity, Jesus drove the point home, stating that they had abandoned God’s commandments to follow the traditions of men.
This accusing affirmation was followed by the citing of an undeniable instance: Moses had voiced the direct commandment of God in saying: "Honour thy father and thy[Pg 352] mother," and had proclaimed the ordained penalty in extreme cases of unfilial conduct thus: "Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die";[742] but this law, though given of God direct to Israel, had been so completely superseded that any ungrateful and wicked son could find ready means, which their traditions had made lawful, of escaping all filial obligations, even though his parents were destitute. If a needy father or mother craved help of a son, he had but to say—What you ask of me is Corban—or in other words, an intended gift to God; and he was held to be legally exempt from all requirements to contribute of that substance to the support of his parents.[743] Other obligations could be similarly evaded. To declare that any article of property real or personal, or any part or proportion of one's possessions was "corban," was generally understood as an averment that the property so characterized was dedicated to the temple, or at least was intended to be devoted to ecclesiastical purposes, and would eventually be turned over to the officials, though the donor might continue to hold possession during a specified period, extending even to the end of his life. Property was often declared to be "corban" for other purposes than dedication to ecclesiastical use. The result of such established though utterly unlawful and pernicious traditions was, as Jesus emphatically stated to the Pharisees and scribes, to make the word of God of none effect, and, He added, "Many such like things do ye."
This accusing statement was followed by an undeniable example: Moses had directly communicated God's commandment by saying, "Honor your father and your mother," and had declared the severe penalty for extreme cases of disobedience by stating, "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death"; but this law, although given directly by God to Israel, had been so thoroughly overridden that any ungrateful and wicked son could easily find a way, made lawful by their traditions, to escape all responsibilities toward his parents, even if they were in need. If a poor father or mother asked a son for help, he only had to say—What you’re asking of me is Corban—or in other words, a dedication to God; and he would be considered legally exempt from any requirements to contribute from that resource to support his parents. Other responsibilities could be similarly dodged. To state that any item of property, whether real or personal, or any part of one’s possessions was "corban," was generally understood to mean that the property was set aside for the temple or, at the very least, intended for religious purposes, and would eventually be passed on to the officials, although the donor could continue to possess it for a specific period, potentially until the end of their life. Property was frequently labeled as "corban" for reasons other than dedication to religious use. The outcome of such entrenched yet completely unlawful and harmful traditions was, as Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees and scribes, to nullify the word of God, and He added, "You do many such things."
Turning from His titled visitors, He called the people together and proclaimed unto them the truth, as follows: "Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." This was directly in conflict with rabbinical precept[Pg 353] and practise; the Pharisees were offended, for they had said that to eat with hands that had not been ritualistically cleansed was to defile the food touched, and in turn to become yet more defiled from the food thus rendered unclean.
Turning away from His distinguished guests, He gathered the people together and shared this truth with them: "Listen to me, everyone, and get this: Nothing outside a person can make them unclean by going inside. It's the things that come out of a person that make them unclean. If anyone is willing to listen, let them listen." This directly opposed the teachings of the rabbis, which upset the Pharisees because they believed that eating with unwashed hands would contaminate the food, and in turn, they themselves would become even more unclean from that contaminated food.
The apostles were not sure that they understood the Master's lesson; though couched in plain, non-figurative language, it was to some of them very like a parable, and Peter asked an exposition. The Lord explained that the food one eats is but temporarily part of his body; having served its purpose of nourishing the tissues and supplying energy to the organism, it is eliminated; therefore the food that enters the body through the mouth is of small and transient importance compared with the utterances that issue from the mouth, for these, if evil, are truly defiling. As Jesus set forth: "Those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."[744]
The apostles weren't sure they grasped the Master's lesson; even though it was straightforward and clear, it felt to some of them similar to a parable, so Peter asked for clarification. The Lord explained that the food we eat is only a temporary part of our body; after it has provided nutrition and energy, it is eliminated. Therefore, the food that goes into the body through the mouth is of little and short-lived importance compared to the words that come out of the mouth, as those can be truly corrupting if they are evil. As Jesus said: "What comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and they defile a person. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimony, slander: these are the things that defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile a person."[744]
Some of the disciples asked Jesus whether He knew that the Pharisees had taken offense at His saying; His answer was a further denunciation of Pharisaism: "Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." There could be no compromize between His doctrine of the kingdom and the corrupt Judaism of the time. The rulers were plotting against His life; if their emissaries chose to take offense at His words, let them be offended and stand the consequences; but blessed would they be if they were not offended because of Him.[745] He had no conciliatory measures to offer those whose inability to understand His[Pg 354] meaning was the result of wilful obstinacy, or darkness of mind produced by persistence in sin.
Some of the disciples asked Jesus if He knew that the Pharisees were upset by what He said; His response was a stronger criticism of Pharisaism: "Every plant that my heavenly Father hasn't planted will be uprooted. Just leave them be; they are blind guides of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit." There couldn't be any compromise between His teachings about the kingdom and the corrupted Judaism of that time. The leaders were conspiring against His life; if their representatives chose to be offended by His words, then let them be offended and deal with the consequences; but they would be blessed if they weren't offended because of Him.[745] He had no appeasement to offer those whose inability to grasp His meaning came from willful stubbornness or mental darkness caused by ongoing sin.[Pg 354]
WITHIN THE BORDERS OF TYRE AND SIDON.[746]
Unable to find in Galilee rest, seclusion, or adequate opportunity of instructing the Twelve as He desired to do, Jesus departed with them northward, and journeyed into the coasts or borders of Phenicia, a district commonly known by the names of its prominent cities, Tyre and Sidon. In one of the little towns near the border, the party took lodgings; but the attempt to secure privacy was futile, for the Master's presence "could not be hid." His fame had preceded Him beyond the boundaries of the land of Israel. On earlier occasions, people from the region of Tyre and Sidon had been among His listeners, and some of them had been blessed by His healing mercies.[747]
Unable to find rest, privacy, or enough chances to teach the Twelve as He wanted in Galilee, Jesus left with them and traveled north to the borders of Phoenicia, known for its major cities, Tyre and Sidon. In a small town near the border, they found a place to stay; however, their attempt to keep a low profile was unsuccessful, as the Master's presence "could not be hidden." His reputation had already spread beyond the borders of Israel. In the past, people from the Tyre and Sidon region had listened to Him, and some had experienced His healing power.[747]
A woman, hearing of His presence within her own land, came asking a boon. Mark tells us she was a Greek, or more literally a Gentile[748] who spoke Greek, and by nationality a Syro-Phenician; Matthew says she was "a woman of Canaan"; these statements are in harmony, since the Phenicians were of Canaanite descent. The Gospel-historians make clear the fact that this woman was of pagan or heathen birth; and we know that among the peoples so classed the Canaanites were held in particular disrepute by the Jews. The woman cried aloud to Jesus, saying: "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Her words expressed at once faith in the Lord's power, and a fulness of mother-love, for she implored as though she were the afflicted sufferer. The fact that she addressed Jesus as Son of David demonstrates her belief that He was the Messiah of Israel. At first Jesus refrained[Pg 355] from answering her. Undeterred, she pleaded the more, until the disciples besought the Lord saying: "Send her away; for she crieth after us." Their intervention was probably an intercession in her behalf; she could be quieted by the granting of her request; as it was, she was making an undesirable scene, probably on the street, and the Twelve knew well that their Master sought quietude. To them Jesus said: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and the remark must have reminded them of the restriction under which they had been sent out.[749]
A woman, hearing that He was in her area, came to ask for help. Mark tells us she was a Greek, or more specifically a Gentile who spoke Greek, and by nationality, a Syro-Phoenician; Matthew says she was "a woman of Canaan"; these descriptions align, as the Phoenicians were of Canaanite descent. The Gospel writers clearly indicate that this woman was of pagan or non-Jewish origin; we know that the Jews held the Canaanites in especially low regard among those groups. The woman cried out to Jesus, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, son of David; my daughter is severely tormented by a demon." Her words showed both her faith in the Lord's power and a deep motherly love, as she pleaded as if she were the suffering one. By calling Jesus the Son of David, she showed her belief that He was the Messiah of Israel. At first, Jesus didn’t respond to her. Undeterred, she pleaded even more, until the disciples asked the Lord, "Send her away; she keeps crying out after us." Their request was likely meant to help her; they thought she would be calmed if her request was granted. As it was, she was causing a scene, probably in the street, and the Twelve knew well that their Master sought peace. To them, Jesus said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel," which must have reminded them of the restrictions under which they had been sent out.
The woman, with importunate desire came near, possibly entering the house; she fell at the Lord's feet and worshiped Him, pleading pitifully, "Lord, help me." To her Jesus said, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." The words, harsh as they may sound to us, were understood by her in the spirit of the Lord's intent. The original term here translated "dogs" connoted, as the narrative shows, not the vagrant and despized curs elsewhere spoken of in the Bible as typical of a degraded state, or of positive badness,[750] but literally the "little dogs" or domestic pets, such as were allowed in the house and under the table. Certainly the woman took no offense at the comparison, and found therein no objectionable epithet. Instantly she adopted the analogy, and applied it in combined argument and supplication,[751] "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table;" or, in the words of Mark's version: "Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs." Her prayer was immediately granted; for Jesus said unto her, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Mark emphasizes the special recognition of her final plea, and adds: "And[Pg 356] when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed." The woman's commendable persistency was based on the faith that overcomes apparent obstacles and endures even under discouragement. Her case reminds one of the lesson taught by the Lord on another occasion through the story of the importunate widow.[752]
The woman, driven by a desperate desire, approached, possibly entering the house; she fell at the Lord's feet and worshiped Him, begging tearfully, "Lord, help me." Jesus replied to her, "It's not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." While these words might seem harsh to us, she understood them in the context of the Lord's meaning. The original term translated as "dogs" referred, as the story shows, not to the stray and despised mutts mentioned elsewhere in the Bible that symbolize a degraded state or clear evil, but rather to "little dogs" or pets allowed in the house and under the table. The woman was not offended by the comparison and found no insulting term in it. Immediately, she embraced the analogy and used it in her argument and plea, saying, "That’s true, Lord: yet the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table;" or as Mark's version puts it: "Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Her prayer was quickly answered; Jesus said to her, "O woman, great is your faith: it will be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed from that very moment. Mark highlights the special recognition of her final plea and adds: "And when she got home, she found the devil gone, and her daughter lying on the bed." The woman's impressive persistence was fueled by faith that conquers challenges and endures through discouragement. Her situation is reminiscent of the lesson the Lord taught on another occasion through the story of the persistent widow.
Many have queried as to why Jesus delayed the blessing. We may not be able to fathom His purposes; but we see that, by the course He adopted, the woman's faith was demonstrated and the disciples were instructed. Jesus impressed upon her that she was not of the chosen people, to whom He had been sent; but His words prefigured the giving of the gospel to all, both Jew and Gentile: "Let the children first be filled" He had said. The resurrected Christ was to be made known to every nation;[753] but His personal ministry as a mortal, as also that of the apostles while He was with them in the flesh, was directed to the house of Israel.[754]
Many have wondered why Jesus delayed the blessing. We might not fully understand His reasons, but we can see that, through His approach, the woman's faith was shown and the disciples were taught. Jesus made it clear to her that she was not part of the chosen people to whom He had been sent; however, His words hinted at the gospel being offered to everyone, both Jew and Gentile: "Let the children first be filled," He had said. The risen Christ was intended to be revealed to every nation;[753] but His personal ministry as a mortal, along with that of the apostles while He was with them in the flesh, was focused on the house of Israel.[754]
IN THE COASTS OF DECAPOLIS.[755]
We are not told how long Jesus and the Twelve tarried in the land of Tyre and Sidon, nor which portions of the district they traversed. They went thence into the region adjoining the sea of Galilee on the east, "through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis."[756] Though still among semi-pagan peoples, our Lord was greeted by great crowds, amongst whom were many lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and otherwise afflicted; and them He healed. Great was the astonishment of these aliens, "when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel."
We don’t know how long Jesus and the Twelve stayed in Tyre and Sidon, or which parts of the area they traveled through. Then they went into the region next to the Sea of Galilee on the east, "through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis."[756] Although they were still among semi-pagan people, our Lord was met by large crowds, many of whom were lame, blind, mute, maimed, or otherwise suffering; and He healed them. The amazement of these outsiders was great, "when they saw the mute speaking, the maimed made whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing: and they praised the God of Israel."
Among the many who were healed was one of whom special mention is made. He was deaf and defective in speech. The people asked the Lord to lay His hands upon the man; but Jesus led him away from the multitude, put His fingers in the man's ears, spat, and touched the man's tongue; then looking upward in prayer, and sighing the while, He uttered a word of command in Aramaic, "Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain." The manner of effecting this cure was different again from the usual mode of our Lord's healing ministrations. It may be that by the finger-touch to the closed ears and to the bound tongue, the man's faith was strengthened and his confidence in the Master's power increased. The people were forbidden to tell abroad what they had witnessed; but the more they were charged the more they published the news. Their conclusion as to Jesus and His works was: "He hath done all things well: he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak."
Among those healed was one man who was especially noted. He was deaf and had trouble speaking. The people asked the Lord to touch the man; but Jesus took him away from the crowd, put His fingers in the man's ears, spat, and touched his tongue. Then, looking up in prayer and sighing, He spoke a command in Aramaic, "Ephphatha," which means "Be opened." Immediately, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke clearly. The way this healing was done was different from how the Lord usually performed miracles. Perhaps by touching the closed ears and bound tongue, the man's faith was strengthened and his trust in the Master's power grew. The people were told not to spread the news of what they had seen; but the more they were urged, the more they shared the story. Their conclusion about Jesus and His works was: "He has done everything well; He makes the deaf hear and the mute speak."
ANOTHER MEAL IN THE DESERT; OVER FOUR THOUSAND FED.[757]
For three days the glad crowds remained with Jesus and the apostles. Camping out at that season and in that region entailed no great hardship incident to exposure. Their supply of food, however, had become exhausted; and many of them were far from home. Jesus had compassion upon the people, and was loath to send them away fasting, lest they would faint by the way. When He spoke to the disciples on the matter they intimated the impossibility of feeding so great a number, for the entire stock of food at hand comprized but seven loaves and a few little fishes. Had they forgotten the former occasion on which a greater multitude had been fed and filled with but five loaves and two small[Pg 358] fishes? Rather let us believe that the disciples remembered well, yet deemed it beyond their duty or privilege to suggest a repetition of the miracle. But the Master commanded; and the people seated themselves on the ground. Blessing and dividing the small provision as before, He gave to the disciples and they distributed to the multitude. Four thousand men, beside women and children, were abundantly fed; and of the broken but uneaten food there remained enough to fill seven baskets. With no semblance of the turbulent enthusiasm that had followed the feeding of the five thousand, this multitude dispersed quietly and returned to their homes, grateful and doubly blessed.
For three days, the happy crowds stayed with Jesus and the apostles. Camping at that time of year in that area wasn't very tough because of the mild conditions. However, they had run out of food, and many were far from home. Jesus felt compassion for the people and didn't want to send them away hungry, fearing they would faint on the way. When He brought up the issue with the disciples, they suggested that feeding such a large crowd was impossible since they only had seven loaves and a few small fish. Had they forgotten the earlier time when a larger crowd was fed with just five loaves and two small[Pg 358] fish? Perhaps they remembered it well but thought it was beyond their role to suggest doing a miracle again. But the Master instructed them to do so; the people then sat down on the ground. He blessed and divided the small amount of food as before, gave it to the disciples, and they passed it out to the crowd. Four thousand men, in addition to women and children, were generously fed, and there were leftovers enough to fill seven baskets. Unlike the chaotic excitement that followed the feeding of the five thousand, this crowd dispersed quietly and returned home, feeling grateful and doubly blessed.
AGAIN BESET BY SIGN-SEEKERS.[758]
Jesus and the apostles returned by boat to the western shore of the lake, and landed near Magdala and Dalmanutha. These towns are understood to have been so close together as to virtually make the latter a suburb of the other. Here the party was met by the ever-vigilant Pharisees, who on this occasion were accompanied by their usually unfriendly rivals, the Sadducees. That the two parties had temporarily laid aside their mutual differences, and had combined their forces in the common cause of opposition to Christ, is a demonstration of the determined purpose of the ecclesiastical authorities to find occasion against Him, and, if possible, destroy Him. Their immediate object was to further alienate the common people, and to counteract the influence of His former teachings with the masses. They set anew the old-time snare of demanding from Him a supernatural sign of His Messiahship, though thrice already had they or others of their kind so attempted to entrap Him, and thrice had they been foiled.[759] Before them, Satan in person had similarly tried and failed.[760] To their present impertinent[Pg 359] and impious demand He gave a brief and definite refusal coupled with an exposure of their hypocrisy. This was His reply: "When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed."[761]
Jesus and the apostles returned by boat to the western shore of the lake, landing near Magdala and Dalmanutha. These towns are believed to be so close that the latter was practically a suburb of the former. The group was met by the ever-watchful Pharisees, who this time were joined by their usual adversaries, the Sadducees. The fact that these two groups had temporarily set aside their differences to unite against Christ shows their determination to find a reason to accuse Him, and, if possible, to eliminate Him. Their immediate goal was to further turn the ordinary people against Him and counteract the influence of His previous teachings with the masses. They renewed their old tactic of demanding a supernatural sign of His Messiahship, although they had already tried to trap Him three times before and had failed each time. In person, Satan had similarly tried and failed before them. To their current rude and irreverent demand, He gave a brief and clear refusal, exposing their hypocrisy. His reply was: "In the evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You hypocrites can interpret the weather of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonas. And He left them and went away."
THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND OF THE SADDUCEES.[762]
Again with the Twelve upon the water, since on the Galilean coast neither peace nor opportunity for effective teaching was found, Jesus directed the vessel's course toward the north-easterly shore. When well out from land, He said to His companions: "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees," and, as Mark adds, "and of the leaven of Herod." In their hasty departure the disciples had forgotten to take a supply of food; they had with them but a single loaf. They construed His words respecting leaven as a reference to bread, and possibly as a reproof for their neglect. Jesus chided them as of little faith for thinking then of material bread, and refreshed their recollection of the miracles by which the multitudes had been fed, so that their lack of loaves would not further trouble them. Finally they were made to understand that the Master's warning was directed against the false doctrines of the Pharisees and those of the Sadducees, and against the political aspirations of the scheming Herodians.[763]
Again with the Twelve on the water, since Jesus found neither peace nor a chance for effective teaching along the Galilean coast, He directed the boat toward the northeastern shore. Once they were well out from land, He said to His companions, "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees," and, as Mark adds, "and the yeast of Herod." In their hurry to leave, the disciples had forgotten to pack enough food; they only had one loaf with them. They interpreted His words about yeast as a reference to bread and possibly as a criticism of their oversight. Jesus scolded them for having little faith for focusing on the bread and reminded them of the miracles where the crowds were fed, assuring them that their lack of loaves shouldn't bother them. Ultimately, they realized that the Master's warning was about the false teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the political ambitions of the scheming Herodians.[763]
The party left the boat near the site of the first miraculous feeding of the multitude, and made their way to Bethsaida[Pg 360] Julias. A blind man was brought, and Jesus was asked to touch him. He took the sightless one by the hand, led him outside the town, applied saliva to his eyes, laid hands upon him in a ministration, and asked him if he could see. The man answered that he saw dimly, but was unable to distinguish men from trees. Applying His hands to the man's eyes, Jesus told him to look up; the man did so and saw clearly. Bidding him not to enter the town, nor to tell of his deliverance from blindness to any in the place, the Lord sent him away rejoicing. This miracle presents the unique feature of Jesus healing a person by stages; the result of the first ministration was but a partial recovery. No explanation of the exceptional circumstance is given.
The group left the boat near where the first miraculous feeding of the crowd took place and headed to Bethsaida[Pg 360] Julias. A blind man was brought to Jesus, asking him to touch him. Jesus took the blind man by the hand, led him outside the town, put saliva on his eyes, laid hands on him, and asked if he could see. The man replied that he saw vaguely but couldn't tell men from trees. Jesus placed his hands on the man's eyes again and told him to look up; the man did and saw clearly. Jesus instructed him not to go back into the town or tell anyone there about his healing, and the man left feeling joyful. This miracle is unique because Jesus healed the man in stages; the first touch resulted in only a partial recovery. No explanation is given for this unusual situation.
"THOU ART THE CHRIST."[764]
Accompanied by the Twelve, Jesus continued His way northward to the neighborhood or "coasts" of Cæsarea Philippi, an inland city situated near the eastern and principal source of the Jordan, and near the foot of Mount Hermon.[765] The journey afforded opportunity for special and confidential instruction to the apostles. Of them Jesus asked: "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" In reply they reported the rumors and popular fancies that had come to their notice. Some people, sharing the superstitious fears of the conscience-stricken Herod Antipas, said that Jesus was John the Baptist returned to life, though such a belief could not have been entertained seriously by many, as John and Jesus were known to have been contemporaries; others said He was Elias, or more exactly, Elijah; still others suggested He was Jeremiah or some other one of the ancient prophets of Israel. It is significant that among all the conceptions of the people as to the identity of Jesus there was no intimation of belief that He was the Messiah. Neither[Pg 361] by word nor deed had He measured up to the popular and traditional standard of the expected Deliverer and King of Israel. Fleeting manifestations of evanescent hope that He might prove to be the looked-for Prophet, like unto Moses, had not been lacking; but all such incipient conceptions had been neutralized by the hostile activity of the Pharisees and their kind. To them it was a matter of supreme though evil determination to maintain in the minds of the people the thought of a yet future, not a present, Messiah.
Accompanied by the Twelve, Jesus continued His journey northward to the area or "coasts" of Caesarea Philippi, an inland city located near the eastern and main source of the Jordan River and at the base of Mount Hermon.[765] This journey gave Him the chance to provide special and private teaching to the apostles. He asked them, "Who do people say that I, the Son of Man, am?" In response, they shared the rumors and popular beliefs they had heard. Some people, echoing the superstitious fears of the guilty Herod Antipas, claimed that Jesus was John the Baptist come back to life, although this idea couldn’t have been seriously believed by many since John and Jesus were known to be contemporaries. Others said He was Elijah; still others suggested He was Jeremiah or another one of the ancient prophets of Israel. It’s notable that among all the people's ideas about Jesus’ identity, there was no suggestion that He was the Messiah. Neither by word nor action had He matched the popular and traditional expectations of the Deliverer and King of Israel. There had been brief moments of hopeful speculation that He might be the expected Prophet, like Moses, but all such early notions were dampened by the hostile actions of the Pharisees and others like them. It was their determined, albeit malicious, goal to keep the people thinking of a future, not a present, Messiah.
With deep solemnity, and as a soul-searching test for which the Twelve had been in unconscious preparation through many months of close and privileged companionship with their Lord, Jesus asked of them: "But whom say ye that I am?" Answering for all, but more particularly testifying as to his own conviction, Peter, with all the fervor of his soul, voiced the great confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This was no avowal of mere belief, no expression of a result at which he had arrived by mental process, no solution of a problem laboriously worked out, no verdict based on the weighing of evidence; he spoke in the sure knowledge that knows no question and from which doubt and reservation are as far removed as is the sky from the ground.
With deep seriousness, and as a soul-searching test that the Twelve had been unknowingly preparing for over many months of close and unique time spent with their Lord, Jesus asked them: "But who do you say that I am?" Speaking for everyone, but particularly expressing his own belief, Peter, with all the passion of his heart, declared the great confession: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." This was not just a statement of belief, not something he arrived at through reasoning, not a solution to a problem he had carefully worked through, and not a conclusion based on weighing evidence; he spoke with a certainty that leaves no room for doubt and from which uncertainty and hesitation are as far away as the sky is from the ground.
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Peter's knowledge, which was also that of his brethren, was of a kind apart from all that man may find out for himself; it was a divine bestowal, in comparison with which human wisdom is foolishness and the treasure of earth but dross, Addressing Himself further to the first of the apostles, Jesus continued: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt[Pg 362] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
"And Jesus replied, 'You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because no human has revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven has.' Peter's understanding, which was also shared by his fellow apostles, was different from what one might learn on their own; it was a divine gift, making human wisdom seem foolish and earthly treasures worthless. Continuing to speak to the first of the apostles, Jesus added, 'And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'"
Through direct revelation from God Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ; and upon revelation, as a rock of secure foundation, the Church of Christ was to be built.[766] Though torrents should fall, floods roll, winds rage, and all beat together upon that structure, it would not, could not, fall, for it was founded upon a rock;[767] and even the powers of hell would be impotent to prevail against it. By revelation alone could or can the Church of Jesus Christ be builded and maintained; and revelation of necessity implies revelators, through whom the will of God may be made known respecting His Church. As a gift from God comes the testimony of Jesus into the heart of man. This principle was comprized in the Master's teachings at Capernaum, that none could come to Him save such as the Father would bring.[768] The Lord's promise, that unto Peter He would give "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," embodies the principle of divine authority in the Holy Priesthood, and of the commission of presidency. Allusion to keys as symbolical of power and authority is not uncommon in Jewish literature, as was well understood in that period and is generally current today.[769] So also the analogies of binding and loosing as indicative of official acts were then usual, as they are now, particularly in connection with judicial functions. Peter's presidency among the apostles was abundantly manifest and generally recognized after the close of our Lord's mortal life. Thus, it was he who spoke in behalf of the Eleven, in the council meeting at which a successor to the traitor Iscariot was chosen; he was the spokesman of his brethren on the occasion of the Pentecostal conversion; it was he who opened[Pg 363] the doors of the Church to the Gentiles;[770] and his office of leadership is apparent throughout the apostolic period.
Through direct revelation from God, Peter understood that Jesus was the Christ; and upon this revelation, as a strong foundation, the Church of Christ was to be built.[766] Despite storms, floods, fierce winds, and all forces attacking that structure, it would not, could not, fall, for it was built on a rock;[767] and even the powers of hell would not be able to overcome it. Only through revelation could the Church of Jesus Christ be established and sustained; and revelation requires revelators, through whom God's will is revealed regarding His Church. The testimony of Jesus comes into a person's heart as a gift from God. This principle was summarized in the Master's teachings at Capernaum, that no one could come to Him unless the Father brought them.[768] The Lord's promise to Peter that He would give him "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" represents the principle of divine authority in the Holy Priesthood and the role of leadership. The idea of keys as symbols of power and authority is common in Jewish literature, well understood at that time, and is generally recognized today.[769] Similarly, the concepts of binding and loosing as indicators of official actions were common then, just as they are now, especially relating to judicial roles. Peter's leadership among the apostles was clearly evident and widely acknowledged after the end of our Lord's earthly life. He was the one who spoke for the Eleven during the council meeting to choose a successor for the traitor Iscariot; he was the voice of his brethren during the Pentecostal conversion; and it was he who opened[Pg 363] the doors of the Church to the Gentiles;[770] and his leadership role is evident throughout the apostolic period.
The confession by which the apostles avowed their acceptance of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, was evidence of their actual possession of the spirit of the Holy Apostleship, by which they were made particular witnesses of their Lord. The time for a general proclamation of their testimony had not arrived, however; nor did it come until after Christ had emerged from the tomb a resurrected, immortalized Personage. For the time being they were charged "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." Proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah, particularly if made by the apostles who were publicly known as His most intimate disciples and associates, or open assumption of the Messianic title by Himself, would have aggravated the hostility of the rulers, which had already become a grave interference if not an actual menace to the Savior's ministry; and seditious uprisings against the political government of Rome might easily have resulted. A yet deeper reason for the secrecy enjoined upon the Twelve appears in the fact that the Jewish nation was not prepared to accept their Lord; and to ignore Him through lack of certain knowledge involved a lesser degree of culpability than would have attached to an unpalliated rejection. The particular mission of the apostles at a time then future was to proclaim to all nations Jesus, the crucified and resurrected Christ.
The confession by which the apostles acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, was proof that they truly had the spirit of the Holy Apostleship, which made them specific witnesses of their Lord. However, the time for a general announcement of their testimony hadn't come yet; that wouldn't happen until after Christ had risen from the tomb as a resurrected, immortal being. For now, they were instructed "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." Announcing Jesus as the Messiah, especially by the apostles who were known as His closest disciples, or if He claimed the title Himself, would have worsened the hostility of the leaders, which was already a serious disruption, if not a real threat, to the Savior's ministry; it could have even led to revolts against the Roman government. A deeper reason for the secrecy required of the Twelve was that the Jewish nation wasn't ready to accept their Lord; ignoring Him due to a lack of clear knowledge was seen as less blameworthy than outright rejection. The specific mission of the apostles at a later time was to proclaim to all nations Jesus, the crucified and resurrected Christ.
From the time of Peter's confession however, Jesus instructed the Twelve more plainly and with greater intimacy concerning the future developments of His mission, and particularly as touching His appointed death. On earlier occasions He had referred in their hearing to the cross, and to His approaching death, burial and ascension; but the mention in each case was in a measure figurative, and they had apprehended but imperfectly if at all. Now, however,[Pg 364] He began to show, and often afterward made plain unto them, "how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day."
From the time Peter confessed, Jesus began to explain things to the Twelve more clearly and personally about the future of His mission, especially regarding His impending death. In the past, He had alluded to the cross, His upcoming death, burial, and resurrection, but those references were somewhat figurative, and they didn't fully understand—if they understood at all. Now, however, [Pg 364] He started to clearly show them, and often reiterated, "that He must go to Jerusalem, suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, be killed, and be raised again on the third day."
Peter was shocked at this unqualified declaration, and, yielding to impulse, remonstrated with Jesus, or, as two of the evangelists state, "began to rebuke him," even going so far as to say: "This shall not be unto thee."[771] The Lord turned upon him with this sharp reproof: "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Peter's words constituted an appeal to the human element in Christ's nature; and the sensitive feelings of Jesus were wounded by this suggestion of unfaithfulness to His trust, coming from the man whom He had so signally honored but a few moments before. Peter saw mainly as men see, understanding but imperfectly the deeper purposes of God. Though deserved, the rebuke he received was severe. The adjuration, "Get thee behind me, Satan," was identical with that used against the arch-tempter himself, who had sought to beguile Jesus from the path upon which He had entered,[772] and the provocation in the two instances was in some respects similar—the temptation to evade sacrifice and suffering, though such was the world's ransom, and to follow a more comfortable way.[773] The forceful words of Jesus show the deep emotion that Peter's ill-considered attempt to counsel if not to tempt his Lord had evoked.
Peter was taken aback by this bold statement and, acting on impulse, confronted Jesus, or as two of the evangelists put it, "started to rebuke him," even going so far as to say: "This will not happen to you." [771] The Lord responded sharply, saying, "Get behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." Peter's words appealed to the human side of Christ; they hurt Jesus's feelings, especially coming from the man He had just honored moments ago. Peter was mainly seeing things from a human perspective, lacking a full understanding of God's deeper intentions. While it was justified, the rebuke he received was harsh. The command, "Get behind me, Satan," was the same as the one used against the ultimate tempter himself, who had tried to lead Jesus away from His chosen path, [772] and the provocation in both cases was somewhat similar—the temptation to avoid sacrifice and suffering, even though it was the means of saving the world, in favor of an easier path. [773] Jesus's strong words illustrate the deep emotion that Peter's ill-advised attempt to offer advice, if not to tempt, had stirred.
Beside the Twelve, who were immediately about the Lord's person, others were nearby; it appears that even in those remote parts, far removed from the borders of Galilee—the habitat of a heathen population, with whom, however, many Jews were intermixed—the people gathered around the Master. These He now called together, and to them and the[Pg 365] disciples said: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Here the frightful figure of the cross was again made prominent. There was left no shadow of excuse for the thought that devotion to Christ would not mean denial and privation. He who would save his life at the cost of duty, as Peter had just suggested that Christ should do, would surely lose it in a sense worse than that of physical death; whereas he who stood willing to lose all, even life itself, should find the life that is eternal.
Besides the Twelve, who were right next to the Lord, there were others nearby. It seems that even in those distant areas, far from the borders of Galilee—the home of a non-Jewish population, many of whom mixed with Jews—the people gathered around the Master. He called them together and said to them and the[Pg 365] disciples: "If anyone wants to follow me, they must deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow me." Here, the terrifying idea of the cross was highlighted again. There was no excuse left for thinking that following Christ wouldn’t require sacrifice and hardship. Whoever tries to save their life at the cost of duty, like Peter had just suggested Christ should do, would definitely lose it in a way that’s worse than physical death. But anyone willing to give up everything, even their life, would find the everlasting life that awaits.
As evincing the soundness of His teachings, Jesus uttered what has since become an inspiring aphorism of life: "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Whosoever is ashamed of Christ because of His lowly estate, or through offense at His teachings, shall yet find that the Son of Man, when He comes in the glory of the Father, with attending cohorts of angels, will be ashamed of that man. The record of this memorable day in the Savior's life closes with His blessed promise: "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."[774]
As proof of the validity of His teachings, Jesus said what has since become a powerful saying about life: "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world and lose their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?" Anyone who feels embarrassed by Christ because of His humble background or is offended by His teachings will eventually find that the Son of Man, when He returns in the glory of the Father with a host of angels, will be embarrassed by that person. This account of that significant day in the Savior's life concludes with His blessed promise: "Truly, I tell you, some standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."[774]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 22.
1. Passover Celebrations Comprized within the Period of Our Lord's Public Ministry.—The dates on which specific acts occurred in the ministry of Jesus are difficult if not impossible to fix, except in few instances; and as heretofore stated and reiterated, even the order of events is often found to be uncertain. It will be remembered that Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover soon after His baptism, and that on the visit referred to He forcibly cleared the temple courts of traffickers and their property. This is known as the first Passover during the public life of Jesus. If the unnamed "feast of the Jews" referred to by John (5:1) was a Passover, as many Bible students hold, it marked the close of the year following the cleansing the temple; it is commonly spoken of and written about as the second Passover in the course of our Lord's ministry. Then the Passover near which Jesus fed the five thousand[Pg 366] (John 6:4) would be the third, and would mark the expiration of two years and a fraction since the baptism of Jesus; it certainly marks the beginning of the last year of the Savior's life on earth.
1. Passover Celebrations During Our Lord's Public Ministry.—It’s tough, if not impossible, to pinpoint the exact dates of specific events in Jesus' ministry, except in a few cases. As mentioned before, the sequence of these events is often uncertain. It’s important to remember that Jesus was in Jerusalem during the Passover shortly after His baptism, and during that visit, He forcefully cleared the temple courts of merchants and their belongings. This is known as the first Passover of Jesus' public life. If the unnamed "feast of the Jews" mentioned by John (5:1) was a Passover, as many biblical scholars believe, it would signal the end of the year following the temple cleansing; this is typically referred to as the second Passover in Jesus’ ministry. The Passover during which Jesus fed the five thousand[Pg 366] (John 6:4) would be the third and would indicate that a little over two years had passed since Jesus' baptism; it definitely marks the start of the last year of the Savior's life on earth.
2. Ceremonial Ablutions.—The numerous washings required by Jewish custom in the time of Christ were admittedly incident to rabbinism and "the tradition of the elders" and not in compliance with the Mosaic law. Under certain conditions, successive washings were prescribed, in connection with which we find mention of "first," "second" and "other" waters, the "second water" being necessary to wash away the "first water," which had become defiled by contact with the "common" hands; and so further with the later waters. Sometimes the hands had to be dipped or immersed; at other times they were to be cleansed by pouring, it being necessary that the water be allowed to run to the wrist or the elbow according to the degree of supposed defilement; then again, as the disciples of Rabbi Shammai held, only the finger tips, or the fingers up to the knuckles, needed to be wetted under particular circumstances. Rules for the cleansing of vessels and furniture were detailed and exacting; distinct methods applied respectively to vessels of clay, wood, and metal. Fear of unwittingly defiling the hands led to many extreme precautions. It being known that the Roll of the Law, the Roll of the Prophets, and other scriptures, when laid away were sometimes touched, scratched, or even gnawed by mice, there was issued a rabbinical decree, that the Holy Scriptures, or any part thereof comprizing as many as eighty-five letters (the shortest section in the law having just that number), defiled the hands by mere contact. Thus the hands had to be ceremonially cleansed after touching a copy of the scriptures, or even a written passage therefrom.
2. Ceremonial Washings.—The various washings required by Jewish tradition during the time of Christ were definitely part of rabbinical practices and "the tradition of the elders," rather than a requirement of the Mosaic law. Under certain circumstances, multiple washings were required, and we see references to "first," "second," and "other" waters, with the "second water" needed to wash away the "first water," which had become unclean from contact with "common" hands; this pattern continued with the subsequent waters. Sometimes hands had to be dipped or immersed; other times, they needed to be cleaned by pouring, ensuring that the water reached the wrist or elbow depending on the level of perceived defilement. Additionally, followers of Rabbi Shammai believed that only the fingertips or fingers up to the knuckles needed to be wet in specific situations. Guidelines for cleaning vessels and furniture were strict and detailed, with different methods for clay, wood, and metal. The fear of accidentally contaminating the hands led to many extreme measures. Since it was understood that the Roll of the Law, the Roll of the Prophets, and other scriptures could be touched, marked, or even chewed by mice when stored away, a rabbinical ruling was issued stating that any part of the Holy Scriptures containing as few as eighty-five letters (the shortest section in the law has exactly that many) would defile the hands through mere contact. Consequently, hands had to be ceremonially cleansed after touching a copy of the scriptures or even a passage from it.
Emancipation from these and "many such like things" must have been relief indeed. Escape from this thraldom Jesus freely offered, saying: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matt. 11:28-30.)
Emancipation from these and "many similar things" must have been a huge relief. Jesus offered an escape from this bondage, saying: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matt. 11:28-30.)
3. "Corban," a Gift.—The law of Moses prescribed rules relating to vows (Lev. 27; Numb. 30). "Upon these rules," says the writer in Smith's Bible Dict., "the traditionalists enlarged, and laid down that a man might interdict himself by vow, not only from using for himself, but from giving to another or receiving from him, some particular object whether of food or any other kind whatsoever. The thing thus interdicted was considered as corban. A person might thus exempt himself from any inconvenient obligation under plea of corban. Our Lord denounced practises of this sort (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11), as annulling the spirit of the law."
3. "Corban," a Gift.—The law of Moses set guidelines about vows (Lev. 27; Numb. 30). "Based on these guidelines," says the writer in Smith's Bible Dict., "the traditionalists expanded them and established that a person could block themselves by vow, not just from using something for themselves, but also from giving it to someone else or receiving it from them, whether it was food or anything else. What was blocked was seen as corban. A person could use this to free themselves from any burdensome obligation by claiming corban. Our Lord condemned such practices (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11), for they undermined the essence of the law."
The revised version, Matt. 15:5 is made to read "But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; he shall not honor his father (or, his mother)." The following[Pg 367] account of this pernicious custom appears in the Commentary on The Holy Bible edited by Dummelow, "'Corban,' meaning originally a sacrifice or a gift to God, was used in New Testament times as a mere word of vowing, without implying that the thing vowed would actually be offered or given to God. Thus a man would say 'Corban to me is wine for such a time,' meaning that he took a vow to abstain from wine. Or a man would say to a friend 'Corban to me for such a time is whatsoever I might be profited by thee,' meaning that for such a time he vowed that he would receive neither hospitality nor any other benefit from his friend. Similarly, if a son said to his father or mother, 'Corban is whatsoever thou mightest have profited by me' he took a vow not to assist his father or mother in any way, however much they might require it. A vow of this kind was held by the scribes to excuse a man from the duty of supporting his parents, and thus by their tradition they made void the word of God."
The updated version, Matt. 15:5 reads, "But you say, whoever says to his father or mother, 'What I could have contributed to you is dedicated to God,' he does not honor his father (or mother)." The following[Pg 367] account of this harmful practice appears in the Commentary on The Holy Bible edited by Dummelow: "'Corban,' originally meaning a sacrifice or a gift to God, was used in New Testament times merely as a vow, without suggesting that the promised item would actually be offered or given to God. So, a person might say, 'Corban for me is wine for a certain time,' meaning that he vowed to abstain from wine. Or someone could tell a friend, 'Corban for me for a certain time is whatever I might benefit from you,' indicating that for that time he vowed not to accept any hospitality or benefits from his friend. Similarly, if a son said to his father or mother, 'Corban is whatever you might have benefited from me,' he was making a vow not to help his father or mother in any way, regardless of how much they needed it. The scribes considered such a vow to excuse a man from the obligation to support his parents, thus by their tradition they made the word of God ineffective."
4. The "Dogs" that Eat of the Crumbs.—The woman's fervid rejoinder, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table," (Matt. 15:27), is thus commented upon and paraphrased by Trench (Notes on the Miracles, p. 271): "The rendering of her answer in our translation is not, however, altogether satisfactory. For, indeed, she accepts the Lord's declaration, not immediately to make exception against the conclusion which He draws from it, but to show how in that very declaration is involved the granting of her petition. 'Saidest thou dogs? It is well; I accept the title and the place; for the dogs have a portion of the meal,—not the first, not the children's portion, but a portion still,—the crumbs which fall from the master's table. In this very putting of the case, Thou bringest us heathen, Thou bringest me, within the circle of the blessings which God, the Great Householder, is ever dispensing to His family. We also belong to His household, though we occupy but the lowest place therein.'"
4. The "Dogs" that Eat of the Crumbs.—The woman's passionate response, "That's true, Lord. But even the dogs get to eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table" (Matt. 15:27), is discussed and rephrased by Trench (Notes on the Miracles, p. 271): "The way her answer is translated in our version isn’t entirely clear. She agrees with the Lord's statement, not to challenge His conclusion but to show that His statement actually supports her request. 'You called us dogs? That's fine; I'll accept that title and place because the dogs still get some of the meal—not the main course, not the children's share, but they still get something—the crumbs that fall from the master's table. By framing it this way, You include us, the gentiles, me, in the blessings that God, the Great Householder, is always sharing with His family. We also are part of His household, even if we hold the lowest position there.'"
The Dummelow Commentary, on Matt. 15:26, reads in part as follows: "The rabbis often spoke of the Gentiles as dogs, e.g. 'He who eats with an idolater is like one who eats with a dog.' ... 'The nations of the world are compared to dogs.' 'The holy convocation belongs to you, not to the dogs.' Yet Jesus in adopting the contemptuous expression slightly softens it. He says not 'dogs,' but 'little dogs,' i.e. household, favorite, dogs; and the woman cleverly catches at the expression, arguing that if the Gentiles are household dogs, then it is only right that they should be fed with the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Edersheim, referring to the original text, says: "The term means 'little dogs,' or 'house dogs.'"
The Dummelow Commentary, on Matt. 15:26, states in part: "The rabbis often referred to Gentiles as dogs, for example, 'He who eats with an idolater is like someone who eats with a dog.' ... 'The nations of the world are compared to dogs.' 'The holy gathering is for you, not for the dogs.' Yet Jesus, in using this derogatory term, modifies it slightly. He says not 'dogs,' but 'little dogs,' meaning household or beloved pets; and the woman cleverly seizes on this, arguing that if Gentiles are like household dogs, then it is only fair for them to be fed with the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Edersheim, referring back to the original text, mentions: "The term means 'little dogs,' or 'house dogs.'"
5. Decapolis.—The name means "the ten cities," and was applied to a region of indefinite boundaries lying mostly on the east of Jordan and southerly from the sea of Galilee. Scythopolis, which Josephus (Wars of the Jews, iii, 9:7) refers to as the largest of the ten cities, was on the west side of the river. There is lack of agreement among historians as to the cities comprized[Pg 368] under the name. Biblical mention (Matt. 4:25; Mark 5:20; 7:31) implies a general region rather than a definite area.
5. Decapolis.—The name means "the ten cities" and refers to a region with vague boundaries mainly located east of the Jordan River and south of the Sea of Galilee. Scythopolis, which Josephus (Wars of the Jews, iii, 9:7) notes as the biggest of the ten cities, was on the west side of the river. Historians don't agree on which cities are included under this name. Biblical references (Matt. 4:25; Mark 5:20; 7:31) suggest it refers to a general area rather than a specific one.
6. The Coasts of Cæsarea Philippi.—The term "coast" as it appears in the Bible (authorized, or King James version), is used to connote boundary, limit, or border, and not distinctively a seashore. (For examples see Exo. 10:4, 14, 19; Josh. 15:1, 4; Judg. 11:20; Matt. 2:16, etc.) It is applied therefore to inland areas, and frequently occurs as indicating a vicinity or neighborhood.
6. The Coasts of Cæsarea Philippi.—The word "coast" in the Bible (King James Version) refers to a boundary, limit, or border, rather than specifically to a seashore. (For examples, see Exo. 10:4, 14, 19; Josh. 15:1, 4; Judg. 11:20; Matt. 2:16, etc.) It is also used for inland areas and often indicates a nearby region or neighborhood.
Cæsarea Philippi, a town located, as stated in the text, near Mount Hermon at the source of the Jordan, had been enlarged and beautified by Philip the tetrarch, and by him was named Cæsarea in honor of the Roman emperor. It was called Cæsarea Philippi to distinguish it from the already existing Cæsarea, which was situated on the Mediterranean shore of Samaria, and which in later literature came to be known as Cæsarea Palestina. Cæsarea Philippi is believed to be identical with the ancient Baal Gad (Josh. 11:17) and Baal Hermon (Judg. 3:3). It was known as a place of idolatrous worship, and while under Greek sovereignty was called Paneas in recognition of the mythological deity Pan. See Josephus, Ant. xviii, 2:1; this designation persists in the present Arabic name of the place, Banias.
Cæsarea Philippi, a town located near Mount Hermon at the source of the Jordan, was expanded and beautified by Philip the tetrarch, who named it Cæsarea in honor of the Roman emperor. It was called Cæsarea Philippi to differentiate it from the existing Cæsarea located on the Mediterranean coast of Samaria, which later came to be known as Cæsarea Palestina. Cæsarea Philippi is thought to be the same as the ancient Baal Gad (Josh. 11:17) and Baal Hermon (Judg. 3:3). It was known for its idolatrous worship, and during Greek rule, it was called Paneas in recognition of the mythological god Pan. See Josephus, Ant. xviii, 2:1; this name continues in the current Arabic name for the area, Banias.
7. Simon Peter and the "Rock" of Revelation.—Simon the son of Jonas, on the occasion of his first recorded interview with Jesus had received from the Lord's lips the distinguishing name-title "Peter," or in the Aramaic tongue "Cephas," the English equivalent of which is "a rock" or "a stone" (John 1:42; see also page 140 herein). The name was confirmed upon the apostle on the occasion now under consideration (Matt. 16:18). Jesus said to him "thou art Peter," adding, "and upon this rock I will build my church." In the course of the general apostasy subsequent to the ancient apostolic ministry, the Bishop of Rome laid claim to supreme authority as the alleged lineal successor to Peter; and an erroneous doctrine gained currency to the effect that Peter was the "rock" upon which the Church of Christ was founded. Detailed consideration of this inconsistent and infamous claim cannot be undertaken here; it is sufficient to say that a church founded or dependent upon Peter or any other man would be Peter's or the other man's church, and not the Church of Jesus Christ. (See The Great Apostasy, chap 9; also B. of M., 3 Nephi 27:1-8; also chapter 40 herein). That upon Peter rested the responsibility of presidency in the ministry, after the ascension of the resurrected Christ, is not questioned; but that he was, even typically, the foundation upon which the Church was built, is at once unscriptural and untrue. The Church of Jesus Christ must authoritatively bear His name, and be guided by revelation, direct and continuous, as the conditions of its building require. Revelation from God to His servants invested with the Holy Priesthood through authorized ordination as was Peter, is the impregnable "rock" upon which the Church is built. (See Articles of Faith, xvi,—"Revelation.")
7. Simon Peter and the "Rock" of Revelation.—Simon, the son of Jonas, during his first recorded meeting with Jesus, was given the special name "Peter," which in Aramaic is "Cephas," meaning "a rock" or "a stone" (John 1:42; see also page 140 herein). This name was reaffirmed when Jesus said to him, "You are Peter," adding, "and on this rock, I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). After the ancient apostles' ministry ended, the Bishop of Rome claimed to have supreme authority as Peter's supposed successor, leading to the mistaken belief that Peter was the "rock" on which Christ's Church was established. We cannot delve into the details of this misguided and notorious claim here; it's enough to say that a church founded on Peter or any human being would belong to that person, not to Jesus Christ. (See The Great Apostasy, chap 9; also B. of M., 3 Nephi 27:1-8; also chapter 40 herein). It is clear that Peter had the responsibility of leadership in the ministry after the resurrected Christ ascended; however, the idea that he was the foundational basis of the Church is both unscriptural and false. The Church of Jesus Christ must rightfully bear His name and be led by ongoing revelation, as building His Church requires. The revelation from God to His servants, who hold the Holy Priesthood through proper ordination like Peter, is the unshakeable "rock" on which the Church is founded. (See Articles of Faith, xvi,—"Revelation.")
8. Christ's Rebuke to Peter.—In addressing Peter as "Satan," Jesus was obviously using a forceful figure of speech, and[Pg 369] not a literal designation; for Satan is a distinct personage, Lucifer, that fallen, unembodied son of the morning (see page 7); and certainly Peter was not he. In his remonstrance or "rebuke" addressed to Jesus, Peter was really counseling what Satan had before attempted to induce Christ to do, or tempting, as Satan himself had tempted. The command, "Get thee behind me, Satan," as directed to Peter, is rendered in English by some authorities "Get thee behind me, tempter." The essential meaning attached to both Hebrew and Greek originals for our word "Satan" is that of an adversary, or "one who places himself in another's way and thus opposes him." (Zenos.) The expression "Thou art an offense unto me" is admittedly a less literal translation than "Thou art a stumbling-block unto me." The man whom Jesus had addressed as Peter—"the rock," was now likened to a stone in the path, over which the unwary might stumble.
8. Christ's Rebuke to Peter.—When Jesus called Peter "Satan," he was clearly using an intense figure of speech, not a literal title; Satan refers to a distinct being, Lucifer, that fallen, disembodied "morning star" (see page 7); and Peter certainly wasn't him. In his protest or "rebuke" directed at Jesus, Peter was essentially advising what Satan had previously tried to get Christ to do, or tempting him, just as Satan himself had done. The command, "Get thee behind me, Satan," as spoken to Peter, is translated in English by some as "Get thee behind me, tempter." The core meaning behind both the Hebrew and Greek originals for our word "Satan" is that of an adversary or "one who obstructs another." (Zenos.) The phrase "Thou art an offense unto me" is acknowledged as a less literal translation than "Thou art a stumbling-block unto me." The man that Jesus called Peter—"the rock," was now compared to a stone in the path that the unsuspecting might trip over.
9. Some to Live Until Christ Returns.—The Savior's declaration to the apostles and others in the neighborhood of Cæsarea Philippi, "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," (Matt. 16:28; compare Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27), has occasioned great and diverse comment. The event referred to, that of the Son of Man coming in the glory of His Father attended by the angels, is yet future. At least a partial fulfilment of the prediction is presented in the prolongation of the life of John the apostle, who was there present, and who yet lives in the flesh according to his desire (John 21:20-24; see further B. of M., 3 Nephi 28:1-6; Doc. and Cov. Sec. 7).
9. Some to Live Until Christ Returns.—The Savior's statement to the apostles and others in the area of Cæsarea Philippi, "Truly I tell you, some of those standing here will not experience death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom," (Matt. 16:28; compare Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27), has led to significant and varied interpretations. The event mentioned, the Son of Man coming in the glory of His Father with the angels, is still to come. At least a partial fulfillment of this prediction can be seen in the extended life of John the apostle, who was present at the time and continues to live in the flesh as he wished (John 21:20-24; see further B. of M., 3 Nephi 28:1-6; Doc. and Cov. Sec. 7).
10. "Thou Art the Christ."—Peter's solemn and soulful confession of Jesus as the Christ is worded differently by each of the three synoptists. To many the most expressive version is that of Luke: "The Christ of God." On earlier occasions, some or all of the Twelve had acknowledged Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, e.g. following the miracle of walking upon the sea (Matt. 14:33), and again, after the crucial sermon at Capernaum (John 6:69); but it is evident that Peter's upwelling and reverential confession in answer to the Lord's question "But whom say ye that I am?" had a significance, greater in assurance and more exalted in kind, than had any prior expression of his conception concerning his Lord. Yet even the conviction given through direct revelation (Matt. 16:17) did not at the time comprize a comprehensive knowledge of the Savior's mission. Indeed, a fulness of understanding and assurance came to the apostles after the Lord's resurrection (compare Romans 1:4). Nevertheless, Peter's testimony in the land of Cæsarea Philippi evidences a very exalted attainment. At that stage of the Savior's ministry, the public proclamation of His divine status would have been as the casting of pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6); therefore the Lord instructed the apostles that at that time "they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."[Pg 370]
10. "You Are the Christ."—Peter's serious and heartfelt declaration of Jesus as the Christ is expressed differently by each of the three synoptic Gospels. Many find Luke's version to be the most powerful: "The Christ of God." Earlier, some or all of the Twelve had recognized Jesus Christ as the Son of God, for example, after the miracle of walking on the sea (Matt. 14:33), and again, after the significant sermon at Capernaum (John 6:69); however, it’s clear that Peter's deeply felt and respectful confession in response to the Lord's question, "But who do you say that I am?" held a significance that was more assured and elevated than any previous expression of his understanding of his Lord. Yet even the conviction gained through direct revelation (Matt. 16:17) did not at that moment include a complete understanding of the Savior's mission. In fact, a fuller understanding and assurance came to the apostles only after the Lord's resurrection (see Romans 1:4). Nevertheless, Peter's testimony in the region of Cæsarea Philippi shows a very high level of insight. At that point in the Savior's ministry, publicly declaring His divine status would have been like casting pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6); therefore, the Lord instructed the apostles not to tell anyone that He was Jesus the Christ.[Pg 370]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[737] Mark 12:37.
[738] Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13.
[741] Mark 7:6, 7; see also Matt. 15:7-9; Isa. 29:13; compare the words of the resurrected Christ to the prophet Joseph Smith, in the present dispensation, P. of G.P., Joseph Smith, 2:19.
[741] Mark 7:6, 7; see also Matt. 15:7-9; Isa. 29:13; compare the words of the resurrected Christ to the prophet Joseph Smith in this time period, P. of G.P., Joseph Smith, 2:19.
[744] Matt. 15:10-20; compare Mark 7:14-23.
[746] Matt. 15:21-28; Mark 7:21-30.
[747] Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17.
[753] Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15.
[755] Mark 7:31-37; compare Matt. 15:29-31.
[757] Matt. 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-9.
[758] Matt. 15:29; 16:1-5; Mark 8:10-13.
[759] John 2:18; 6:30; Matt. 12:38.
[760] Matt. 4:6, 7; Luke 4:9-12.
[767] Compare Matt. 7:24, 25.
[772] Luke 4:8.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 4:8.
CHAPTER 23.
THE TRANSFIGURATION.
Of the week following the events last considered, no record is found in the Gospels. We may safely assume that the time was devoted, in part at least, to the further instruction of the Twelve respecting the rapidly approaching consummation of the Savior's mission on earth, the awful circumstances of which the apostles were loath to believe possible. When the week had passed[775] Jesus took Peter, James, and John[776] and with them ascended a high mountain, where they would be reasonably safe from human intrusion.[777] There the three apostles witnessed a heavenly manifestation, which stands without parallel in history; in our Bible captions it is known as the Transfiguration of Christ.[778]
In the week after the events we just discussed, there’s no record in the Gospels. We can assume that at least part of this time was spent further teaching the Twelve about the quickly approaching end of the Savior's mission on earth, which the apostles found hard to believe could happen. When the week was over[775] Jesus took Peter, James, and John[776] and led them up a high mountain, where they would be relatively safe from others.[777] There, the three apostles experienced a heavenly event that is unmatched in history; in our Bible, it is referred to as the Transfiguration of Christ.[778]
One purpose of the Lord's retirement was that of prayer, and a transcendent investiture of glory came upon Him as He prayed. The apostles had fallen asleep, but were awakened by the surpassing splendor of the scene, and gazed with reverent awe upon their glorified Lord. "The fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering." His garments, though made of earth-woven fabric, "became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them;" "and his face did shine as the sun." Thus was Jesus transfigured before the three privileged witnesses.
One reason for the Lord's time away was to pray, and as He prayed, a brilliant glory surrounded Him. The apostles had fallen asleep but were stirred awake by the overwhelming beauty of the moment and looked on with deep respect at their glorified Lord. "His appearance changed, and His clothes became bright and dazzling." His clothes, although made of simple fabric, "became shining, whiter than snow; no one on earth can bleach them so white;" "and His face shone like the sun." This was how Jesus was transformed before the three chosen witnesses.
With Him were two other personages, who also were in a state of glorified radiance, and who conversed with the Lord. These, as the apostles learned by means not stated[Pg 371] though probably as gathered from the conversation in progress, were Moses and Elias, or more literally to us, Elijah; and the subject of their conference with Christ was "his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem." As the prophet visitants were about to depart, "Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said." Undoubtedly Peter and his fellow apostles were bewildered, "sore afraid" indeed; and this condition may explain the suggestion respecting the three tabernacles. "He wist not what to say;" yet, though his remark appears confused and obscure, it becomes somewhat plainer when we remember that, at the annual feast of Tabernacles, it was customary to erect a little bower, or booth of wattled boughs, for each individual worshiper, into which he might retire for devotion. So far as there was a purpose in Peter's proposition, it seems to have been that of delaying the departure of the visitants.
With him were two other figures, who were also glowing with a heavenly light and talking with the Lord. The apostles learned, although it's not specified how[Pg 371]—probably through listening to their conversation—that these two were Moses and Elijah. Their discussion with Christ was about "his death that he would fulfill in Jerusalem." As the prophets were getting ready to leave, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it’s great for us to be here! Let’s make three shelters—one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah," not really understanding what he was saying. It’s clear that Peter and the other apostles were confused and "very afraid," which might explain his suggestion about the three shelters. "He didn’t know what to say"; yet, while his comment seems muddled and unclear, it makes a bit more sense when we remember that during the annual Feast of Tabernacles, it was common to set up a small shelter or booth made of branches for each worshiper to retreat into for prayer. If Peter had a purpose in his suggestion, it seemed to be to delay the departure of the visitors.
The sublime and awful solemnity of the occasion had not yet reached its climax. Even as Peter spake, "behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." It was Elohim,[779] the Eternal Father, who spake; and at the sound of that voice of supreme Majesty, the apostles fell prostrate. Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Arise, and be not afraid." When they looked they saw that again they were alone with Him.
The amazing and intense seriousness of the moment hadn’t hit its peak yet. Just as Peter was speaking, "Look, a bright cloud surrounded them, and a voice came from the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." It was Elohim,[779] the Eternal Father, who spoke; and when they heard that voice of ultimate Majesty, the apostles fell down on the ground. Jesus came over and touched them, saying, "Get up, and don’t be afraid." When they looked up, they saw that they were once again alone with Him.
The impression made upon the three apostles by this manifestation was one never to be forgotten; but they were expressly charged to speak of it to no man until after the Savior had risen from the dead. They were puzzled as to the significance of the Lord's reference to His prospective rising from the dead. They had heard with great sorrow, and reluctantly they were being brought to understand it to[Pg 372] be an awful certainty, that their beloved Master was to "suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed."[780] Such had been declared to them before, in language devoid of ambiguity and admitting of no figurative construction; and with equal plainness they had been told that Jesus would rise again; but of this latter eventuality they had but dim comprehension. The present reiteration of these teachings seems to have left the three with no clearer understanding of their Lord's resurrection from the dead than they had before. They seem to have had no definite conception as to what was meant by a resurrection; "And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean."[781]
The impression this event left on the three apostles was unforgettable, but they were specifically told not to talk about it to anyone until after the Savior had risen from the dead. They were confused about the meaning of the Lord's reference to His future resurrection. They had listened with great sorrow and were reluctantly beginning to grasp the awful truth that their beloved Master was to "suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and by the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed." Such things had been clearly stated to them before, in straightforward language that left no room for misunderstanding. They had also been told plainly that Jesus would rise again, but they only had a vague understanding of this latter event. The repetition of these teachings didn’t seem to give the three any clearer insight into their Lord's resurrection than they had before. They appeared to have no clear idea of what resurrection meant; "And they kept that saying to themselves, questioning one another about what the rising from the dead should mean."
The comprehensiveness of the Lord's injunction, that until after His rising from the dead they tell no man of their experiences on the mount, prohibited them from informing even their fellows of the Twelve. Later, after the Lord had ascended to His glory, Peter testified to the Church of the wondrous experience, in this forceful way: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."[782] And John, reverently confessing before the world the divinity of the Word, the Son of God who had been made flesh to dwell among men, solemnly affirmed: "And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."[783]
The Lord's command was clear: until after His resurrection, they were not to share their experiences on the mountain with anyone, not even with the other Twelve. Later, after the Lord had ascended to His glory, Peter boldly shared this incredible experience with the Church, saying: "We didn’t follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when a voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, whom I love; with him, I am well pleased.' We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain."[782] And John, respectfully confessing to the world the divinity of the Word, the Son of God made flesh to live among us, solemnly stated: "We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."[783]
The divine purpose as shown forth in the Transfiguration may be as incomprehensible to the human mind as is a full conception of the attendant splendor from verbal description; some features of the results achieved are apparent, however. Unto Christ the manifestation was strengthening and encouraging. The prospect of the experiences immediately ahead must naturally have been depressing and disheartening in the extreme. In faithfully treading the path of His life's work, He had reached the verge of the valley of the shadow of death; and the human part of His nature called for refreshing. As angels had been sent to minister unto Him after the trying scenes of the forty days' fast and the direct temptation of Satan,[784] and as, in the agonizing hour of His bloody sweat, He was to be sustained anew by angelic ministry,[785] so at this critical and crucial period, the beginning of the end, visitants from the unseen world came to comfort and support Him. What of actual communication passed in the conference of Jesus with Moses and Elijah is not of full record in the New Testament Gospels.
The divine purpose shown in the Transfiguration may be just as hard for our minds to grasp as fully understanding the incredible splendor from just words; some aspects of the results are clear, though. For Christ, the manifestation was both empowering and uplifting. Facing the experiences that lay ahead must have been extremely discouraging and overwhelming. As He faithfully followed the path of His life's work, He had reached the edge of the valley of the shadow of death, and His human nature needed renewal. Just as angels were sent to serve Him after the challenging forty days of fasting and the direct temptation from Satan,[784] and as He was to be supported anew by angelic ministry during the agonizing hour of His bloody sweat,[785] at this crucial moment, the beginning of the end, visitors from the unseen world came to comfort and support Him. The details of what was discussed during the meeting between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah are not fully recorded in the New Testament Gospels.
The voice of His Father, to whom He was the Firstborn in the spirit-world, and the Only Begotten in the flesh, was of supreme assurance; yet that voice had been addressed to the three apostles rather than to Jesus, who had already received the Father's acknowledgment and attestation on the occasion of His baptism. The fullest version of the Father's words to Peter, James, and John is that recorded by Matthew: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." Aside from the proclamation of the Son's divine nature, the Father's words were otherwise decisive and portentous. Moses, the promulgator of the law, and Elijah the representative of the prophets and especially distinguished among them as the one who had not died,[786] had been seen ministering unto Jesus and subservient to Him.[Pg 374] The fulfillment of the law and the superseding of the prophets by the Messiah was attested in the command—Hear ye Him. A new dispensation had been established, that of the gospel, for which the law and the prophets had been but preparatory. The apostles were to be guided neither by Moses nor Elijah, but by Him, their Lord, Jesus the Christ.
The voice of His Father, to whom He was the Firstborn in the spiritual world and the Only Begotten in the flesh, was filled with absolute certainty; however, that voice was directed at the three apostles rather than at Jesus, who had already received the Father's recognition and endorsement at His baptism. The most complete version of the Father's words to Peter, James, and John is recorded by Matthew: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; listen to Him." Besides proclaiming the Son's divine nature, the Father's words were significant and full of meaning. Moses, the giver of the law, and Elijah, representing the prophets and notably recognized as the one who had not died, had been seen serving Jesus and being subordinate to Him. The fulfillment of the law and the replacement of the prophets by the Messiah was confirmed in the command—Listen to Him. A new era had begun, that of the gospel, for which the law and the prophets were only preparatory. The apostles were to be guided not by Moses or Elijah, but by Him, their Lord, Jesus the Christ.
The three selected apostles, "the Man of Rock and the Sons of Thunder" had seen the Lord in glory; and they marveled that such a thing could be at that time, since as they had interpreted the scriptures, it had been predicted that Elijah should precede the Messiah's triumphal advent. As they wended their way down the mountain-side, they asked the Master:[787] "Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?" Jesus confirmed the prophecy that Elias should first come, that is, before the Lord's advent in glory, which event they had in mind; "But," He added, "I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." That John the Baptist would officiate "in the spirit and power of Elias," as the forerunner of the Christ, had been announced by the angel Gabriel to Zacharias,[788] before the Baptist's birth; and that John was that particular Elias had been shown by Jesus in His memorable tribute to the Baptist's fidelity and greatness. That His words would not be generally accepted with understanding is evidenced by the context; Jesus, on that occasion, had said: "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come."[789]
The three chosen apostles, "the Rock and the Sons of Thunder," had seen the Lord in His glory; and they were amazed that such a thing could happen at that time, since according to their understanding of the scriptures, it had been foretold that Elijah would come before the Messiah's triumphant arrival. As they made their way down the mountain, they asked the Master: [787] "So why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" Jesus confirmed that the prophecy about Elijah coming first was true, meaning before the Lord's glorious arrival, which is what they were thinking of. "But," He added, "I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they didn’t recognize him, but treated him however they wanted. In the same way, the Son of Man will also suffer at their hands." Then the disciples realized that He was talking about John the Baptist. The announcement that John the Baptist would serve "in the spirit and power of Elijah" as the forerunner of Christ had been made by the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, [788] before John was born; and that John was that specific Elijah was revealed by Jesus in His memorable praise for the Baptist's faithfulness and greatness. That His words would not be generally accepted with understanding is shown by the surrounding context; Jesus had said on that occasion: "And if you are willing to accept it, this is Elijah, who was to come." [789]
It is not possible that Jesus could have meant that John was the same individual as Elijah; nor could the people have so understood His words, since the false doctrine of transmigration[Pg 375] or reincarnation of spirits was repudiated by the Jews.[790] The seeming difficulty is removed when we consider that, as the name appears in the New Testament, "Elias" is used for "Elijah,"[791] with no attempt at distinction between Elijah the Tishbite, and any other person known as Elias. Gabriel's declaration that the then unborn John should manifest "the spirit and power of Elias" indicates that "Elias" is a title of office; every restorer, forerunner, or one sent of God to prepare the way for greater developments in the gospel plan, is an Elias. The appellative "Elias" is in fact both a personal name and a title.
It’s not possible that Jesus meant for people to believe that John was the same person as Elijah, nor could the crowd have interpreted His words that way, because the false belief of transmigration or reincarnation of spirits was rejected by the Jews.[Pg 375] The apparent confusion disappears when we realize that, in the New Testament, "Elias" refers to "Elijah," with no distinction made between Elijah the Tishbite and anyone else named Elias. Gabriel's statement that the yet-to-be-born John would show "the spirit and power of Elias" suggests that "Elias" is a title of office; every restorer, forerunner, or anyone sent by God to prepare the way for significant developments in the gospel plan is considered an Elias. The term "Elias" is actually both a personal name and a title.
In the present dispensation both the ancient Elias, who belonged to the Abrahamic dispensation and in the spirit of whose office many have officiated in different periods, and also the prophet Elijah, have appeared in person and have conferred their particular and separate authority upon latter-day bearers of the Holy Priesthood, and the keys of the powers exercized by them while on earth are today inherent in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The authority of Elias is inferior to that of Elijah, the first being a function of the Lesser or Aaronic order of Priesthood, while the latter belongs to the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. Malachi's prediction, that before "the great and dreadful day of the Lord" Elijah the prophet would be sent to earth to "turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers,"[792] did not reach fulfilment in the mission of John the Baptist, nor in that of any other "Elias";[793] its complete realization was inaugurated on the third day of April, 1836, when Elijah appeared in the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, and committed to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the keys of the authority theretofore vested in himself. "The great and dreadful day of the Lord" was[Pg 376] not the meridian of time; that awful though blessed period of consummation is yet future, but "near, even at the doors."[794]
In the current time, both the ancient Elias, who was part of the Abrahamic era and whose office has been represented by many throughout different ages, as well as the prophet Elijah, have appeared in person. They have passed on their distinct and separate authority to the latter-day holders of the Holy Priesthood, and the powers they exercised while on earth are now part of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The authority of Elias is lower than that of Elijah, with Elias representing the Lesser or Aaronic order of Priesthood, while Elijah belongs to the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. Malachi's prophecy that before "the great and dreadful day of the Lord," Elijah would come to "turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers," did not come to pass through the mission of John the Baptist or any other "Elias"; its full realization began on April 3, 1836, when Elijah appeared in the temple in Kirtland, Ohio, and gave Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the keys of authority that were previously held by him. "The great and dreadful day of the Lord" was not during the meridian of time; that significant yet blessed period of completion is still to come, but it is "near, even at the doors."
NOTES TO CHAPTER 23.
1. Interval Between Time of Peter's Confession and that of the Transfiguration.—Both Matthew (17:1) and Mark (9:2) state that the Transfiguration occurred "after six days" following the time of Peter's great confession that Jesus was the Christ; while Luke (9:28) notes an interval of "about an eight days." It is probable that the six-day period was meant to be exclusive of the day on which the earlier events had occurred and of that on which Jesus and the three apostles retired to the mountain; and that Luke's "about an eight days" was made to include these two days. There is here no ground for a claim of discrepancy.
1. Interval Between Time of Peter's Confession and that of the Transfiguration.—Both Matthew (17:1) and Mark (9:2) mention that the Transfiguration happened "after six days" following Peter's significant confession that Jesus was the Christ, while Luke (9:28) refers to a time frame of "about eight days." It's likely that the six-day period is meant to exclude the day of the earlier events and the day when Jesus and the three apostles went up the mountain; and that Luke's "about eight days" includes both of those days. There is no basis for claiming a contradiction here.
2. Peter, James, and John who were selected from among the Twelve as the only earthly witnesses of the transfiguration of Christ, had been similarly chosen as witnesses of a special manifestation, that of the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51); and, later, the same three were the sole witnesses of our Lord's night agony in Gethsemane (Matt. 26:37; Mark 14:33).
2. Peter, James, and John were chosen from the Twelve as the only earthly witnesses of Christ's transfiguration. They were also selected as witnesses for a significant event: the raising of Jairus's daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51). Later on, these same three were the only witnesses to our Lord's intense struggle in Gethsemane (Matt. 26:37; Mark 14:33).
3. Place of the Transfiguration.—The mountain on which the Transfiguration occurred is neither named nor otherwise indicated by the Gospel-writers in such a way as to admit of its positive identification. Mount Tabor, in Galilee, has long been held by tradition as the site, and in the sixth century three churches were erected on its plateau-like summit, possibly in commemoration of Peter's desire to make three tabernacles or booths, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Later a monastery was built there. Nevertheless, Mt. Tabor is now rejected by investigators, and Mt. Hermon is generally regarded as the place. Hermon stands near the northerly limits of Palestine, just beyond Cæsarea Philippi, where Jesus is known to have been a week before the Transfiguration. Mark (9:30) distinctly tells us that after His descent from the mount, Jesus and the apostles departed and went through Galilee. Weight of evidence is in favor of Hermon as the Mount of Transfiguration, though nothing that may be called decisive is known in the matter.
3. Place of the Transfiguration.—The mountain where the Transfiguration took place is not named or clearly identified by the Gospel writers, making it impossible to pinpoint its exact location. Tradition has long considered Mount Tabor in Galilee as the site, and in the sixth century, three churches were built on its flat-topped summit, possibly to honor Peter's wish to create three tents or booths, one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. Later, a monastery was also constructed there. However, researchers now generally dismiss Mount Tabor and regard Mount Hermon as the likely location. Hermon is located near the northern borders of Palestine, just beyond Caesarea Philippi, where it's known that Jesus was a week before the Transfiguration. Mark (9:30) clearly states that after coming down from the mountain, Jesus and the apostles left and traveled through Galilee. The majority of evidence supports Hermon as the Mount of Transfiguration, though nothing conclusive has been determined in this regard.
5. "The Spirit and Power of Elias."—That John the Baptist, in his capacity as a restorer, a forerunner, or as one sent to prepare the way for a work greater than his own, did officiate as an "Elias" is attested by both ancient and latter-day scripture. Through him water baptism for the remission of sins was[Pg 377] preached and administered, and the higher baptism, that of the Spirit, was made possible. True to his mission, he has come in the last dispensation, and has restored by ordination the Priesthood of Aaron, which has authority to baptize. He thus prepared the way for the vicarious labor of baptism for the dead, the authority for which was restored by Elijah, (see page 149 herein), and which is preeminently the work by which the children and the fathers shall be united in an eternal bond.
5. "The Spirit and Power of Elias."—John the Baptist served as a restorer and a forerunner, sent to prepare the way for a mission greater than his own, which is confirmed by both ancient and modern scripture. He preached and performed water baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, making the higher baptism, the baptism of the Spirit, possible. True to his mission, he has come in the last days and has restored the Aaronic Priesthood through ordination, which has the authority to baptize. He prepared the way for the important work of baptism for the dead, the authority for which was restored by Elijah (see page 149 herein), thereby ensuring the eternal connection between the children and their fathers.
On the 10th of March, 1844, the Prophet Joseph Smith gave the following exposition of the power of Elias as compared with higher authority: "The spirit of Elias is first, Elijah second, and Messiah last. Elias is a forerunner to prepare the way, and the spirit and power of Elijah is to come after, holding the keys of power, building the temple to the cap-stone, placing the seals of the Melchizedek Priesthood upon the house of Israel, and making all things ready; then Messiah comes to His temple, which is last of all."
On March 10, 1844, the Prophet Joseph Smith explained the power of Elias in relation to higher authority: "The spirit of Elias comes first, followed by Elijah, and lastly the Messiah. Elias is a forerunner who prepares the way, and the spirit and power of Elijah comes afterward, holding the keys of power, building the temple to the capstone, placing the seals of the Melchizedek Priesthood upon the house of Israel, and getting everything ready; then the Messiah comes to His temple, which is last of all."
"Messiah is above the spirit and power of Elijah, for He made the world, and was that spiritual rock unto Moses in the wilderness. Elijah was to come and prepare the way and build up the kingdom before the coming of the great day of the Lord, although the spirit of Elias might begin it."—Hist. of the Church, under date named.
"Messiah is greater than the spirit and power of Elijah, because He created the world and was that spiritual rock for Moses in the wilderness. Elijah was meant to come and prepare the way and establish the kingdom before the great day of the Lord, even though the spirit of Elias might start it."—Hist. of the Church, under date named.
6. Mention of the Lord's Approaching "Decease."—Of the three synoptists, Luke alone makes even brief mention of the matter upon which Moses and Elijah conversed with the Lord at the Transfiguration. The record states that the visitants, who appeared in glory, "spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem" (Luke 9:31). It is significant that the decease, which the Lord should accomplish, not the death that He should suffer or die, was the subject of that exalted communion. The Greek word of which "decease" appears as the English equivalent in many of the MSS. of the Gospels, is one connoting "exodus," or "departure," and the word occurring in other early versions signifies glory. So also the Greek original of "accomplish," in the account of the Transfiguration, connotes the successful filling out or completion of a specific undertaking, and not distinctively the act of dying. Both the letter of the record and the spirit in which the recorder wrote indicate that Moses and Elijah conversed with their Lord on the glorious consummation of His mission in mortality—a consummation recognized in the law (personified in Moses) and the prophets (represented by Elijah)—and an event of supreme import, determining the fulfilment of both the law and the prophets, and the glorious inauguration of a new and higher order as part of the divine plan. The decease that the Savior was then so soon to accomplish was the voluntary surrender of His life in fulfilment of a purpose at once exalted and foreordained, not a death by which He would passively die through conditions beyond His control. (See pp. 418, and 662).[Pg 378]
6. Mention of the Lord's Approaching "Decease."—Out of the three synoptic Gospels, only Luke briefly mentions the topic that Moses and Elijah discussed with the Lord during the Transfiguration. The account states that the visitors, who appeared in glory, "spoke of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem" (Luke 9:31). It’s important to note that the decease the Lord was to accomplish, rather than the death He would suffer or die, was the focus of their elevated conversation. The Greek word translated as "decease" in many manuscripts of the Gospels means "exodus" or "departure," and the term used in other early translations indicates glory. Additionally, the Greek original of "accomplish" in the Transfiguration account implies the successful completion of a particular mission, rather than just dying. Both the content of the record and the attitude of the writer show that Moses and Elijah talked with their Lord about the glorious fulfillment of His mission in life—a fulfillment acknowledged in the law (represented by Moses) and the prophets (represented by Elijah)—and an event of great significance that would complete both the law and the prophets, ushering in a new and higher order as part of the divine plan. The decease that the Savior was about to accomplish was the willing giving up of His life in line with a purpose that was both exalted and predetermined, not a death where He would passively die due to circumstances beyond His control. (See pp. 418, and 662).[Pg 378]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[781] Mark 9:10.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 9:10.
[782] 2 Peter 1:16-18.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 2 Peter 1:16-18.
[783] John 1:14.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 1:14.
[784] Matt. 4:11; Mark 1:13.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 4:11; Mark 1:13.
[785] Luke 22:43; compare John 12:27-28.
[786] 2 Kings 2:11.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 2 Kings 2:11.
[787] Matt. 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13.
[789] Matt. 11:14.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 11:14.
[794] Doc. and Cov. 110:13-16. See chapter 41, herein.
[794] Doc. and Cov. 110:13-16. See chapter 41, herein.
CHAPTER 24.
FROM SUNSHINE TO SHADOW.
Our Lord's descent from the holy heights[795] of the Mount of Transfiguration was more than a physical return from greater to lesser altitudes; it was a passing from sunshine into shadow, from the effulgent glory of heaven to the mists of worldly passions and human unbelief; it was the beginning of His rapid descent into the valley of humiliation. From lofty converse with divinely-appointed ministers, from supreme communion with His Father and God, Jesus came down to a scene of disheartening confusion and a spectacle of demonized dominion before which even His apostles stood in impotent despair. To His sensitive and sinless soul the contrast must have brought superhuman anguish; even to us who read the brief account thereof it is appalling.
Our Lord's descent from the holy heights[795] of the Mount of Transfiguration was more than just a physical return from high to low ground; it was moving from light into darkness, from the brilliant glory of heaven to the fog of worldly desires and human doubt; it marked the start of His swift fall into the valley of humiliation. After having deep conversations with divinely-chosen leaders and enjoying intimate fellowship with His Father and God, Jesus came down to a scene of discouraging chaos and a display of demonic control that left even His apostles feeling helpless and defeated. The stark difference must have caused deep anguish for His sensitive and sinless soul; even for us reading the brief account, it is shocking.
HEALING OF YOUTHFUL DEMONIAC.
Jesus and the three apostles returned from the mount on the morrow following the Transfiguration;[796] this fact suggests the assumption that the glorious manifestation had occurred during the night. At or near the base of the mountain the party found the other apostles, and with them a multitude of people, including some scribes or rabbis.[797] There was evidence of disputation and disturbance amongst the crowd; and plainly the apostles were on the defensive. At the unexpected approach of Jesus many of the people ran to meet Him with respectful salutations. Of the contentious scribes He asked: "What question ye with them?" thus[Pg 379] assuming the burden of the dispute, whatever it might be, and so relieving the distressed disciples from further active participation. The scribes remained silent; their courage had vanished when the Master appeared. A man, "one of the multitude," gave, though indirectly, the answer. "Master," said he, kneeling at the feet of Christ, "I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; and wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not."
Jesus and the three apostles came down from the mountain the day after the Transfiguration;[796] which suggests that this glorious event happened during the night. At or near the foot of the mountain, they found the other apostles and a crowd of people, including some scribes or teachers. [797] There were signs of arguing and chaos among the crowd, and it was clear that the apostles were on the defensive. When Jesus approached unexpectedly, many people ran to greet Him with respect. He asked the arguing scribes: "What are you discussing with them?" thus taking on the issue himself and relieving His troubled disciples from having to engage further. The scribes fell silent; their bravado disappeared in the presence of the Master. A man, "one of the crowd," indirectly provided the answer. "Master," he said, kneeling at Jesus' feet, "I brought my son to You, who has a spirit that makes him mute; whenever it seizes him, it throws him down, and he foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth, and becomes rigid. I asked Your disciples to drive it out, but they couldn’t."
The disciples' failure to heal the stricken youth had evidently brought upon them hostile criticism, taunts and ridicule from the unbelieving scribes; and their discomfiture must have been intensified by the thought that through them doubt had been cast upon the authority and power of their Lord. Pained in spirit at this—another instance of dearth of faith and consequent lack of power among His chosen and ordained servants—Jesus uttered an exclamation of intense sorrow: "O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?" These words, in which there is evident reproof, however mild and pitying it may be, were addressed primarily to the apostles; whether exclusively so or to them and others is of minor importance. As Jesus directed, the afflicted lad was brought nearer; and the tormenting demon, finding himself in the Master's presence, threw his youthful victim into a terrible paroxysm, so that the boy fell to the ground and wallowed in convulsions, the while frothing and foaming at the mouth. With calm deliberation, which contrasted strongly with the eager impatience of the distracted parent, Jesus inquired as to when the malady had first befallen the lad. "Of a child," answered the father, adding, "And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him." With pathetic eagerness he implored, "If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us." The man spoke of[Pg 380] his son's affliction as though shared by himself. "Help us," was his prayer.
The disciples' failure to heal the afflicted boy clearly led to harsh criticism, mockery, and ridicule from the unbelieving scribes. Their embarrassment must have been worsened by the realization that their inability cast doubt on the authority and power of their Lord. Distressed by this—another example of a lack of faith and power among His chosen servants—Jesus expressed deep sorrow: "O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?" These words, though mild and compassionate, were clearly a reprimand directed mainly at the apostles; whether exclusively to them or to others as well is less significant. As Jesus instructed, the tormented boy was brought closer; and when the tormenting demon sensed the Master's presence, it threw the young victim into a violent seizure, causing him to fall to the ground and convulse, frothing at the mouth. With a calm demeanor that sharply contrasted with the anxious urgency of the distraught father, Jesus asked how long the boy had been suffering. "Since childhood," the father replied, adding, "And often it has thrown him into fire and water to destroy him." With heartfelt desperation, he pleaded, "If you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us." The man referred to his son's suffering as if he felt it too. "Help us," was his prayer.
To this qualifying expression "If thou canst do anything," which implied a measure of uncertainty as to the ability of the Master to grant what he asked, and this perhaps as in part a result of the failure of the apostles, Jesus replied: "If thou canst believe"; and added, "all things are possible to him that believeth." The man's understanding was enlightened; up to that moment he had thought that all depended upon Jesus; he now saw that the issue rested largely with himself. It is noteworthy that the Lord specified belief rather than faith as the condition essential to the case. The man was evidently trustful, and assuredly fervent in his hope that Jesus could help; but it is doubtful that he knew what faith really meant. He was receptive and eagerly teachable, however, and the Lord strengthened his feeble and uncertain belief. The encouraging explanation of the real need stimulated him to a more abounding trust. Weeping in an agony of hope he cried out: "Lord, I believe;" and then, realizing the darkness of error from which he was just beginning to emerge, he added penitently "help thou mine unbelief "[798]
To this qualifying statement "If you can do anything," which suggested some doubt about the Master's ability to grant what was requested—maybe partly because of the apostles' failures—Jesus responded, "If you can believe"; and added, "everything is possible for the one who believes." The man's understanding was clarified; until that moment, he thought everything depended on Jesus; he now realized that the outcome largely depended on him. It’s significant that the Lord emphasized belief over faith as the crucial requirement here. The man was clearly trusting and deeply hopeful that Jesus could assist him; however, it’s uncertain if he truly understood what faith meant. He was open and eager to learn, and the Lord reinforced his weak and wavering belief. The encouraging explanation of his real need motivated him to trust more strongly. Weeping in an overwhelming mix of hope and desperation, he shouted, "Lord, I believe;" and then, becoming aware of the darkness of doubt he was just starting to shake off, he added humbly, "help my unbelief."[798]
Looking compassionately upon the writhing sufferer at His feet, Jesus rebuked the demon, thus: "Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead. But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose;" and as Luke adds, "and delivered him again to his father." The permanency of the cure was assured by the express command that the evil spirit enter no more into the lad;[799] it was no relief from that present attack alone; the healing was permanent.
Looking compassionately at the suffering person at His feet, Jesus spoke to the demon, saying, "You mute and deaf spirit, I command you to come out of him and never enter him again." The spirit screamed, violently shook him, and came out; he looked like he was dead, so much so that many said, "He’s dead." But Jesus took him by the hand and helped him up; as Luke adds, "and gave him back to his father." The lasting nature of the healing was confirmed by the clear command that the evil spirit should not enter the boy again; it wasn’t just relief from that one attack; the healing was permanent.
The people were amazed at the power of God manifested in the miracle; and the apostles who had tried and failed to subdue the evil spirit were disturbed. While on their mission, though away from their Master's helpful presence, they had successfully rebuked and cast out evil spirits as they had received special power and commission to do,[800] but now, during His absence of a day they had found themselves unable. When they had retired to the house, they asked of Jesus, "Why could not we cast him out?" The reply was: "Because of your unbelief;" and in further explanation the Lord said, "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."[801]
The people were amazed by the power of God shown in the miracle, and the apostles who had tried and failed to drive out the evil spirit were troubled. Even though they were away from their Master's supportive presence, they had successfully rebuked and cast out evil spirits on their mission because they had received special power and a mission to do so,[800] but now, just one day after His absence, they found themselves unable to. When they got back to the house, they asked Jesus, "Why couldn't we drive him out?" He replied, "Because of your lack of faith;" and as further clarification, the Lord said, "This kind can only come out through prayer and fasting."[801]
Hereby we learn that the achievements possible to faith are limited or conditioned by the genuineness, the purity, the unmixed quality of that faith. "O ye of little faith;" "Where is your faith?" and "Wherefore didst thou doubt?"[802] are forms of admonitory reproof that had been repeatedly addressed to the apostles by the Lord. The possibilities of faith were now thus further affirmed: "Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."[803] The comparison between effective faith and a grain of mustard seed is one of quality rather than of quantity; it connotes living, virile faith, like unto the seed, however small, from which a great plant may spring,[804] in contrast with a lifeless, artificial imitation, however prominent or demonstrative.
Here we learn that the accomplishments possible through faith are limited or determined by the authenticity, the purity, and the undiluted nature of that faith. "Oh you of little faith," "Where is your faith?" and "Why did you doubt?"[802] are forms of cautionary rebuke that the Lord repeatedly directed at the apostles. The potential of faith was further emphasized: "Truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you."[803] The comparison between effective faith and a mustard seed is about quality rather than quantity; it signifies a living, powerful faith, much like the small seed from which a great plant can grow,[804] contrasting with a lifeless, artificial imitation, no matter how large or showy.
THE LORD'S DEATH AND RESURRECTION AGAIN PREDICTED.[805]
From the locality whereat the last miracle was wrought, Jesus departed with the Twelve, and passed through Galilee[Pg 382] toward Capernaum. It is probable that they traveled by the less frequented roads, as He desired that His return should not be publicly known. He had gone into comparative retirement for a season, primarily it seems in quest of opportunity to more thoroughly instruct the apostles in their preparation for the work, which within a few months they would be left to carry on without His bodily companionship. They had solemnly testified that they knew Him to be the Christ; to them therefore He could impart much that the people in general were wholly unprepared to receive. The particular theme of His special and advanced instruction to the Twelve was that of His approaching death and resurrection; and this was dwelt upon again and again, for they were slow or unwilling to comprehend.
After the last miracle, Jesus left that place with the Twelve and traveled through Galilee[Pg 382] toward Capernaum. It’s likely they took the less traveled paths because He wanted to keep His return low-key. He had gone into a sort of retreat for a while, mostly to find time to prepare the apostles more thoroughly for the work they would have to do soon, without His physical presence. They had solemnly declared that they believed Him to be the Christ, so He could share much with them that the general public wasn’t ready to hear. The main focus of His deeper teachings to the Twelve was about His upcoming death and resurrection; He repeatedly emphasized this, as they were slow or reluctant to understand.
"Let these sayings sink down into your ears" was His forceful prelude on this occasion, in Galilee. Then followed the reiterated prediction, spoken in part in the present tense as though already begun in fulfilment: "The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day." We read with some surprize that the apostles still failed to understand. Luke's comment is: "But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying." The thought of what the Lord's words might mean, even in its faintest outline, was terrifying to those devoted men; and their failure to comprehend was in part due to the fact that the human mind is loath to search deeply into anything it desires not to believe.
"Let these words really sink in," was his powerful intro on this occasion in Galilee. Then came the repeated prediction, spoken partly in the present tense as if it had already started to happen: "The Son of Man will be handed over to people, and they will kill him; and after he is killed, he will rise on the third day." We read with some surprise that the apostles still didn’t get it. Luke notes: "But they did not understand this saying, and it was hidden from them, so they couldn’t perceive it; and they were afraid to ask him about it." The thought of what the Lord's words might imply, even in the faintest way, was frightening to those devoted men; and their lack of understanding was partly because the human mind is reluctant to dig deep into anything it doesn’t want to believe.
THE TRIBUTE MONEY—SUPPLIED BY A MIRACLE.[806]
Jesus and His followers were again in Capernaum. There Peter was approached by a collector of the temple tax, who[Pg 383] asked: "Doth not your Master pay tribute?"[807] Peter answered "Yes." It is interesting to find that the inquiry was made of Peter and not directly of Jesus; this circumstance may be indicative of the respect in which the Lord was held by the people at large, and may suggest the possibility of doubt in the collector's mind as to whether Jesus was amenable to the tax, since priests and rabbis generally claimed exemption.
Jesus and His followers were back in Capernaum. There, a temple tax collector approached Peter and asked, "Doesn't your Master pay the tax?" Peter replied, "Yes." It's interesting that the question was directed to Peter instead of Jesus; this could show the respect the people had for the Lord and might suggest the collector’s uncertainty about whether Jesus was required to pay the tax, since priests and rabbis usually claimed exemption.
The annual capitation tax here referred to amounted to half a shekel or a didrachm, corresponding to about thirty-three cents in our money; and this had been required of every male adult in Israel since the days of the exodus; though, during the period of captivity the requirement had been modified.[808] This tribute, as prescribed through Moses, was originally known as "atonement money," and its payment was in the nature of a sacrifice to accompany supplication for ransom from the effects of individual sin. At the time of Christ the annual contribution was usually collected between early March and the Passover. If Jesus was subject to this tax, He was at this time several weeks in arrears.
The annual capitation tax mentioned here was half a shekel or a didrachm, which is roughly equivalent to about thirty-three cents today; and this tax had been required from every adult male in Israel since the time of the exodus, although it had been adjusted during the period of captivity.[808] This payment, as established by Moses, was originally called "atonement money," and it served as a kind of sacrifice to accompany prayers for forgiveness from the consequences of personal sin. By the time of Christ, the annual payment was typically collected between early March and Passover. If Jesus was subject to this tax, He was now several weeks behind on it.
The conversation between Peter and the tax-collector had occurred outside the house. When Peter entered, and was about to inform the Master concerning the interview, Jesus forestalled him, saying: "What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free."
The conversation between Peter and the tax collector happened outside the house. When Peter came in and was about to tell the Master about the meeting, Jesus interrupted him, saying: "What do you think, Simon? Who do the kings of the earth collect taxes or tribute from? Their own children or from others? Peter answered him, 'From others.' Jesus said to him, 'Then the children are free.'"
Peter must have seen the inconsistency of expecting Jesus, the acknowledged Messiah, to pay atonement money, or a tax for temple maintenance, inasmuch as the temple was the House of God, and Jesus was the Son of God, and particularly since even earthly princes were exempted from[Pg 384] capitation dues. Peter's embarrassment over his inconsiderate boldness, in pledging payment for his Master without first consulting Him, was relieved however by Jesus, who said: "Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee."
Peter must have recognized the inconsistency of expecting Jesus, the recognized Messiah, to pay atonement money or a tax for temple maintenance, especially since the temple was the House of God, and Jesus was the Son of God. It was even more puzzling considering that earthly princes were exempt from[Pg 384]capitation taxes. Peter felt embarrassed about his thoughtless boldness in offering to pay for his Master without consulting Him first. However, Jesus reassured him, saying, "But, so we don’t offend them, go to the sea, cast a hook, and catch the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you’ll find a coin. Take that and give it to them for both of us."
The money was to be paid, not because it could be rightfully demanded of Jesus, but lest non-payment give offense and furnish to His opponents further excuse for complaint. The "piece of money," which Jesus said Peter would find in the mouth of the first fish that took his bait, is more correctly designated by the literal translation "stater,"[809] indicating a silver coin equivalent to a shekel, or two didrachms, and therefore the exact amount of the tax for two persons. "That take, and give unto them for me and thee" said Jesus. It is notable that He did not say "for us." In His associations with men, even with the Twelve, who of all were nearest and dearest to Him, our Lord always maintained His separate and unique status, in every instance making the fact apparent that He was essentially different from other men. This is illustrated by His expressions "My Father and your Father," "My God and your God,"[810] instead of our Father and our God. He reverently acknowledged that He was the Son of God in a literal sense that did not apply to any other being.
The payment was necessary, not because Jesus was obligated to pay, but to avoid causing offense and giving His opponents another reason to complain. The "piece of money" that Jesus mentioned Peter would find in the mouth of the first fish he caught is more accurately called a "stater,"[809] which refers to a silver coin equivalent to a shekel, or two didrachms, making it exactly the right amount for the tax for two people. "Take that and pay it for me and you," Jesus said. It’s interesting to note that He didn’t say "for us." In all His interactions with people, even with the Twelve, who were the closest to Him, our Lord always kept His distinct and unique identity, making it clear each time that He was fundamentally different from others. This is reflected in His phrases "My Father and your Father," "My God and your God,"[810] instead of saying our Father and our God. He acknowledged with reverence that He was the Son of God in a way that was unique to Him.
While the circumstances of the finding of the stater in the fish are not detailed, and the actual accomplishment of the miracle is not positively recorded, we cannot doubt that what Jesus had promised was realized, as otherwise there would appear no reason for introducing the incident into the Gospel narrative. The miracle is without a parallel or even a remotely analogous instance. We need not assume that[Pg 385] the stater was other than an ordinary coin that had fallen into the water, nor that it had been taken by the fish in any unusual way. Nevertheless, the knowledge that there was in the lake a fish having a coin in its gullet, that the coin was of the denomination specified, and that that particular fish would rise, and be the first to rise to Peter's hook, is as incomprehensible to man's finite understanding as are the means by which any of Christ's miracles were wrought. The Lord Jesus held and holds dominion over the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, for by His word and power were they made.
While the details about how the coin was found in the fish aren't provided, and the specific event of the miracle isn't clearly documented, we can be certain that what Jesus promised actually happened; otherwise, there wouldn't be any reason to include this story in the Gospel. This miracle is unique, with no similar examples. We don’t need to assume that the coin was anything other than a regular coin that fell into the water or that it was taken by the fish in any unusual manner. Still, the fact that there was a fish in the lake with a coin in its mouth, that the coin was the exact type mentioned, and that this specific fish was the first to take Peter's hook is beyond human understanding, just like the ways in which any of Christ's miracles occurred. Jesus has authority over the earth, the sea, and everything in them, for He made them by His word and power.
The Lord's purpose in so miraculously supplying the money should be studiously considered. The assumption that superhuman power had to be invoked because of a supposed condition of extreme poverty on the part of Jesus and Peter is unwarranted. Even if Jesus and His companions had been actually penniless, Peter and his fellow fishermen could easily have cast their net, and, with ordinary success have obtained fish enough to sell for the needed amount. Moreover, we find no instance of a miracle wrought by the Lord for personal gain or relief of His own need, however pressing. It appears probable, that by the means employed for obtaining the money, Jesus intentionally emphasized His exceptional reasons for redeeming Peter's pledge that the tax would be paid. The Jews, who did not know Jesus as the Messiah, but only as a Teacher of superior ability and a Man of unusual power, might have taken offense had He refused to pay the tribute required of every Jew. On the other hand, to the apostles and particularly to Peter who had been the mouth-piece of all in the great confession, the payment of the tax in ordinary course and without explanation by Jesus might have appeared as an admission that He was subject to the temple, and therefore less than He had claimed and less than they had confessed Him to be. His catechization of Peter had clearly demonstrated that He maintained[Pg 386] His right as the King's Son, and yet would condescend to voluntarily give what could not be righteously demanded. Then, in conclusive demonstration of His exalted status, He provided the money by the utilization of knowledge such as no other man possessed.
The Lord's purpose in miraculously providing the money should be carefully considered. The belief that superhuman power was needed due to a supposed extreme poverty of Jesus and Peter is unfounded. Even if Jesus and His companions had been genuinely broke, Peter and the other fishermen could have easily cast their net and, with ordinary success, caught enough fish to sell for the necessary amount. Furthermore, there is no record of a miracle performed by the Lord for personal gain or to relieve His own needs, no matter how urgent. It seems likely that by the way the money was obtained, Jesus intentionally highlighted His unique reasons for fulfilling Peter's vow to pay the tax. The Jews, who saw Jesus not as the Messiah but merely as an exceptionally capable Teacher and a Man of great power, might have been offended if He had refused to pay the tribute required of every Jew. On the other hand, for the apostles—especially Peter, who had represented them all in their great confession—the tax payment without any explanation from Jesus could have seemed like an acknowledgment that He was subject to the temple, and therefore less than what He claimed to be and less than they believed Him to be. His teaching moment with Peter clearly showed that He upheld His rights as the King's Son, yet would willingly give what could not be justly demanded. Then, as a final testament to His exalted status, He provided the money using knowledge that no one else possessed.
AS A LITTLE CHILD.[811]
On the way to Capernaum the apostles had questioned among themselves, as they supposed beyond the Master's hearing; questioning had led to argument, and argument to disputation. The matter about which they were so greatly concerned was as to who among them should be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. The testimony they had received convinced them beyond all doubt, that Jesus was the long-awaited Christ, and this had been supplemented and confirmed by His unqualified acknowledgment of His Messianic dignity. With minds still tinctured by the traditional expectation of the Messiah as both spiritual Lord and temporal King, and remembering some of the Master's frequent references to His kingdom and the blessed state of those who belonged thereto, and furthermore realizing that His recent utterances indicated a near crisis or climax in His ministry, they surrendered themselves to the selfish contemplation of their prospective stations in the new kingdom, and the particular offices of trust, honor, and emolument each most desired. Who of them was to be prime minister; who would be chancellor, who the commander of the troops? Personal ambition had already engendered jealousy in their hearts.
On the way to Capernaum, the apostles had been discussing among themselves, thinking they were out of the Master's earshot; their discussion turned into an argument, and then into a debate. What worried them the most was who among them would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. The evidence they had received left them completely convinced that Jesus was the long-awaited Christ, and this was reinforced by His clear acknowledgment of His Messianic role. With their minds still influenced by the traditional view of the Messiah as both a spiritual leader and a earthly King, and recalling how often the Master spoke of His kingdom and the blessedness of those who belonged to it, they also sensed that His recent comments hinted at an upcoming turning point in His ministry. So, they found themselves selfishly thinking about their potential positions in the new kingdom and the specific roles of trust, honor, and reward each of them desired most. Who among them would be the prime minister? Who would be the chancellor? Who would lead the troops? Their personal ambitions had already sparked jealousy in their hearts.
When they were together with Jesus in the house at Capernaum, the subject was brought up again. Mark tells us that Jesus asked: "What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?" and that they answered not, because,[Pg 387] as may be inferred, they were ashamed. From Matthew's record it may be understood that the apostles submitted the question for the Master's decision. The apparent difference of circumstance is unimportant; both accounts are correct; Christ's question to them may have eventually brought out their questions to Him. Jesus, comprehending their thoughts and knowing their unenlightened state of mind on the matter that troubled them, gave them an illustrated lesson. Calling a little child, whom He lovingly took into His arm, He said: "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." With this lesson we may profitably associate a later teaching, that little children are typical of the kingdom of heaven.[812]
When they were together with Jesus in the house in Capernaum, the topic came up again. Mark tells us that Jesus asked, "What were you arguing about on the way?" and they didn’t answer because, as we can guess, they were embarrassed. From Matthew's account, it seems the apostles asked the question for Jesus to decide. The difference in circumstance isn’t significant; both accounts are accurate. Jesus’ question may have eventually prompted them to ask Him their questions. Understanding their thoughts and knowing they were confused about what was bothering them, Jesus gave them a lesson using an example. He called a little child to Him, gently holding the child in His arms, and said, "Truly I tell you, unless you turn and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such little child in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." This lesson aligns well with a later teaching that little children represent the kingdom of heaven.[812]
Even the apostles were in need of conversion;[813] respecting the matter at issue their hearts were turned, partly at least, from God and His kingdom. They had to learn that genuine humility is an attribute essential to citizenship in the community of the blessed; and that the degree of humility conditions whatsoever there is akin to rank in the kingdom; for therein the humblest shall be greatest.
Even the apostles needed to change; [813] regarding the issue at hand, their hearts were, at least in part, turned away from God and His kingdom. They had to realize that true humility is a necessary quality for being part of the blessed community, and that the level of humility determines one's status in the kingdom; because in that context, the humblest will be the greatest.
Christ would not have had His chosen representatives become childish; far from it, they had to be men of courage, fortitude, and force; but He would have them become childlike. The distinction is important. Those who belong to Christ must become like children in obedience, truthfulness,[Pg 388] trustfulness, purity, humility and faith. The child is an artless, natural, trusting believer; the childish one is careless, foolish, and neglectful. In contrasting these characteristics, note the counsel of Paul: "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men."[814] Children as such, and children as types of adults who are true believers, are closely associated in this lesson. Whosoever shall offend, that is cause to stumble or go astray, one such child of Christ, incurs guilt so great that it would have been better for him had he met death even by violence before he had so sinned.
Christ wouldn’t have wanted His chosen representatives to be childish; on the contrary, they needed to be courageous, strong, and assertive. However, He wanted them to be childlike. This distinction is crucial. Those who follow Christ should be like children in their obedience, honesty, trust, purity, humility, and faith. A child is naturally trusting and genuine, while a childish person is careless, foolish, and neglectful. In highlighting these differences, consider Paul’s advice: "Brothers, don’t be childish in your understanding; however, in malice be like children, but in your understanding be adults." Children, as they are, and adult believers who genuinely follow Christ, are closely linked in this lesson. Anyone who causes one of these little ones who belong to Christ to stumble or go astray bears a guilt so severe that it would have been better for them to have died violently than to have committed such a sin.
Dwelling upon offenses, or causes of stumbling, the Lord continued: "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" Then, repeating some of the precious truths embodied in His memorable Sermon on the Mount,[815] He urged the overcoming of evil propensities whatever the sacrifice. As it is better that a man undergo surgical treatment though he lose thereby a hand, a foot, or an eye, than that his whole body be involved and his life forfeited, so is it commended that he cut off, tear away, or root out from his soul the passions of evil, which, if suffered to remain shall surely bring him under condemnation. In that state his conscience shall gnaw as an undying worm, and his remorse shall be as a fire that cannot be quenched. Every human soul shall be tested as by fire; and as the flesh of the altar sacrifices had to be seasoned with salt, as a type of preservation from corruption,[816] so also the soul must receive the saving salt of the gospel; and that salt must be pure and potent, not a dirty mixture of inherited prejudice and unauthorized tradition that has lost whatever saltness it may once have had. "Have salt in yourselves, and have[Pg 389] peace one with another," was the Lord's admonition to the disputing Twelve.[817]
Focusing on the issues that cause people to stumble, the Lord said: "Woe to the world because of these offenses! It's inevitable that they will come, but woe to the person who causes the offense!" Then, recalling some of the important truths from His unforgettable Sermon on the Mount,[815] He encouraged overcoming harmful tendencies no matter the cost. Just as it's better for a person to undergo surgery and lose a hand, a foot, or an eye than risk their entire body and life, it's advised that they remove, cut away, or eradicate the evil passions from their soul, which if allowed to stay will lead to condemnation. In such a state, their conscience will torment them like an unending worm, and their remorse will burn like a fire that can't be extinguished. Every human soul will be tested like gold in fire; and just as the sacrifices on the altar had to be seasoned with salt to symbolize preservation from decay,[816] the soul must also receive the preserving salt of the gospel, and that salt should be pure and strong, not a contaminated mix of inherited biases and unauthorized traditions that have lost their effectiveness. "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another," was the Lord's advice to the arguing Twelve.[817]
As applicable to children of tender years, and to child-like believers young and old, the Savior gave to the apostles this solemn warning and profound statement of fact: "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." The mission of the Christ was presented as that of saving those who are temporarily lost, and who, but for His aid would be lost forever. In elucidation of His meaning, the Teacher presented a parable which has found place among the literary treasures of the world.
For children and child-like believers of all ages, the Savior gave the apostles a serious warning and a powerful statement: "Be careful not to despise any of these little ones; for I tell you, their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." The mission of Christ was to save those who are temporarily lost and who, without His help, would be lost forever. To clarify His meaning, the Teacher shared a parable that has become one of the literary treasures of the world.
THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP.[818]
"How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."
"What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one goes missing, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to look for the one that’s lost? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that sheep than about the ninety-nine that didn’t go astray. In the same way, it is not my Father in heaven’s will that any of these little ones should be lost."
In this effective analogy the saving purpose of Christ's mission is made prominent. He is verily the Savior. The shepherd is portrayed as leaving the ninety and nine, pastured or folded in safety we cannot doubt, while he goes alone into the mountains to seek the one that has strayed. In finding and bringing back the wayward sheep, he has more joy than that of knowing the others are yet safe. In a later version of this splendid parable, as addressed to the murmuring Pharisees and scribes at Jerusalem, the Master said of the shepherd on his finding the lost sheep:[Pg 390]
In this powerful analogy, the purpose of Christ's mission as a savior stands out clearly. He truly is the Savior. The shepherd is depicted as leaving the ninety-nine sheep, which are surely safe in their pasture, to go alone into the mountains to find the one that has wandered off. When he finds and brings back the lost sheep, he feels more joy than merely knowing the others are safe. In a later version of this amazing parable, directed at the complaining Pharisees and scribes in Jerusalem, the Master said of the shepherd upon finding the lost sheep:[Pg 390]
"And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."[819]
"And when he finds it, he puts it on his shoulders, celebrating. And when he gets home, he gathers his friends and neighbors, saying to them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my lost sheep. I tell you, there will be just as much joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who don't need to repent."[819]
Many have marveled that there should be greater rejoicing over the recovery of one stray sheep, or the saving of a soul that had been as one lost, than over the many who have not been in such jeopardy. In the safe-folded ninety and nine the shepherd had continued joy; but to him came a new accession of happiness, brighter and stronger because of his recent grief, when the lost was brought back to the fold. To this parable in connection with others of analogous import we shall recur in a later chapter.
Many people have wondered why there’s so much more joy over finding one lost sheep or saving a soul that had strayed, compared to the happiness felt for the many who have never faced such danger. The shepherd found continuous joy in the safe presence of the ninety-nine, but he experienced an even greater surge of happiness, brighter and more intense because of his earlier sorrow, when the lost sheep was brought back to the fold. We will come back to this parable along with others that have similar meanings in a later chapter.
"IN MY NAME."[820]
In continuation of the lesson illustrated by the little child, Jesus said: "Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great." It may have been Christ's reference to deeds done in His name that prompted John to interject a remark at this point: "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part." The young apostle had allowed his zeal for the Master's name to lead to intolerance. That the man who had attempted to do good in the name of Jesus was evidently sincere, and that his efforts were acceptable to[Pg 391] the Lord we cannot doubt; his act was essentially different from the unrighteous assumptions for which some others were afterward rebuked;[821] he was certainly a believer in Christ, and may have been one of the class from which the Lord was soon to select and commission special ministers and the Seventy.[822] In the state of divided opinion then existing among the people concerning Jesus, it was fair to say that all who were not opposed to Him were at least tentatively on His side. On other occasions He asserted that those who were not with Him were against Him.[823]
In continuing with the lesson illustrated by the little child, Jesus said: "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. For the one who is the least among you all, that one will be great." It might have been Christ's mention of actions done in His name that led John to interrupt with a comment: "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and he doesn’t follow us, so we told him to stop because he doesn’t follow us." But Jesus said, "Don’t stop him, for there is no one who performs a miracle in my name who can easily speak evil of me. For whoever is not against us is on our side." The young apostle had let his excitement for the Master’s name lead to narrow-mindedness. The man who had tried to do good in Jesus' name was clearly sincere, and his efforts were undoubtedly acceptable to the Lord; his actions were fundamentally different from the wrongful assumptions that some others were later criticized for; he was certainly a believer in Christ and may have been among those from whom the Lord would soon choose and appoint specific ministers and the Seventy. Given the divided opinions among the people regarding Jesus, it was fair to say that all who were not against Him were at least tentatively on His side. On other occasions, He asserted that those who were not with Him were against Him.
MY BROTHER AND I.[824]
The proper method of adjusting differences between brethren and the fundamental principles of Church discipline were made subjects of instruction to the Twelve. The first step is thus prescribed: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." The rule of the rabbis was that the offender must make the first advance; but Jesus taught that the injured one should not wait for his brother to come to him, but go himself, and seek to adjust the difficulty; by so doing he might be the means of saving his brother's soul. If the offender proved to be obdurate, the brother who had suffered the trespass was to take two or three others with him, and again try to bring the transgressor to repentant acknowledgment of his offense; such a course provided for witnesses, by whose presence later misrepresentation would be guarded against.
The correct way to resolve differences between members and the essential principles of Church discipline were taught to the Twelve. The first step is stated as follows: "If your brother wrongs you, go and tell him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over." The Jewish tradition held that the offender should make the first move; however, Jesus taught that the person who was hurt shouldn’t wait for their brother to approach but should go to him and try to resolve the issue. By doing this, they could help save their brother's soul. If the offender remained stubborn, the person who had been wronged should take two or three others with him and attempt once more to encourage the offender to admit their wrongdoing. This approach ensured that there were witnesses, protecting against any later misrepresentation.
Extreme measures were to be adopted only after all gentler means had failed. Should the man persist in his obstinacy, the case was to be brought before the Church, and[Pg 392] in the event of his neglect or refusal to heed the decision of the Church, he was to be deprived of fellowship, thereby becoming in his relationship to his former associates "as an heathen man and a publican." In such state of non-membership he would be a fit subject for missionary effort; but, until he became repentant and manifested willingness to make amends, he could claim no rights or privileges of communion in the Church. Continued association with the unrepentant sinner may involve the spread of his disaffection, and the contamination of others through his sin. Justice is not to be dethroned by Mercy. The revealed order of discipline in the restored Church is similar to that given to the apostles of old.[825]
Extreme measures should only be taken after all gentler methods have failed. If the man continues to be stubborn, the case will be brought before the Church, and if he ignores or refuses to follow the Church's decision, he will be excluded from fellowship, becoming "like a heathen or a tax collector" in relation to his former friends. In this state of non-membership, he would be a suitable target for missionary work; however, until he decides to repent and shows a willingness to make things right, he cannot claim any rights or privileges of communion in the Church. Continuing to associate with an unrepentant sinner could lead to spreading his discontent and contaminating others with his sin. Mercy should not override justice. The method of discipline revealed in the restored Church is similar to that given to the apostles long ago.[825]
The authority of the Twelve to administer the affairs of Church government was attested by the Lord's confirming to them as a body the promise before addressed to Peter: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."[826] Through unity of purpose and unreserved sincerity they would have power with God, as witness the Master's further assurance: "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Peter here broke in with a question: "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?" He would fain have some definite limit set, and he probably considered the tentative suggestion of seven times as a very liberal measure, inasmuch as the rabbis prescribed a triple forgiveness only.[827] He may have chosen seven as the next number above three having a special Pharisaical[Pg 393] significance. The Savior's answer was enlightening: "Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." This reply must have meant to Peter as it means to us, that to forgiveness man may set no bounds; the forgiveness, however, must be merited by the recipient.[828] The instruction was made memorable by the following story.
The authority of the Twelve to manage the Church's affairs was confirmed by the Lord, who affirmed to them collectively the promise previously given to Peter: "Truly, I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."[826] Through united purpose and complete sincerity, they would have power with God, as shown by the Master's further assurance: "Once again, I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there I am with them." Peter then asked, "Lord, how many times should I forgive my brother who sins against me? Up to seven times?" He likely wanted a clear limit, and he may have thought the suggestion of seven times was quite generous, considering the rabbis taught only to forgive three times.[827] He might have picked seven as it is the next number after three and has a particular significance in Pharisaical teaching.[Pg 393] The Savior's response was insightful: "Jesus answered him, I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven." This answer must have conveyed to Peter, as it does to us, that there should be no limits to forgiveness, although the forgiveness must be deserved by the person receiving it.[828] The follow-up story made this lesson memorable.
PARABLE OF THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT.
"Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."[829]
"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began to do so, one servant was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But since he didn't have the means to pay, his master ordered that he be sold, along with his wife, children, and everything he owned, to cover the debt. The servant fell down and pleaded with him, saying, 'Lord, be patient with me, and I will pay you back everything.' The master of that servant was filled with compassion, and he released him and forgave the debt. However, that same servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred pence. He grabbed him by the throat and demanded, 'Pay me what you owe!' His fellow servant fell at his feet and begged him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you back everything.' But he refused and had him thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were very upset and went to their master to report everything that had taken place. Then the master called the servant back and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had mercy on you?' The master was angry and handed him over to the jailers to be tortured until he could pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."[829]
Ten thousand talents are specified as expressive of a sum[Pg 394] so great as to put the debtor beyond all reasonable possibility of paying. We may regard the man as a trusted official, one of the king's ministers, who had been charged with the custody of the royal revenues, or one of the chief treasurers of taxes; that he is called a servant introduces no inconsistency, as in an absolute monarchy all but the sovereign are subjects and servants. The selling of the debtor's wife and children and all that he had would not have been in violation of the law in the supposed case, which implies the legal recognition of slavery.[830] The man was in arrears for debt. He did not come before his lord voluntarily but had to be brought. So in the affairs of our individual lives periodical reckonings are inevitable; and while some debtors report of their own accord, others have to be cited to appear. The messengers who serve the summons may be adversity, illness, the approach of death; but, whatever, whoever they are, they enforce a rendering of our accounts.
Ten thousand talents represents an amount so huge that the debtor has no realistic chance of paying it off. We can see this man as a trusted official, perhaps one of the king’s ministers, responsible for managing the royal finances, or maybe a chief tax collector. The fact that he’s called a servant isn’t inconsistent, since in an absolute monarchy, everyone except the sovereign is considered a subject and a servant. Selling the debtor's wife and children, along with all his possessions, wouldn’t have violated the law in this scenario, which suggests that slavery was legally recognized. The man was behind on his debts. He didn’t go before his lord willingly; he had to be brought in. Similarly, in our personal lives, we inevitably face periodic audits of our circumstances; while some people come forward about their debts, others need to be called out to show up. The messengers that bring these summons could be hardship, illness, or even the threat of death; but regardless of who or what they are, they require us to settle our accounts.
The contrast between ten thousand talents and a hundred pence is enormous.[831] In his fellowservant's plea for time in which to pay the hundred pence, the greater debtor should have been reminded of the dire straits from which he had just been relieved; the words, "Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all," were identical with those of his own prayer to the king. The base ingratitude of the unmerciful servant justified the king in revoking the pardon once granted. The man came under condemnation, not primarily for defalcation and debt, but for lack of mercy after having received of mercy so abundantly. He, as an unjust plaintiff, had invoked the law; as a convicted transgressor he was to be dealt with according to the law. Mercy is for the merciful. As a heavenly jewel it is to be received with thankfulness and used with sanctity, not to be cast into the mire of undeservedness. Justice may demand retribution and punishment:[Pg 395] "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."[832] The conditions under which we may confidently implore pardon are set forth in the form of prayer prescribed by the Lord: "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."[833]
The difference between ten thousand talents and a hundred pence is huge.[831] When his fellow servant begged for more time to pay the hundred pence, the greater debtor should have remembered the desperate situation he had just been saved from; the words, "Have patience with me, and I will pay you back," were the same as his own plea to the king. The ungratefulness of the merciless servant gave the king a reason to take back the pardon he had given. The man was condemned not just for his debt, but for not showing mercy after having received so much mercy himself. As an unjust accuser, he had called for the law; as a convicted wrongdoer, he was to face the law's consequences. Mercy is meant for those who show mercy. As a precious gift from heaven, it should be received gratefully and used wisely, not thrown away into the dirt of unworthiness. Justice may require punishment:[Pg 395] "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you again."[832] The conditions under which we can confidently ask for forgiveness are laid out in the prayer taught by the Lord: "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."[833]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 24.
1. Faith in Behalf of Others.—The supplication of the agonized father for the benefit of his sorely afflicted son—"Have compassion on us, and help us" (Mark 9:22)—shows that he made the boy's case his own. In this we are reminded of the Canaanite woman who implored Jesus to have mercy on her, though her daughter was the afflicted one (Matt. 15:22; page 354 herein). In these cases, faith was exercized in behalf of the sufferers by others; and the same is true of the centurion who pleaded for his servant and whose faith was specially commended by Jesus (Matt 8:5-10; page 249 herein); of Jairus whose daughter lay dead (Luke 8:41, 42, 49, 50; page 313 herein), and of many who brought their helpless kindred or friends to Christ and pleaded for them. As heretofore shown, faith to be healed is as truly a gift of God as is faith to heal (page 318); and, as the instances cited prove, faith may be exercized with effect in behalf of others. In connection with the ordinance of administering to the afflicted, by anointing with oil and the laying on of hands, as authoritatively established in the restored Church of Jesus Christ, the elders officiating should encourage the faith of all believers present, that such be exerted in behalf of the sufferer. In the case of infants and of persons who are unconscious, it is plainly useless to look for active manifestation of faith on their part, and the supporting faith of kindred and friends is all the more requisite.
1. Faith for Others.—The desperate father's plea for his severely troubled son—"Have compassion on us, and help us" (Mark 9:22)—shows that he took on his son's suffering as his own. This reminds us of the Canaanite woman who asked Jesus to have mercy on her, even though her daughter was the one in distress (Matt. 15:22; page 354 herein). In these instances, others exercised faith on behalf of those who were suffering; the same is true for the centurion who asked for his servant and whose faith Jesus specifically praised (Matt. 8:5-10; page 249 herein), for Jairus whose daughter had died (Luke 8:41, 42, 49, 50; page 313 herein), and for many others who brought their helpless relatives or friends to Christ and interceded for them. As previously mentioned, faith for healing is just as much a gift from God as the faith to heal (page 318); and the examples cited demonstrate that faith can effectively be exercised for others. When administering the ordinance of healing through anointing with oil and the laying on of hands, as officially established in the restored Church of Jesus Christ, the elders should encourage the faith of all believers present, so that it can be directed toward the one in need. In the case of infants and individuals who are unconscious, it's clearly pointless to expect them to actively express faith, making the supporting faith of their family and friends even more essential.
2. Power Developed by Prayer and Fasting.—The Savior's statement concerning the evil spirit that the apostles were unable to subdue—"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting"—indicates gradation in the malignity and evil power of demons, and gradation also in the results of varying degrees of faith. The apostles who failed on the occasion referred to had been able to cast out demons at other times. Fasting, when practised in prudence, and genuine prayer are conducive to the development of faith with its accompanying power for good. Individual application of this principle may be made with profit. Have you some besetting weakness, some sinful indulgence that you have vainly tried to overcome? Like the malignant demon that Christ rebuked in the boy, your sin may be of a kind that goeth out only through prayer and fasting.
2. Power Developed by Prayer and Fasting.—The Savior's statement about the evil spirit that the apostles couldn't cast out—"This kind can only come out through prayer and fasting"—shows that there are different levels of evil and power among demons, as well as different outcomes based on varying levels of faith. The apostles who struggled during this particular time had successfully cast out demons before. Practicing fasting wisely and engaging in sincere prayer can help strengthen faith and its accompanying power for good. You can individually apply this principle for personal benefit. Do you have a persistent weakness or a sinful habit that you've tried unsuccessfully to overcome? Like the evil spirit that Christ confronted in the boy, your struggle might be something that can only be conquered through prayer and fasting.
3. Nothing Impossible to Faith.—Many people have questioned[Pg 396] the literal truth of the Lord's declaration that by faith mountains may be removed from their place. Plainly there would have to be a purpose in harmony with the divine mind and plan, in order that faith could be exerted at all in such an undertaking. Neither such a miracle nor any other is possible as a gratification of the yearning for curiosity, nor for display, nor for personal gain or selfish satisfaction. Christ wrought no miracle with any such motive; He persistently refused to show signs to mere sign-seekers. But to deny the possibility of a mountain being removed through faith, under conditions that would render such removal acceptable to God, is to deny the word of God, both as to this specific possibility, and as to the general assurance that "nothing shall be impossible" to him who hath faith adequate to the end desired. It is worthy of note, however, that the Jews in the days of Christ and since often spoke of removing mountains as a figurative expression for the overcoming of difficulties. According to Lightfoot and other authorities a man able to solve intricate problems, or of particular power in argument or acumen in judgment, was referred to as a "rooter up of mountains."
3. Nothing Impossible to Faith.—Many people have questioned[Pg 396] the literal truth of the Lord's statement that faith can move mountains. Clearly, there would need to be a purpose aligned with the divine mind and plan for faith to be effective in such a task. Neither this miracle nor any other can happen just to satisfy curiosity, for show, or for personal gain or selfish reasons. Christ performed no miracles with such motives; He consistently refused to display signs just for the sake of sign-seekers. However, to deny the possibility of a mountain being moved by faith, under conditions that would make such a change acceptable to God, is to reject the word of God regarding this specific possibility, as well as the broader assurance that "nothing shall be impossible" for those who have sufficient faith to achieve their desired outcome. It's also worth noting that Jews in the days of Christ and afterward often used the phrase "removing mountains" as a metaphor for overcoming challenges. According to Lightfoot and other scholars, a person who could solve complicated problems or was particularly skilled in argumentation or judgment was referred to as a "rooter up of mountains."
4. The Temple Tribute.—That the tribute money referred to in the text was a Jewish contribution to the temple and not a tax levied by the Roman government, is apparent from the specification of the "didrachma," which in the authorized version is translated "tribute." This coin was equivalent to the half shekel, reckoned "after the shekel of the sanctuary," which was the fixed amount to be paid annually by every male "from twenty years old and above," with the provision that "the rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less" (Exo. 30:13-15). A tax levied by the political powers would not be designated as the didrachma. Moreover, had the collector who approached Peter been one of the official publicans, he probably would have demanded the tax instead of inquiring as to whether or not the Master was to be counted among the contributors.
4. The Temple Tribute.—It's clear from the mention of the "didrachma" in the text that the tribute money discussed was a Jewish contribution to the temple rather than a tax imposed by the Roman government. The term "tribute" in the authorized version translates the coin that was equivalent to the half shekel, calculated "according to the shekel of the sanctuary." This was the set amount that every male aged "twenty years old and above" had to pay annually, with the rule that "the rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less" (Exo. 30:13-15). A tax imposed by the ruling authorities wouldn't be referred to as the didrachma. Additionally, if the collector who approached Peter had been one of the official tax collectors, he likely would have asked for the tax rather than checking if the Master was among those contributing.
Among the many humiliations to which the Jews were subjected in later years, after the destruction of the temple, was the compulsory payment of what had been their temple tribute, to the Romans, who decreed it as a revenue to the pagan temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. Of the emperor Vespasian, Josephus (Wars of the Jews, vii, 6:6) says: That he also laid a tribute wheresoever they were, and enjoined every one of them to bring two drachmæ every year into the capitol, as they used to pay the same to the temple at Jerusalem.
Among the many humiliations the Jews faced in later years, after the destruction of the temple, was the mandatory payment of what had been their temple tax to the Romans, who designated it as revenue for the pagan temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. Josephus (Wars of the Jews, vii, 6:6) mentions Emperor Vespasian: he also imposed a tax wherever they were, requiring each of them to pay two drachmas every year to the Capitol, just as they used to pay to the temple in Jerusalem.
5. Talents and Pence.—It is evident that by specifying ten thousand talents as the debt due the king, and a hundred pence as that owed by the fellow-servant, the Lord intended to present a case of great disparity and striking contrast. The actual amounts involved are of minor significance in the story. We are not told which variety of talent was meant; there were Attic talents, and both silver and gold talents of Hebrew reckoning; and each differed from the others in value. The Oxford marginal explanation is: "A talent is 750 ounces of silver, which[Pg 397] after five shillings the ounce is 187 pounds, ten shillings." This would be in American money over nine and a quarter millions of dollars as the sum of the ten thousand talents. The same authority gives as the value of the penny (Roman) sevenpence half-penny, or fifteen cents, making the second debt equivalent to about fifteen dollars. Comparison with talents mentioned elsewhere may be allowable. Trench says: "How vast a sum it was we can most vividly realize to ourselves by comparing it with other sums mentioned in Scripture. In the construction of the tabernacle, twenty-nine talents of gold were used (Exo. 38:24); David prepared for the temple three thousand talents of gold, and the princes five thousand (1 Chron. 29:4-7); the queen of Sheba presented to Solomon one hundred and twenty talents (1 Kings 10:10); the king of Assyria laid upon Hezekiah thirty talents of gold (2 Kings 18:14); and in the extreme impoverishment to which the land was brought at the last, one talent of gold was laid upon it, after the death of Josiah, by the king of Egypt (2 Chron. 36:3)." Farrar estimates the debt owed to the king as 1,250,000 times that owed by the lesser to the greater debtor.
5. Talents and Pence.—It’s clear that by setting ten thousand talents as the debt owed to the king and a hundred pence as what the fellow-servant owed, the Lord was highlighting a huge difference and contrast. The exact amounts aren’t really important to the story. We don’t know which type of talent is being referred to; there were Attic talents, as well as silver and gold talents in Hebrew terms, and each had a different value. The Oxford marginal note explains: "A talent is 750 ounces of silver, which[Pg 397] at five shillings an ounce totals 187 pounds, ten shillings." This would be more than nine and a quarter million dollars in American currency for the ten thousand talents. The same source says the value of the penny (Roman) is sevenpence half-penny, or about fifteen cents, making the second debt roughly equivalent to fifteen dollars. Comparing it to talents mentioned in other parts of the Bible makes sense. Trench remarks: "We can vividly grasp how enormous that sum was by comparing it to other figures mentioned in Scripture. For the tabernacle, twenty-nine talents of gold were used (Exo. 38:24); David prepared three thousand talents of gold for the temple, and the princes contributed five thousand (1 Chron. 29:4-7); the Queen of Sheba gave Solomon one hundred and twenty talents (1 Kings 10:10); the king of Assyria demanded thirty talents of gold from Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:14); and during the extreme poverty that followed Josiah’s death, the king of Egypt imposed one talent of gold on the land (2 Chron. 36:3)." Farrar estimates that the debt owed to the king is 1,250,000 times greater than what the lesser debtor owes.
6. An Assumed Approval of Slavery.—Some readers have assumed that they find in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant an implied approval of the institution of slavery. The greater debtor, who figures in the story, was to be sold, together with his wife and children and all that he had. A rational consideration of the story as a whole is likely to find at most, in the particular incident of the king's command that the debtor and his family be sold, that the system of buying and selling bondservants, serfs, or slaves, was legally recognized at the time. The purpose of the parable was not even remotely to endorse or condemn slavery or any other social institution. The Mosaic law is explicit in matters relating to bondservants. The "angel of the Lord" who brought to Hagar a message of encouragement and blessing respected the authority of her mistress (Gen. 16:8, 9). In the apostolic epoch, instruction was directed toward right living under the secular law, not rebellion against the system (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:1-3; 1 Peter 2:18). Recognition of established customs, institutions, and laws, and proper obedience thereto, do not necessarily imply individual approval. The gospel of Jesus Christ, which shall yet regenerate the world, is to prevail—not by revolutionary assaults upon existing governments, nor through anarchy and violence—but by the teaching of individual duty and by the spread of the spirit of love. When the love of God shall be given a place in the hearts of mankind, when men shall unselfishly love their neighbors, then social systems and governments shall be formed and operated to the securing of the greatest good to the greatest number. Until men open their hearts to the reception of the gospel of Jesus Christ, injustice and oppression, servitude and slavery, in some form or other, are sure to exist. Attempts to extirpate social conditions that spring from individual selfishness cannot be otherwise than futile so long as selfishness is left to thrive and propagate.[Pg 398]
6. An Assumed Approval of Slavery.—Some readers assume that the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant implies support for slavery. In the story, the greater debtor is to be sold, along with his wife and children and all his possessions. A thoughtful look at the story as a whole might conclude that the sale of debtors, including their families, was legally accepted at that time. However, the purpose of the parable was not to endorse or condemn slavery or any other social system. The Mosaic law clearly addresses issues regarding bondservants. The "angel of the Lord" who spoke to Hagar brought her a message of hope while still respecting her mistress’s authority (Gen. 16:8, 9). In the time of the apostles, teachings were focused on living rightly within secular laws, not on overthrowing the system (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:1-3; 1 Peter 2:18). Acknowledging established customs, institutions, and laws, and following them, doesn’t necessarily mean one approves of them as individuals. The gospel of Jesus Christ, which will one day transform the world, is meant to succeed—not through violent revolutions or chaos—but by teaching individual responsibility and spreading love. When God’s love fills people’s hearts, and when individuals genuinely care for their neighbors, then social systems and governments will be created and run to benefit the greatest number of people. Until individuals welcome the gospel of Jesus Christ into their hearts, injustice, oppression, servitude, and slavery will persist in various forms. Efforts to eliminate social issues that arise from selfishness will always be in vain as long as selfishness is allowed to flourish and spread.[Pg 398]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[795] Compare 2 Peter 1:18.
Compare 2 Peter 1:18.
[796] Luke 9:37.
[799] Compare Matt. 12:40-45.
[802] Matt. 14:31; 16:8; Luke 8:25.
[806] Matt. 17:24-27.
[810] John 20:17.
[813] Compare Luke 22:32.
[818] Matt. 18:12-14; compare Luke 15:3-7 in which occurs a repetition of this impressive parable, as given on a later occasion to Pharisees and scribes at Jerusalem with a somewhat different application.
[818] Matt. 18:12-14; see Luke 15:3-7, where this powerful parable is repeated, given on a later occasion to the Pharisees and scribes in Jerusalem, but with a slightly different meaning.
[820] Luke 9:48-50; Mark 9:37-41.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 9:48-50; Mark 9:37-41.
[822] Compare Luke 9:52; 10:1.
[823] Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23.
[827] They based this limitation on Amos 1:3 and Job 33:29. In the latter passage, as it appears in the authorized version, the word "oftentimes" is an erroneous rendering of the original, which really signified "twice and thrice."
[827] They based this limitation on Amos 1:3 and Job 33:29. In the latter passage, as it appears in the authorized version, the word "oftentimes" is a mistaken translation of the original, which actually meant "twice and thrice."
[828] Compare Luke 17:3, 4.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Compare Luke 17:3, 4.
[829] Matt. 18:23-35.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 18:23-35.
CHAPTER 25.
JESUS AGAIN IN JERUSALEM.
DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE.[834]
Of our Lord's labors during His brief sojourn in Galilee following His return from the region of Cæsarea Philippi we have no record aside from that of His instructions to the apostles. His Galilean ministry, so far as the people in general were concerned, had practically ended with the discourse at Capernaum on His return thither after the miracles of feeding the five thousand and walking upon the sea. At Capernaum many of the disciples had turned away from the Master,[835] and now, after another short visit, He prepared to leave the land in which so great a part of His public work had been accomplished.
Of our Lord's work during His short stay in Galilee after returning from the area of Cæsarea Philippi, we have no record other than His teachings to the apostles. His ministry in Galilee, as far as the general public was concerned, had mostly ended with the speech at Capernaum when He returned there after the miracles of feeding the five thousand and walking on the sea. In Capernaum, many of the disciples had turned away from the Master,[835] and now, after another brief visit, He was getting ready to leave the region where so much of His public work had taken place.
It was autumn; about six months had passed since the return of the apostles from their missionary tour; and the Feast of Tabernacles was near at hand. Some of the kinsmen of Jesus came to Him, and proposed that He go to Jerusalem and take advantage of the opportunity offered by the great national festival, to declare Himself more openly than He had theretofore done. His brethren, as the visiting relatives are called, urged that He seek a broader and more prominent field than Galilee for the display of His powers, arguing that it was inconsistent for any man to keep himself in comparative obscurity when he wanted to be widely known. "Shew thyself to the world," said they. Whatever their motives may have been, these brethren of His did not advize more extended publicity through any zeal for His[Pg 399] divine mission; indeed, we are expressly told that they did not believe in Him.[836] Jesus replied to their presumptuous advice: "My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come." It was not their prerogative to direct His movements, not to say when He should do even what He intended to do eventually.[837] He made it plain that between their status and His there was essential difference; they were of the world, which they loved as the world loved them; but the world hated Him because of His testimony.
It was autumn; about six months had passed since the return of the apostles from their missionary tour, and the Feast of Tabernacles was coming up. Some of Jesus' relatives came to Him and suggested that He go to Jerusalem and take advantage of the great national festival to make His presence known more openly than He had before. His brothers, as these visiting relatives are called, urged Him to seek a wider and more prominent audience than Galilee to showcase His powers, arguing that it was inconsistent for anyone to keep themselves in relative obscurity when they wanted to be well-known. "Show yourself to the world," they said. Whatever their motives might have been, these brothers did not suggest this increased visibility out of any enthusiasm for His divine mission; indeed, it's stated that they didn't believe in Him. Jesus responded to their bold advice: "My time has not yet come; but your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you; but it hates me because I testify about it, that its deeds are evil. Go up to this feast; I am not going up to this feast yet because my time has not fully come." It was not their place to direct His actions or dictate when He should do what He intended to do eventually. He made it clear that there was a fundamental difference between their status and His; they were of the world, which they loved as the world loved them; but the world hated Him because of His testimony.
This colloquy between Jesus and His brethren took place in Galilee. They soon started for Jerusalem leaving Him behind. He had not said that He would not go to the feast; but only "I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come." Some time after their departure He followed, traveling "not openly, but as it were in secret." Whether He went alone, or accompanied by any or all of the Twelve, we are not told.
This conversation between Jesus and His brothers happened in Galilee. They quickly set off for Jerusalem, leaving Him behind. He hadn’t said that He wouldn’t go to the feast, but only "I’m not going up to this feast yet; my time hasn’t come." A little while after they left, He followed, traveling "not openly, but as if in secret." We aren’t told whether He went alone or with any or all of the Twelve.
AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES.[838]
The agitated state of the public mind respecting Jesus is shown by the interest manifest in Jerusalem as to the probability of His presence at the feast. His brethren, who probably were questioned, could give no definite information as to His coming. He was sought for in the crowds; there was much discussion and some disputation concerning Him. Many people expressed their conviction that He was a good man, while others contradicted on the claim that He was a deceiver. There was little open discussion, however, for the people were afraid of incurring the displeasure of the rulers.[Pg 400]
The public's restless curiosity about Jesus is evident in the interest shown in Jerusalem regarding whether He would be at the feast. His brothers, likely questioned about it, couldn’t provide any clear answers about His arrival. People searched for Him among the crowds, leading to much talk and some arguments about Him. Many believed He was a good man, while others disagreed, claiming He was a fraud. However, there was little open debate, as people were worried about upsetting the leaders.[Pg 400]
As originally established, the Feast of Tabernacles was a seven day festival, followed by a holy convocation on the eighth day. Each day was marked by special and in some respects distinctive services, all characterized by ceremonies of thanksgiving and praise.[839] "Now about the midst of the feast," probably on the third or fourth day, "Jesus went up into the temple, and taught." The first part of His discourse is not recorded, but its scriptural soundness is intimated in the surprize of the Jewish teachers, who asked among themselves: "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" He was no graduate of their schools; He had never sat at the feet of their rabbis; He had not been officially accredited by them nor licensed to teach. Whence came His wisdom, before which all their academic attainments were as nothing? Jesus answered their troubled queries, saying: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." His Teacher, greater even than Himself, was the Eternal Father, whose will He proclaimed. The test proposed to determine the truth of His doctrine was in every way fair, and withal simple; anyone who would earnestly seek to do the will of the Father should know of himself whether Jesus spoke truth or error.[840] The Master proceeded to show that a man who speaks on his own authority alone seeks to aggrandize himself. Jesus did not so; He honored His Teacher, His Father, His God, not Himself; and therefore was He free from the taint of selfish pride or unrighteousness. Moses had given them the law, and yet, as Jesus affirmed, none of them kept the law.
Originally, the Feast of Tabernacles was a seven-day celebration, followed by a holy gathering on the eighth day. Each day featured special and somewhat unique services, all filled with ceremonies of thanks and praise.[839] "Now, during the feast," likely on the third or fourth day, "Jesus went up to the temple and taught." The first part of His teaching isn't recorded, but its biblical validity is suggested by the surprise of the Jewish teachers, who wondered aloud: "How does this man know so much, having never been educated?" He was not a graduate of their schools; He had never studied under their rabbis; He hadn't been officially recognized by them or given permission to teach. Where did His wisdom come from, which made all their academic achievements seem insignificant? Jesus responded to their concerns, saying: "My teaching isn't my own, but from the one who sent me. If anyone is eager to do His will, they will know for themselves whether my teaching is from God or if I'm speaking on my own." His Teacher, even greater than Himself, was the Eternal Father, whose will He declared. The test offered to verify the truth of His teaching was completely fair and straightforward; anyone who sincerely sought to do the Father's will would understand for themselves whether Jesus spoke the truth or not.[840] The Master went on to explain that a person who speaks solely on their own authority seeks to elevate themselves. Jesus didn't do that; He honored His Teacher, His Father, His God, not Himself; and that's why He was free from selfish pride or wrongdoing. Moses had given them the law, and yet, as Jesus pointed out, none of them followed it.
Then, with startling abruptness, He challenged them with the question, "Why go ye about to kill me?" On many occasions had they held dark counsel with one another as to how[Pg 401] they could get Him into their power and put Him to death; but they thought that the murderous secret was hidden within their own circle. The people had heard the seducing assertions of the ruling classes, that Jesus was possessed by a demon, and that He wrought wonders through the power of Beelzebub; and in the spirit of this blasphemous slander, they cried out: "Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?"
Then, suddenly, He confronted them with the question, "Why are you trying to kill me?" They had often plotted secretly among themselves about how[Pg 401] they could capture Him and have Him executed; but they believed that their murderous plans were safely concealed within their own group. The people had heard the persuasive claims from the authorities that Jesus was possessed by a demon and that He performed miracles through the power of Beelzebub; and in the spirit of this blasphemous slander, they shouted, "You’re possessed! Who’s trying to kill you?"
Jesus knew that the two specifications of alleged guilt on which the rulers were striving most assiduously to convict Him in the popular mind, and so turn the people against Him, were those of Sabbath-breaking and blasphemy. On an earlier visit to Jerusalem He had healed an afflicted man on the Sabbath, and had utterly disconcerted the hypercritical accusers who even then had sought to compass His death.[841] To this act of mercy and power Jesus now referred, saying: "I have done one work, and ye all marvel." Seemingly they were still of unsettled mind, in doubt as to accepting Him because of the miracle or denouncing Him because He had done it on the Sabbath. Then He showed the inconsistency of charging Him with Sabbath-desecration for such a merciful deed, when the law of Moses expressly allowed acts of mercy, and even required that the mandatory rite of circumcision should not be deferred because of the Sabbath. "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" said He.
Jesus knew that the two main accusations the leaders were trying hard to use against Him to turn the people against Him were breaking the Sabbath and blasphemy. On a previous trip to Jerusalem, He had healed a suffering man on the Sabbath, completely bewildering the overly critical accusers who were already trying to plot His death.[841] He referred to that act of mercy and power, saying: "I have done one work, and you all marvel." It seemed they were still conflicted, unsure whether to accept Him because of the miracle or to condemn Him for performing it on the Sabbath. Then He pointed out the inconsistency of accusing Him of breaking the Sabbath for such a compassionate act when the law of Moses clearly allowed acts of mercy and even stated that the essential ritual of circumcision shouldn't be postponed because of the Sabbath. "Don't judge by appearances, but make righteous judgments," He said.
The masses were still divided in their estimate of Jesus, and were moreover puzzled over the indecision of the rulers. Some of the Jerusalem Jews knew of the plan to arrest Him, and if possible to bring Him to death, and the people queried why nothing was done when He was there teaching publicly within reach of the officials. They wondered whether the rulers had not at last come to believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. The thought, however, was brushed aside when[Pg 402] they remembered that all knew whence He came; He was a Galilean, and from Nazareth, whereas as they had been taught, however wrongly, the advent of the Christ was to be mysterious so that none would know whence He came. Strange it was, indeed, that men should reject Him because of a lack of mystery and miracle in His advent; when, had they known the truth, they would have seen in His birth a miracle without precedent or parallel in the annals of time. Jesus directly answered their weak and faulty reasoning. Crying aloud within the temple courts, He assured them that while they knew whence He came as one of their number, yet they did not know that He had come from God, neither did they know God who had sent Him: "But," He added, "I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me." At this reiterated testimony of His divine origin, the Jews were the more enraged, and they determined anew to take Him by force; nevertheless none laid hands upon him "because his hour was not yet come."
The crowds were still split in their opinions about Jesus, and they were confused by the indecisiveness of the leaders. Some of the Jews in Jerusalem were aware of the plot to arrest Him and potentially kill Him, and the people wondered why nothing was done while He was teaching openly in front of the officials. They speculated whether the leaders had finally started to believe that Jesus was truly the Messiah. However, that thought was quickly dismissed when they remembered that everyone knew where He was from; He was a Galilean from Nazareth. They believed—though misguidedly—that the arrival of the Christ would be shrouded in mystery, so that no one would know where He came from. It was strange, indeed, that people would reject Him for lacking a mysterious and miraculous arrival when, if they had known the truth, they would have seen in His birth a miracle unlike any other in history. Jesus directly challenged their weak and flawed reasoning. Shouting loudly in the temple courts, He told them that while they knew where He came from as one of their own, they didn’t realize He had come from God, nor did they know the God who sent Him: "But," He added, "I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me." At this claim of His divine origin, the Jews became even more furious and decided once again to seize Him by force; however, no one laid a hand on Him "because his hour was not yet come."
Many of the people believed in their hearts that He was of God, and ventured to ask among themselves whether Christ would do greater works than Jesus had done. The Pharisees and chief priests feared a possible demonstration in favor of Jesus, and forthwith sent officers to arrest Him and bring him before the Sanhedrin.[842] The presence of the temple police caused no interruption to the Master's discourse, though we may reasonably infer that He knew the purpose of their errand. He spoke on, saying that He would be with the people but a little while; and that after He had returned to the Father, they would seek Him vainly, for where He would then be they could not come. This remark evoked more bitter discussion. Some of the Jews wondered whether He intended to leave the borders of the land and go among the Gentiles to teach them and the dispersed Israelites.
Many people genuinely believed that He was from God and started to wonder among themselves if Christ would perform greater miracles than Jesus did. The Pharisees and chief priests were worried about a potential show of support for Jesus, so they quickly sent officers to arrest Him and bring Him before the Sanhedrin.[842] The presence of the temple police didn’t interrupt the Master’s teachings, although it’s reasonable to assume that He knew why they were there. He continued speaking, saying that He would be with the people for only a short time; and after He returned to the Father, they would look for Him in vain because they couldn’t go where He would be then. This comment sparked even more heated discussion. Some of the Jews wondered if He meant to leave the country and go teach the Gentiles and the scattered Israelites.
As part of the temple service incident to the feast, the people went in procession to the Pool of Siloam[843] where a priest filled a golden ewer, which he then carried to the altar and there poured out the water to the accompaniment of trumpet blasts and the acclamations of the assembled hosts.[844] According to authorities on Jewish customs, this feature was omitted on the closing day of the feast. On this last or "great day," which was marked by ceremonies of unusual solemnity and rejoicing, Jesus was again in the temple. It may have been with reference to the bringing of water from the pool, or to the omission of the ceremony from the ritualistic procedure of the great day, that Jesus cried aloud, His voice resounding through the courts and arcades of the temple: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."[845]
As part of the temple service for the feast, the people walked in a procession to the Pool of Siloam[843] where a priest filled a golden pitcher, which he then carried to the altar and poured out the water while trumpets sounded and the gathered crowd cheered.[844] According to experts on Jewish customs, this part of the ritual was skipped on the last day of the feast. On this final or "great day," marked by special ceremonies of deep reverence and celebration, Jesus was once again in the temple. It might have been in reference to the water being drawn from the pool, or the fact that the ceremony was not included in the rituals for this significant day, that Jesus called out, His voice echoing through the temple’s courts and walkways: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the scripture says, streams of living water will flow from within him."[845]
John, the recorder, remarks parenthetically that this promise had reference to the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, which at that time had not been granted, nor was it to be until after the ascension of the risen Lord.[846]
John, the recorder, notes in passing that this promise was about the giving of the Holy Ghost, which had not yet been given and wouldn’t be until after the risen Lord ascended.[846]
Again many of the people were so impressed that they declared Jesus could be none other than the Messiah; but others objected, saying that the Christ must come from Bethlehem of Judea and Jesus was known to have come from Galilee.[847] So there was further dissension; and though some wanted Him apprehended, not a man was found who would venture to lay hold on Him.
Again, many people were so impressed that they declared Jesus must be the Messiah; but others disagreed, saying that the Christ should come from Bethlehem in Judea, and Jesus was known to be from Galilee.[847] So there was more disagreement; and even though some wanted Him arrested, no one was brave enough to take hold of Him.
The police officers returned without their intended prisoner. To the angry demand of the chief priests and Pharisees as to why they had not brought Him, they acknowledged that they had been so affected by His teachings as to be[Pg 404] unable to make the arrest. "Never man spake like this man," they said. Their haughty masters were furious. "Are ye also deceived?" they demanded; and further, "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" What was the opinion of the common people worth? They had never learned the law, and were therefore accursed and of no concern. Yet with all this show of proud disdain, the chief priests and Pharisees were afraid of the common people, and were again halted in their wicked course.
The police officers returned without the prisoner they were supposed to bring. When the chief priests and Pharisees angrily asked why they hadn’t brought Him, they admitted that they were so moved by His teachings that they couldn’t make the arrest. "No one speaks like this man," they said. Their arrogant leaders were furious. "Are you also fooled?" they demanded, and then asked, "Have any of the rulers or Pharisees believed in him?" What did the opinion of ordinary people matter? They had never studied the law, so they were considered cursed and insignificant. Yet, despite all their prideful scorn, the chief priests and Pharisees were afraid of the common people and were once again stopped in their evil plans.
One voice of mild protest was heard in the assembly. Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, and the same who had come to Jesus by night to inquire into the new teaching,[848] mustered courage enough to ask: "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" The answer was insulting. Maddened with bigotry and blood-thirsty fanaticism, some of his colleagues turned upon him with the savage demand: "Art thou also of Galilee?" meaning, Art thou also a disciple of this Galilean whom we hate? Nicodemus was curtly told to study the scriptures, and he would fail to find any prediction of a prophet arising in Galilee. The anger of these learned bigots had blinded them even to their own vaunted knowledge, for several of the ancient prophets were regarded as Galileans;[849] if, however they had meant to refer only to that Prophet of whom Moses had spoken, the Messiah, they were correct, since all predictions pointed to Bethlehem in Judea as His birthplace. It is evident that Jesus was thought of as a native of Nazareth, and that the circumstances of His birth were not of public knowledge.
One voice of mild protest was heard in the assembly. Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin and the same person who had come to Jesus at night to ask about the new teaching,[848] gathered enough courage to ask: "Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he’s doing?" The response was insulting. Infuriated by prejudice and bloodthirsty fanaticism, some of his colleagues turned on him with the brutal accusation: "Are you also from Galilee?" meaning, "Are you also a follower of this Galilean whom we despise?" Nicodemus was curtly told to study the scriptures, and he would find no prediction of a prophet arising from Galilee. The rage of these learned bigots had blinded them to their own supposed knowledge, as several of the ancient prophets were considered Galileans;[849] if they meant to refer only to the Prophet Moses spoke of, the Messiah, they were right, because all predictions pointed to Bethlehem in Judea as His birthplace. It is clear that Jesus was thought of as originating from Nazareth, and that the details of His birth were not publicly known.
"GO, AND SIN NO MORE."[850]
After the festivities were over, Jesus went to the temple one morning early; and as He sat, probably in the[Pg 405] Court of the Women, which was the usual place of public resort, many gathered about Him and He proceeded to teach them as was His custom. His discourse was interrupted by the arrival of a party of scribes and Pharisees with a woman in charge, who, they said, was guilty of adultery. To Jesus they presented this statement and question: "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned; but what sayest thou?" The submitting of the case to Jesus was a prearranged snare, a deliberate attempt to find or make a cause for accusing Him. Though it was not unusual for Jewish officials to consult rabbis of recognized wisdom and experience when difficult cases were to be decided, the case in point involved no legal complications. The woman's guilt seems to have been unquestioned, though the witnesses required by the statutes are not mentioned as appearing unless the accusing scribes and Pharisees are to be so considered; the law was explicit, and the custom of the times in dealing with such offenders was well known. While it is true that the law of Moses had decreed death by stoning as the penalty for adultery, the infliction of the extreme punishment had lapsed long before the time of Christ. One may reasonably ask why the woman's partner in the crime was not brought for sentence, since the law so zealously cited by the officious accusers provided for the punishment of both parties to the offense.[851]
After the celebrations were over, Jesus went to the temple one early morning; and as He sat, likely in the[Pg 405] Court of the Women, which was the usual gathering place, many people gathered around Him and He began to teach them, as was His custom. His teaching was interrupted by a group of scribes and Pharisees who brought in a woman they claimed was guilty of adultery. They presented this statement and question to Jesus: "Moses in the law commanded that such people should be stoned; but what do you say?" This was a prearranged trap, a deliberate attempt to find or create grounds for accusing Him. While it was not uncommon for Jewish officials to consult respected rabbis when tough cases needed to be decided, this particular case had no legal complexities. The woman's guilt seems to have been accepted without question, though the necessary witnesses mentioned in the laws are not noted as present, unless the accusing scribes and Pharisees are meant to be considered as such; the law was clear, and the customs of the time for dealing with such offenders were well understood. While it is true that Moses' law prescribed death by stoning as the punishment for adultery, the enforcement of this extreme punishment had faded long before the time of Christ. One might reasonably wonder why the woman’s partner in the crime wasn't brought forward for sentencing, since the law so vigorously cited by the eager accusers mandated punishment for both parties involved in the offense.[851]
The question of the scribes and Pharisees, "But what sayest thou?" may have intimated their expectation that Jesus would declare the law obsolete; perhaps they had heard of the Sermon on the Mount, in which many requirements in advance of the Mosaic code had been proclaimed.[852] Had Jesus decided that the wretched woman ought to suffer death, her accusers might have said that he was defying the existing authorities; and possibly the charge of opposition[Pg 406] to the Roman government might have been formulated, since power to inflict the death penalty had been taken from all Jewish tribunals; and moreover, the crime with which this woman was charged was not a capital offense under Roman law. Had He said that the woman should go unpunished or suffer only minor infliction, the crafty Jews could have charged Him with disrespect for the law of Moses. To these scribes and Pharisees Jesus at first gave little heed. Stooping down He traced with His finger on the ground; but as He wrote they continued to question Him. Lifting Himself up He answered them, in a terse sentence that has become proverbial: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Such was the law; the accusers on whose testimony the death penalty was pronounced were to be the first to begin the work of execution.[853]
The question from the scribes and Pharisees, "But what do you say?" might have suggested that they expected Jesus to declare the law outdated; maybe they had heard about the Sermon on the Mount, where many rules beyond the Mosaic code were outlined. Had Jesus decided that the unfortunate woman should be put to death, her accusers could have claimed he was defying the authorities; and perhaps they would have accused him of opposing the Roman government since the power to carry out death sentences had been taken from all Jewish courts, and also, the crime she was accused of wasn't a capital offense under Roman law. If He had said that the woman should go unpunished or receive only a light punishment, the cunning Jews could have accused Him of disrespecting the law of Moses. At first, Jesus paid little attention to these scribes and Pharisees. He bent down and wrote with His finger on the ground; but as He wrote, they kept questioning Him. When He stood up, He replied with a short statement that has become famous: "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." This was the law; the accusers, whose testimony led to the death penalty, were supposed to be the first to carry out the execution.
Having spoken, Jesus again stooped and wrote upon the ground. The woman's accusers were "convicted by their own conscience"; shamed and in disgrace they slunk away, all of them from the eldest to the youngest. They knew themselves to be unfit to appear either as accusers or judges.[854] What cowards doth conscience make! "When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more."[855]
After speaking, Jesus bent down again and wrote on the ground. The woman's accusers felt "convicted by their own conscience"; embarrassed and ashamed, they quietly left, starting from the oldest to the youngest. They recognized their own unworthiness to act as both accusers and judges.[854] What cowards conscience makes! "When Jesus stood up and saw that there was no one except the woman, he asked her, Woman, where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you? She replied, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn you: go and sin no more."[855]
The woman was repentant; she remained humbly awaiting the Master's decision, even after her accusers had gone. Jesus did not expressly condone; He declined to condemn; but He sent the sinner away with a solemn adjuration to a better life.[856]
The woman felt sorry for what she had done; she stayed there patiently, waiting for the Master's judgment, even after her accusers had left. Jesus didn’t directly approve or punish her; instead, He sent the sinner away with a serious encouragement to live a better life.[856]
THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.[857]
Sitting within the temple enclosure in the division known as the Treasury, which was connected with the Court of the Women,[858] our Lord continued His teaching, saying: "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."[859] The great lamps set up in the court as a feature of the joyful celebration just ended gave point to our Lord's avowal of Himself as the Light of the World. It was another proclamation of His divinity as God and the Son of God. The Pharisees challenged His testimony, declaring it of no worth because He bore record of Himself. Jesus admitted that He testified of Himself, but affirmed nevertheless that what He said was true, for He knew whereof He spoke, whence He came and whither He would go, while they spoke in ignorance. They thought, talked, and judged after the ways of men and the frailties of the flesh; He was not sitting in judgment, but should He choose to judge, then His judgment would be just, for He was guided by the Father who sent Him. Their law required the testimony of two witnesses for the legal determination of any question of fact;[860] and Jesus cited Himself and His Father as witnesses in support of His affirmation. His opponents then asked with contemptuous or sarcastic intent, "Where is thy Father?" The reply was in lofty tone; "Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." Enraged at their own discomfiture, the Pharisees would have seized Him, but found themselves impotent. "No man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come."
Sitting in the temple area known as the Treasury, which was connected to the Court of the Women,[858] our Lord continued His teaching, saying: "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me won’t walk in darkness but will have the light of life."[859] The large lamps set up in the courtyard as part of the joyful celebration that had just ended emphasized our Lord’s declaration that He is the Light of the World. It was another affirmation of His divinity as God and the Son of God. The Pharisees challenged His testimony, claiming it was worthless because He spoke for Himself. Jesus acknowledged that He testified about Himself but insisted that what He said was true, because He knew where He came from and where He was going, while they spoke in ignorance. They thought, spoke, and judged like humans, acting on their weaknesses; He wasn’t judging them, but if He chose to, His judgment would be fair, as He was guided by the Father who sent Him. Their law required the testimony of two witnesses for any legal matter;[860] and Jesus pointed to Himself and His Father as witnesses to support His claim. His opponents then asked, either mocking or sarcastically, "Where is your Father?" His response was elevated; "You don’t know me or my Father. If you had known me, you would also have known my Father." Infuriated by their own embarrassment, the Pharisees would have seized Him, but found themselves unable to do so. "No one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come."
THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.[861]
Again addressing the mixed assemblage, which probably comprized Pharisees, scribes, rabbis, priests, Levites, and lay people, Jesus repeated His former assertion that soon He would leave them, and that whither He went they could not follow; and added the fateful assurance that they would seek Him in vain and would die in their sins. His solemn portent was treated with light concern if not contempt. Some of them asked querulously, "Will he kill himself?" the implication being that in such case they surely would not follow Him; for according to their dogma, Gehenna was the place of suicides, and they, being of the chosen people, were bound for heaven not hell. The Lord's dignified rejoinder was: "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
Once again speaking to the diverse group, which likely included Pharisees, scribes, rabbis, priests, Levites, and regular people, Jesus repeated His earlier statement that He would soon be leaving them, and that where He was going, they couldn’t follow. He added the ominous warning that they would search for Him without success and would die in their sins. His serious warning was met with casual indifference, if not outright disrespect. Some of them asked in a complaining tone, “Is he going to kill himself?” implying that they certainly wouldn’t follow Him because, according to their beliefs, Gehenna was the destination for suicides, and they, as the chosen people, were destined for heaven, not hell. The Lord responded with dignity: “You are from below; I am from above: you belong to this world; I do not belong to this world. I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”
This reiteration of His distinctive supremacy brought forth the challenging question, "Who art thou?" Jesus replied, "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning." The many matters on which He might have judged them He refrained from mentioning, but testified anew of the Father, saying: "He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him." Explicit as His earlier explanations had been, the Jews in their gross prejudice "understood not that he spake to them of the Father." To His Father Jesus ascribed all honor and glory, and repeatedly declared Himself as sent to do the Father's will. "Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the[Pg 409] Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him."
This restatement of His unique superiority raised the challenging question, "Who are you?" Jesus answered, "I am exactly who I said to you from the beginning." He could have pointed out many ways in which He might judge them, but instead, He reaffirmed His testimony about the Father, saying, "The one who sent me is true; and I share with the world what I have heard from Him." Despite His clear earlier explanations, the Jews, stuck in their prejudice, "did not realize that He was talking to them about the Father." Jesus gave all honor and glory to His Father and consistently declared that He was here to fulfill the Father's will. "Then Jesus said to them, When you have lifted up the Son of Man, you will realize that I am He, and that I do nothing on my own; instead, I speak just as my Father taught me. And the one who sent me is with me: the[Pg 409] Father has not left me alone; because I always do what pleases Him."
The evident earnestness and profound conviction with which Jesus spoke caused many of His hearers to believe on Him; and these He addressed with the promise that if they continued in that belief, and shaped their lives according to His word, they should be His disciples indeed. A further promise followed: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." At these words, so rich in blessing, so full of comfort for the believing soul, the people were stirred to angry demonstrations; their Jewish temper was immediately ablaze. To promise them freedom was to imply that they were not already free. "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?" In their unbridled fanaticism they had forgotten the bondage of Egypt, the captivity of Babylon, and were oblivious of their existing state of vassalage to Rome. To say that Israel had never been in bondage was not only to convict themselves of falsehood but to stultify themselves wretchedly.
The clear sincerity and deep conviction with which Jesus spoke led many of His listeners to believe in Him; He promised them that if they kept that belief and lived according to His teachings, they would truly be His disciples. A further promise followed: "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." At these words, so full of blessing and comfort for those who believed, the crowd reacted with angry outbursts; their Jewish pride flared up instantly. To promise them freedom suggested they weren’t already free. "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone: how can you say, 'You will be made free?'" In their unrestrained zeal, they had forgotten the slavery in Egypt, the captivity in Babylon, and were unaware of their current subjugation to Rome. Claiming that Israel had never been in bondage not only exposed their falsehood but also made them look utterly foolish.
Jesus made it clear that He had not referred to freedom in its physical or political sense alone, though to this conception their false disavowal had been directed; the liberty He proclaimed was spiritual liberty; the grievous bondage from which He would deliver them was the serfdom of sin. To their vaunted boast that they were free men, not slaves, He replied: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." As a sinner, every one of them was in slavery. A bond-servant, Jesus reminded them, was allowed in the master's house by sufferance only; it was not his inherent right to remain there; his owner could send him away at any time, and might even sell him to another; but a son of the family had of his own right a place in his father's home. Now, if the Son of God made them free they would be free indeed. Though they were of Abrahamic[Pg 410] lineage in the flesh, they were no heirs of Abraham in spirit or works. Our Lord's mention of His Father as distinct from their father drew forth the angry reiteration, "Abraham is our father", to which Jesus replied: "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father." In their blind anger they apparently construed this to imply that though they were children of Abraham's household some other man than Abraham was their actual progenitor, or that they were not of unmixed Israelitish blood. "We be not born of fornication" they cried, "we have one Father, even God." Jesus said unto them, "If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."
Jesus made it clear that He wasn't just talking about freedom in a physical or political sense, even though that was how they falsely interpreted it. The liberty He talked about was spiritual freedom; the heavy burden He wanted to lift was the slavery of sin. In response to their proud claim that they were free men and not slaves, He said, "Truly, I say to you, everyone who sins is a servant of sin." As sinners, they were all in bondage. Jesus reminded them that a servant in the master's house only stays there by permission; it wasn't his right to remain there permanently; his master could send him away at any time, or even sell him to someone else; but a son had the right to stay in his father's home. If the Son of God made them free, they would be truly free. Although they were physically descended from Abraham, they were not heirs of Abraham in spirit or actions. When our Lord referred to His Father as distinct from their father, they reacted angrily, insisting, "Abraham is our father," to which Jesus replied, "If you were truly Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you’re trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God; Abraham didn't do that. You are doing the deeds of your father." In their blind anger, they seemed to interpret this as implying that although they were from Abraham's household, someone other than Abraham was their true ancestor, or that their blood wasn't purely Israelite. "We aren't born of fornication," they shouted, "we have one Father, even God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God; I didn’t come on my own; He sent me."
They failed to understand because of their stubborn refusal to listen dispassionately. With forceful accusation Jesus told them whose children they actually were, as evinced by the hereditary traits manifest in their lives: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.[862] And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." He challenged them to find sin in Him; and then asked why, if He spake the truth, they so persistently refused to believe Him. Answering His own question, He told them that they were not of God and therefore they understood not the words of God. The Master was unimpeachable; His terse, cogent assertions were unanswerable. In impotent rage the discomfited Jews resorted to invective and calumny. "Say we not well that[Pg 411] thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" they shrieked. They had before called Him a Galilean; that appellative was but mildly depreciatory, and moreover was a truthful designation according to their knowledge; but the epithet "Samaritan" was inspired by hate,[863] and by its application they meant to disown Him as a Jew.
They didn't get it because they stubbornly refused to listen objectively. With strong accusations, Jesus told them who their true father was, as shown by the traits they exhibited in their lives: "You are of your father the devil, and you will do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the start and doesn’t stand in the truth because there’s no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language; he is a liar and the father of lies.[862] And because I tell you the truth, you don’t believe me." He challenged them to find any sin in Him, and then asked why, if He was telling the truth, they kept refusing to believe Him. Answering his own question, He told them that they were not from God and therefore couldn’t understand the words of God. The Master was beyond reproach; His brief, clear statements were unarguable. In frustrated anger, the embarrassed Jews resorted to insults and slander. "Are we not right in saying that[Pg 411] you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" they shouted. They had previously called Him a Galilean; that name was only mildly insulting and, according to their knowledge, was true. But the term "Samaritan" was fueled by hatred,[863] and by using it, they meant to reject Him as a Jew.
The charge that He was a demoniac was but a repetition of earlier slanders. "Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me." Reverting to the eternal riches offered by His gospel, the Master said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." This rendered them the more infuriate: "Now we know that thou hast a devil" they cried, and as evidence of what they professed to regard as His insanity, they cited the fact that great as were Abraham and the prophets they were dead, yet Jesus dared to say that all who kept His sayings should be exempt from death. Did He pretend to exalt Himself above Abraham and the prophets? "Whom makest thou thyself?" they demanded. The Lord's reply was a disclaimer of all self-aggrandizement; His honor was not of His own seeking, but was the gift of His Father, whom He knew; and were He to deny that He knew the Father He would be a liar like unto themselves. Touching the relationship between Himself and the great patriarch of their race, Jesus thus affirmed and emphasized His own supremacy: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." Not only angered but puzzled, the Jews demanded further explanation. Construing the last declaration as applying to the mortal state only, they said: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
The accusation that He was possessed by a demon was just a repeat of previous insults. "Jesus replied, I do not have a demon; I honor my Father, and you dishonor me." Refocusing on the eternal blessings promised by His gospel, He said: "Truly, I tell you, if anyone follows my teachings, they will never see death." This made them even angrier: "Now we know you have a demon," they shouted, pointing to the fact that, despite how great Abraham and the prophets were, they were dead. Yet, Jesus claimed that anyone who followed His teachings would not be subject to death. Was He trying to place Himself above Abraham and the prophets? "Who do you think you are?" they asked. The Lord responded by denying any self-promotion; His honor was given to Him by His Father, whom He knew, and if He denied knowing the Father, He would be a liar like them. Regarding His connection to the great patriarch of their lineage, Jesus affirmed and highlighted His own importance: "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." Not only angry but also confused, the Jews asked for more clarification. Interpreting His last statement as referring only to His earthly life, they said: "You aren't even fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "Truly, I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am."
This was an unequivocal and unambiguous declaration of our Lord's eternal Godship. By the awful title I AM He had[Pg 412] made Himself known to Moses and thereafter was so known in Israel.[864] As already shown, it is the equivalent of "Yahveh," or "Jahveh," now rendered "Jehovah," and signifies "The Self-existent One," "The Eternal," "The First and the Last."[865] Jewish traditionalism forbade the utterance of the sacred Name; yet Jesus claimed it as His own. In an orgy of self-righteous indignation, the Jews seized upon the stones that lay in the unfinished courts, and would have crushed their Lord, but the hour of His death had not yet come, and unseen of them He passed through the crowd and departed from the temple.
This was a clear and straightforward declaration of our Lord's eternal divinity. By the powerful title I AM, He revealed Himself to Moses and was known this way in Israel. As previously mentioned, it's equivalent to "Yahveh" or "Jahveh," now translated as "Jehovah," which means "The Self-existent One," "The Eternal," "The First and the Last." Jewish tradition forbade the speaking of the sacred Name; yet Jesus claimed it as His own. In a fit of self-righteous anger, the Jews grabbed the stones that lay in the unfinished courts, ready to stone their Lord, but His time had not yet come, and unseen by them, He passed through the crowd and left the temple.
His seniority to Abraham plainly referred to the status of each in the antemortal or preexistent state; Jesus was as literally the Firstborn in the spirit-world, as He was the Only Begotten in the flesh. Christ is as truly the Elder Brother of Abraham and Adam as of the last-born child of earth.[866]
His seniority to Abraham clearly indicated their status in the pre-existent state; Jesus was just as literally the Firstborn in the spirit world as He was the Only Begotten in the flesh. Christ is truly the Elder Brother of Abraham and Adam as well as the youngest child on earth.[866]
BODILY AND SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS—SIGHT GIVEN TO A MAN ON THE SABBATH.[867]
At Jerusalem Jesus mercifully gave sight to a man who had been blind from his birth.[868] The miracle is an instance of Sabbath-day healing, of more than ordinary interest because of its attendant incidents. It is recorded by John alone, and, as usual with that writer, his narrative is given with descriptive detail. Jesus and His disciples saw the sightless one upon the street. The poor man lived by begging. The disciples, eager to learn, asked: "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" The Lord's reply[Pg 413] was: "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." The disciples' question implied their belief in a state of moral agency and choice antedating mortality; else, how could they have thought of the man having sinned so as to bring upon himself congenital blindness? We are expressly told that he was born blind. That he might have been a sufferer from the sins of his parents was conceivable.[869] The disciples evidently had been taught the great truth of an antemortal existence. It is further to be seen that they looked upon bodily affliction as the result of personal sin. Their generalization was too broad; for, while as shown by instances heretofore cited,[870] individual wickedness may and does bring physical ills in its train, man is liable to err in his judgment as to the ultimate cause of affliction. The Lord's reply was sufficing; the man's blindness would be turned to account in bringing about a manifestation of divine power. As Jesus explained respecting His own ministry, it was necessary that He do the Father's work in the season appointed, for His time was short. With impressive pertinency as relating to the state of the man who had been in darkness all his days, our Lord repeated the affirmation before made in the temple, "I am the light of the world."
In Jerusalem, Jesus compassionately gave sight to a man who had been blind since birth.[868] This miracle is an example of healing on the Sabbath, and it's particularly interesting because of the events surrounding it. John is the only one who records this, and, as is typical for him, he provides detailed descriptions. Jesus and His disciples noticed the blind man on the street. The poor man survived by begging. The disciples, eager to understand, asked, "Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" The Lord replied[Pg 413]: "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; rather, this happened so that the works of God could be revealed in him." The disciples' question showed they believed in a moral existence before this life; otherwise, how would they have thought the man could have sinned to cause his congenital blindness? We are clearly told he was born blind. It was conceivable that he suffered from the sins of his parents.[869] The disciples obviously had been taught the important truth of a pre-mortal existence. Additionally, they viewed physical suffering as a result of personal sin. Their conclusion was too simplistic; while some previous examples have shown that individual wrongdoing can lead to physical problems,[870] one can be mistaken in assessing the true cause of suffering. The Lord's answer was enough; the man's blindness would serve to reveal divine power. As Jesus explained about His own mission, it was essential that He perform the Father's work during the appointed time, as His time was limited. With significant relevance to the man who had lived in darkness all his life, our Lord reiterated what He had previously stated in the temple: "I am the light of the world."
The outward ministration to the blind man was different from the usual course followed by Jesus. "He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay"; and then directed him to go to the pool of Siloam and wash in its waters.[871] The man went, washed, and came seeing. He was evidently a well-known character; many had seen him in his accustomed place begging alms, and the fact that he had been blind from birth was also of common knowledge. When, therefore, it[Pg 414] was noised about that he could see, there was much excitement and comment. Some doubted that the man they questioned was the once sightless beggar; but he assured them of his identity, and told how he had been made to see. They brought the man to the Pharisees, who questioned him rigorously; and, having heard his account of the miracle, tried to undermine his faith by telling him that Jesus who had healed him could not be a man of God since He had done the deed on the Sabbath. Some of those who heard demurred to the Pharisaic deduction, and asked: "How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?" The man was questioned as to his personal opinion of Jesus, and promptly answered: "He is a prophet." The man knew his Benefactor to be more than any ordinary being; as yet, however, he had no knowledge of Him as the Christ.
The way Jesus helped the blind man was different from what he usually did. "He spat on the ground, made mud with the spit, and put it on the blind man's eyes"; then he told him to go to the pool of Siloam and wash in its water.[871] The man went, washed, and could see. He was obviously a familiar figure; many had seen him begging in his usual spot, and everyone knew he had been blind since birth. So, when it spread that he could see, there was a lot of excitement and chatter. Some people doubted he was the same blind beggar, but he assured them he was, and explained how he regained his sight. They brought him to the Pharisees, who grilled him thoroughly; after hearing his story about the miracle, they tried to shake his faith by saying that Jesus couldn’t be from God since he had performed the healing on the Sabbath. Some of the listeners disagreed with the Pharisees’ argument and asked, "How could a sinner perform such miracles?" When the man was asked what he thought of Jesus, he replied immediately, "He is a prophet." He understood that his Benefactor was more than just an ordinary person; however, he didn’t yet know Him as the Christ.
The inquisitorial Jews were afraid of the result of such a wondrous healing, in that the people would support Jesus whom the rulers were determined to destroy. They assumed it to be possible that the man had not been really blind; so they summoned his parents, who answered their interrogatories by affirming that he was their son, and they knew him to have been born blind; but as to how he had received sight, or through whose ministration, they refused to commit themselves, knowing the rulers had decreed that any one who confessed Jesus to be the Christ should be cast out from the community of the synagog, or, as we would say today, excommunicated from the Church. With pardonable astuteness the parents said of their son: "He is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself."
The inquisitive Jews were worried about the impact of such an incredible healing, fearing that the people would rally behind Jesus, whom the leaders were determined to eliminate. They thought it was possible that the man hadn't really been blind, so they called in his parents. The parents confirmed that he was their son and that he had been born blind, but when asked how he had gained his sight or who was responsible for it, they refused to answer, knowing that the leaders had decided that anyone who admitted Jesus was the Messiah would be kicked out of the synagogue, or, as we’d say today, excommunicated from the Church. With understandable cleverness, the parents remarked about their son: "He is of age; ask him: he can speak for himself."
Compelled to acknowledge, to themselves at least, that the fact and the manner of the man's restoration to sight were supported by irrefutable evidence, the crafty Jews called the man again, and insinuatingly said unto him: "Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner." He replied fearlessly, and with such pertinent logic as to completely[Pg 415] offset their skill as cross-examiners: "Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." He very properly declined to enter into a discussion with his learned questioners as to what constituted sin under their construction of the law; of what he was ignorant he declined to speak; but on one matter he was happily and gratefully certain, that whereas he had been blind, now he could see.
Forced to admit, at least to themselves, that the evidence for the man’s restored sight was undeniable, the scheming Jews called the man back and subtly said to him: "Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner." He responded boldly, with such clear logic that it completely undermined their skills as cross-examiners: "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know: one thing I do know is that I was blind and now I see." He wisely chose not to engage in a debate with his educated interrogators about what defined sin according to their interpretation of the law; he wouldn’t speak on what he didn’t understand, but he was happily and gratefully certain of one thing: he had been blind, and now he could see.
The Pharisaical inquisitors next tried to get the man to repeat his story of the means employed in the healing, probably with the subtle purpose of leading him into inconsistent or contradictory statements; but he replied with emphasis, and possibly with some show of impatience, "I have told you already, and ye did not hear:[872] wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?" They retorted with anger, and reviled the man; the ironical insinuation that they perchance wished to become disciples of Jesus was an insult they would not brook. "Thou art his disciple," said they, "but we are Moses' disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is." They were enraged that this unlettered mendicant should answer so boldly in their scholarly presence; but the man was more than a match for all of them. His rejoinder was maddening because it flouted their vaunted wisdom, and withal was unanswerable. "Why herein is a marvellous thing," said he, "that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing."
The Pharisaical interrogators then tried to get the man to repeat how he was healed, likely hoping to catch him in a lie or contradiction. But he responded firmly, and maybe a bit impatiently, "I've already told you, and you didn't listen: [872] why would you want to hear it again? Do you want to be his disciples too?" They shot back in anger and insulted him; the sarcastic suggestion that they might want to be Jesus' disciples was something they wouldn't tolerate. "You're his disciple," they said, "but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this guy, we don't know where he's from." They were furious that this uneducated beggar would speak so boldly in their academic presence, but the man was more than capable of handling them. His reply was infuriating because it mocked their supposed wisdom, and it was unanswerable. "This is truly surprising," he said, "that you don't know where he's from, yet he opened my eyes. We know that God doesn't listen to sinners; but if anyone worships God and does his will, he hears them. Since the beginning of time, it hasn't been heard that anyone opened the eyes of someone born blind. If this man wasn't from God, he couldn't do anything."
For such an affront from a layman there was no precedent in all the lore of rabbis or scribes. "Thou wast altogether[Pg 416] born in sins, and dost thou teach us?" was their denunciatory though weak and inadequate rejoinder. Unable to cope with the sometime sightless beggar in argument or demonstration, they could at least exercize their official authority, however unjustly, by excommunicating him; and this they promptly did. "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? he answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him."
For such an insult from a regular person, there was no precedent in all the teachings of rabbis or scribes. "You were totally born in sins, and do you teach us?" was their harsh but feeble response. Unable to handle the once blind beggar in debate or proof, they could at least use their official power, even if it was unjust, by kicking him out; and that’s exactly what they did. "Jesus heard that they had put him out; and when he found him, he said to him, Do you believe in the Son of God? He answered, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe in him? And Jesus said to him, You have both seen him, and he is the one talking with you. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him."
In commenting upon the matter Jesus was heard to say that one purpose of His coming into the world was "that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind." Some of the Pharisees caught the remark, and asked in pride: "Are we blind also?" The Lord's reply was a condemnation: "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."
In discussing the issue, Jesus noted that one reason He came into the world was "so that those who are blind can see; and those who can see might become blind." Some of the Pharisees overheard this and arrogantly asked, "Are we blind too?" Jesus replied with a sharp rebuke: "If you were blind, you wouldn't be guilty. But now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
SHEPHERD AND SHEEPHERDER.[873]
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheep fold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep." With these words Jesus prefaced one of His most impressive discourses. The mention of shepherd and sheep must have brought to the minds of His hearers many of the oft-quoted passages from prophets and psalms.[874] The figure is an effective one, and all the more so when we consider the circumstances under which it was used by the Master. Pastoral conditions prevailed in Palestine, and the dignity of the shepherd's vocation[Pg 417] was very generally recognized. By specific prophecy a Shepherd had been promised to Israel. David, the king of whom all Israelites were proud, had been taken directly from the sheepfold, and had come with a shepherd's crook in his hand to the anointing that made him royal.
"Truly, I tell you, anyone who doesn’t enter through the door into the sheep pen, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber. But the one who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep." With these words, Jesus set the stage for one of His most powerful teachings. The reference to shepherds and sheep must have reminded His listeners of many well-known verses from the prophets and psalms.[874] This imagery is striking, especially considering the context in which it was spoken by the Master. Pastoral life was common in Palestine, and the nobility of the shepherd's role was widely acknowledged. A shepherd had been specifically promised to Israel through prophecy. David, the king whom all Israelites admired, had been taken directly from the sheepfold and had come with a shepherd's staff in his hand to the anointing that made him king.[Pg 417]
As the Teacher showed, a shepherd has free access to the sheep. When they are folded within the enclosure of safety, he enters at the gate; he neither climbs over nor creeps in.[875] He, the owner of the sheep loves them; they know his voice and follow him as he leads from fold to pasture, for he goes before the flock; while the stranger, though he be the herder, they know not; he must needs drive, for he cannot lead. Continuing the allegory, which the recorder speaks of as a parable, Jesus designated Himself as the door to the sheepfold, and made plain that only through Him could the under-shepherds rightly enter. True, there were some who sought by avoiding the portal and climbing over the fence to reach the folded flock; but these were robbers, trying to get at the sheep as prey; their selfish and malignant purpose was to kill and carry off.
As the Teacher explained, a shepherd has easy access to the sheep. When they are safely gathered in the pen, he enters through the gate; he doesn't climb over or sneak in.[875] He, the owner of the sheep, loves them; they recognize his voice and follow him as he moves from the pen to the pasture, leading the way for the flock. The stranger, even if he is a herder, is not known to them; he has to drive them, as he cannot lead. Continuing this allegory, which the recorder refers to as a parable, Jesus identified Himself as the door to the sheep pen and made it clear that only through Him could the under-shepherds enter properly. Indeed, there were some who tried to avoid the gate and climb over the fence to reach the gathered flock; but these were thieves, attempting to prey on the sheep; their selfish and harmful intent was to kill and steal.
Changing the figure, Christ proclaimed: "I am the good shepherd." He then further showed, and with eloquent exactness, the difference between a shepherd and a hireling herder. The one has personal interest in and love for his flock, and knows each sheep by name, the other knows them only as a flock, the value of which is gaged by number; to the hireling they are only as so many or so much. While the shepherd is ready to fight in defense of his own, and if necessary even imperil his life for his sheep, the hireling flees when the wolf approaches, leaving the way open for the ravening beast to scatter, rend, and kill.
Changing the metaphor, Christ declared, "I am the good shepherd." He then clearly illustrated the difference between a shepherd and a hired hand. The shepherd has a personal interest in and love for his flock, knowing each sheep by name, while the hired hand sees them just as a group, valuing them merely by their numbers; to the hired hand, they are just quantity. While the shepherd is willing to fight to protect his own and would even risk his life for his sheep, the hired hand runs away when the wolf approaches, leaving the door open for the wild animal to scatter, tear apart, and kill.
Never has been written or spoken a stronger arraignment of false pastors, unauthorized teachers, self-seeking hirelings who teach for pelf and divine for dollars, deceivers[Pg 418] who pose as shepherds yet avoid the door and climb over "some other way," prophets in the devil's employ, who to achieve their master's purpose, hesitate not to robe themselves in the garments of assumed sanctity, and appear in sheep's clothing, while inwardly they are ravening wolves.[876]
Never has there been a stronger condemnation of fake pastors, unqualified teachers, and self-serving opportunists who preach for money and claim divine inspiration for dollars—deceivers who pretend to be shepherds but sneak in through the back door, false prophets working for the devil, who, to fulfill their master's agenda, don the guise of piety and present themselves in sheep's clothing, while inside they are ravenous wolves.[Pg 418][876]
With effective repetition Jesus continued: "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." For this cause was Jesus the Father's Beloved Son—that He was ready to lay down His life for the sake of the sheep. That the sacrifice He was soon to render was in fact voluntary, and not a forfeiture under compulsion, is solemnly affirmed in the Savior's words: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." The certainty of His death and of His subsequent resurrection are here reiterated. A natural effect of His immortal origin, as the earth-born Son of an immortal Sire, was that He was immune to death except as He surrendered thereto. The life of Jesus the Christ could not be taken save as He willed and allowed. The power to lay down His life was inherent in Himself, as was the power to take up His slain body in an immortalized state.[877] These teachings caused further division among the Jews. Some pretended to dispose of the matter by voicing anew the foolish assumption that Jesus was but an insane demoniac, and that therefore His words were not worthy of attention. Others with consistency said "These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?" So it was that a few believed, many doubted though partly convinced, and some condemned.
With clear repetition, Jesus said, "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me. Just as the Father knows me, I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep." This is why Jesus was the Father's Beloved Son—because He was willing to sacrifice His life for the sheep. His upcoming sacrifice was truly voluntary and not forced, as He emphasized when He said, "That's why my Father loves me, because I lay down my life so that I can take it back again. No one takes it from me; I lay it down on my own. I have the power to lay it down and the power to take it back. This command I received from my Father." The certainty of His death and His later resurrection is highlighted here. As the eternal Son of an immortal Father, He was untouchable by death unless He chose to submit to it. The life of Jesus the Christ could only be taken if He allowed it. The ability to give up His life was inherent to Him, just as was the ability to resurrect His body in an immortal form.[877] These teachings created further division among the Jews. Some dismissed the issue by claiming that Jesus was simply an insane demoniac, so His words were not worth listening to. Others consistently argued, "These aren’t the words of someone possessed by a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?" As a result, a few believed, many doubted but were partially convinced, and some condemned Him.
As part of this profound discourse, Jesus said: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."[878] The "other sheep" here referred to constituted the separated flock or remnant of the house of Joseph, who, six centuries prior to the birth of Christ, had been miraculously detached from the Jewish fold in Palestine, and had been taken beyond the great deep to the American continent. When to them the resurrected Christ appeared He thus spake: "And verily, I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said, other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."[879] The Jews had vaguely understood Christ's reference to other sheep as meaning in some obscure way, the Gentile nations; and because of their unbelief and consequent inability to rightly comprehend, Jesus had withheld any plainer exposition of His meaning, for so, He informed the Nephites, had the Father directed. "This much did the Father command me," He explained, "that I should tell unto them, That other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." On the same occasion the Lord declared that there were yet other sheep, those of the Lost, or Ten, Tribes, to whom He was then about to go, and who would eventually be brought forth from their place of exile, and become part of the one blessed fold under the governance of the one supreme Shepherd and King.[880]
As part of this deep conversation, Jesus said: "I have other sheep that are not part of this group. I must bring them too, and they will hear my voice; and there will be one group, and one shepherd."[878] The "other sheep" referred to here were the separated group or remnant of Joseph's house, who had been miraculously separated from the Jewish community in Palestine six centuries before Christ was born and taken across the ocean to the American continent. When the resurrected Christ appeared to them, He said: "And truly, I tell you, you are the ones I meant when I said I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them too, and they will hear my voice; and there will be one group, and one shepherd."[879] The Jews had vaguely understood Christ’s mention of other sheep as having something to do with the Gentile nations; and due to their unbelief and inability to understand properly, Jesus did not give a clearer explanation of His meaning, as He told the Nephites, the Father had instructed Him to do. "This is what the Father commanded me," He explained, "to tell them that I have other sheep that are not part of this group; I must bring them too, and they will hear my voice; and there will be one group, and one shepherd." On the same occasion, the Lord mentioned there were still other sheep, those of the Lost or Ten Tribes, whom He was about to visit, and who would eventually be brought back from their exile and become part of the one blessed group under the authority of the one supreme Shepherd and King.[880]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 25.
1. The Feast of Tabernacles.—In the order of yearly occurrence this was the third of the great festivals, the observance of which was among the national characteristics of the people of[Pg 420] Israel; the others were the Passover, and the feast of Weeks or Pentecost; at each of the three all the males in Israel were required to appear before the Lord in formal celebration of the respective feast (Exo. 23:17). The feast of Tabernacles was also known as the "feast of ingathering" (Exo. 23:16); it was both a memorial and a current harvest celebration. In commemoration of their long journeying in the wilderness following their deliverance from Egypt, in the course of which journey they had to live in tents and improvized booths, the people of Israel were required to observe annually a festival lasting seven days, with an added day of holy convocation. During the week the people lived in booths, bowers, or tabernacles, made of the branches or "boughs of goodly trees" wattled with willows from the brook (Lev. 23:34-43; Numb. 29:12-38; Deut. 16:13-15; 31:10-13). The festival lasted from the 15th to the 22d of the month Tizri, the seventh in the Hebrew calendar, corresponding to parts of our September and October. It was made to follow soon after the annual Day of Atonement which was a time of penitence and affliction of the soul in sorrow for sin (Lev. 23:26-32). The altar sacrifices at the feast of Tabernacles exceeded those prescribed for other festivals, and comprized a daily offering of two rams, fourteen lambs, and a kid as a sin offering, and in addition a varying number of young bullocks, thirteen of which were sacrificed on the first day, twelve on the second, eleven on the third, and so on to the seventh day, on which seven were offered, making in all seventy bullocks (Numb. 29:12-38). Rabbinism invested this number, seventy, and the graded diminution in the number of altar victims, with much symbolical significance not set forth in the law.
1. The Feast of Tabernacles.—In the annual sequence of celebrations, this was the third major festival, a key aspect of the national identity of the people of[Pg 420] Israel; the others were the Passover and the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost. During each of these three festivals, all the males in Israel were required to present themselves before the Lord to formally celebrate (Exo. 23:17). The Feast of Tabernacles was also known as the "Feast of Ingathering" (Exo. 23:16); it served as both a memorial and a current harvest festival. To commemorate their long journey in the wilderness after being freed from Egypt, during which they lived in tents and makeshift shelters, the people of Israel were instructed to annually observe a festival lasting seven days, with an additional day for holy gathering. Throughout the week, people lived in booths or tabernacles made from branches or "boughs of goodly trees" woven with willow branches from the brook (Lev. 23:34-43; Numb. 29:12-38; Deut. 16:13-15; 31:10-13). The festival took place from the 15th to the 22nd of the month Tizri, the seventh month in the Hebrew calendar, corresponding to parts of September and October in our calendar. It followed shortly after the annual Day of Atonement, a time for reflection and sorrow over sin (Lev. 23:26-32). The altar sacrifices during the Feast of Tabernacles surpassed those prescribed for other festivals, including a daily offering of two rams, fourteen lambs, and a kid as a sin offering, along with a varying number of young bullocks. Thirteen bullocks were sacrificed on the first day, twelve on the second, eleven on the third, and so on until the seventh day, when seven were offered, totaling seventy bullocks (Numb. 29:12-38). Rabbinical tradition added symbolic significance to the number seventy and the decreasing number of altar sacrifices, which was not explicitly outlined in the law.
At the time of Christ, tradition had greatly embellished many of the prescribed observances. Thus the "boughs of goodly trees," more literally rendered "fruit" (Lev. 23:40), had come to be understood as the citron fruit; and this every orthodox Jew carried in one hand, while in the other he bore a leafy branch or a bunch of twigs, known as the "lulab," when he repaired to the temple for the morning sacrifice, and in the joyous processions of the day. The ceremonial carrying of water from the spring of Siloam to the altar of sacrifice was a prominent feature of the service. This water was mingled with wine at the altar and the mixture was poured upon the sacrificial offering. Many authorities hold that the bringing of water from the pool was omitted on the last or great day of the feast, and it is inferred that Jesus had in mind the circumstance of the omission when He cried: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." At night, during the progress of the feast, great lamps were kept burning in the temple courts, and this incident Christ may have used as an objective illustration in his proclamation: "I am the light of the world."
At the time of Christ, tradition had significantly enhanced many of the established practices. Thus, the "boughs of goodly trees," more literally translated as "fruit" (Lev. 23:40), had come to be recognized as the citron fruit; and every observant Jew carried this in one hand, while in the other hand he held a leafy branch or a bundle of twigs, known as the "lulab," when he went to the temple for the morning sacrifice and took part in the joyful processions of the day. The ceremonial act of carrying water from the spring of Siloam to the altar of sacrifice was a key aspect of the service. This water was mixed with wine at the altar, and the combination was poured over the sacrificial offering. Many scholars believe that the act of bringing water from the pool was skipped on the last or great day of the feast, and it’s suggested that Jesus referenced this omission when he declared, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." At night, throughout the feast, large lamps were kept lit in the temple courts, which Christ may have used as a vivid example when he proclaimed: "I am the light of the world."
For fuller account see any reliable and comprehensive Bible Dictionary, and Josephus Ant. viii, 4:1; xv, 3:3, etc. The following is an excerpt from Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah, vol. ii, p. 158-160: "When the Temple-procession had[Pg 421] reached the Pool of Siloam, the priest filled his golden pitcher from its waters. Then they went back to the Temple, so timing it that they should arrive just as they were laying the pieces of the sacrifice on the great altar of burnt-offering, towards the close of the ordinary morning-sacrifice service. A threefold blast of the priests' trumpets welcomed the arrival of the priest as he entered through the Water Gate, which obtained its name from this ceremony, and passed straight into the Court of the Priests.... Immediately after the 'pouring of the water,' the great 'Hallel,' consisting of Psalms 113 to 118 inclusive, was chanted antiphonally, or rather, with responses, to the accompaniment of the flute.... In further symbolism of this Feast, as pointing to the ingathering of the heathen nations, the public services closed with a procession round the altar by the priests.... But on 'the last, the Great Day of the Feast,' this procession of priests made the circuit of the altar, not only once, but seven times, 'as if they were again compassing, but now with prayer, the Gentile Jericho which barred their possession of the promised land.'"
For a more detailed account, see any reputable and comprehensive Bible dictionary, and Josephus Ant. viii, 4:1; xv, 3:3, etc. The following is an excerpt from Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah, vol. ii, p. 158-160: "When the Temple procession reached the Pool of Siloam, the priest filled his golden pitcher with its water. Then they returned to the Temple, timing their arrival so that they got there just as the pieces of the sacrifice were being laid on the great altar of burnt offering, towards the end of the regular morning sacrifice service. A loud sound from the priests' trumpets welcomed the priest as he entered through the Water Gate, which got its name from this ceremony, and went straight into the Court of the Priests.... Immediately after the 'pouring of the water,' the great 'Hallel,' made up of Psalms 113 to 118, was sung responsively, or rather, with call-and-response, accompanied by the flute.... To further symbolize this Feast, in representation of the gathering of the Gentile nations, the public services ended with a procession around the altar by the priests.... But on 'the last, the Great Day of the Feast,' this procession of priests went around the altar not just once, but seven times, 'as if they were once again circling, but now with prayer, the Gentile Jericho that blocked their entrance to the promised land.'"
2. The Test of our Lord's Doctrine.—Any man may know for himself whether the doctrine of Christ is of God or not by simply doing the will of the Father (John 7:17). Surely it is a more convincing course than that of relying upon another's word. The writer was once approached by an incredulous student in college, who stated that he could not accept as true the published results of a certain chemical analysis, since the specified amounts of some of the ingredients were so infinitesimally small that he could not believe it possible to determine such minute quantities. The student was but a beginner in chemistry; and with his little knowledge he had undertaken to judge as to the possibilities of the science. He was told to do the things his instructor prescribed, and he should some day know for himself whether the results were true or false. In the senior year of his course, he received for laboratory analysis a portion of the very substance whose composition he had once questioned. With the skill attained by faithful devotion he successfully completed the analysis, and reported results similar to those, which in his inexperience he had thought impossible to obtain. He was manly enough to acknowledge as unfounded his earlier skepticism and rejoiced in the fact that he had been able to demonstrate the truth for himself.
2. The Test of our Lord's Doctrine.—Anyone can determine for themselves whether Christ's teachings are from God by simply doing the will of the Father (John 7:17). This is definitely a more convincing method than just relying on someone else's word. The author once encountered a skeptical college student who said he couldn't accept the published results of a certain chemical analysis because the specified amounts of some ingredients were so tiny that he couldn't believe it was possible to measure such small quantities. The student was just a beginner in chemistry, and with his limited knowledge, he tried to judge the possibilities of the science. He was advised to perform the experiments his instructor assigned, and he would eventually discover for himself whether the results were true or false. In his senior year, he received a sample of the very substance whose composition he had once doubted for laboratory analysis. With the skills he developed through hard work, he successfully completed the analysis and reported results similar to those he had previously thought were impossible to obtain. He had the maturity to admit that his earlier skepticism was unfounded and was pleased that he had been able to show the truth for himself.
3. The Pool of Siloam.—"The names 'Shiloah' ('Shelah,' Neh. 3:15, 'Siloah' in authorized version) and 'Siloam' are the exact equivalent in Hebrew and Greek, respectively, of 'Silwan' in the modern Arabic name ('Ain Silwan') of the pool at the mouth of El-Wad. All the ancient references agree with this identification (compare Neh. 3:15; Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v, 4:1, 2; 6:1; 9:4; 12:2; ii, 16:2; vi, 7:2; 8:5). In spite of its modern designation as an 'ain' (spring), Siloam is not a spring, but is fed by a tunnel cut through the rock from the Gihon, or Virgin's Fountain."—L. B. Paton, in article "Jerusalem," Stand. Bible Dictionary.[Pg 422]
3. The Pool of Siloam.—"The names 'Shiloah' ('Shelah,' Neh. 3:15, 'Siloah' in the authorized version) and 'Siloam' are the exact equivalents in Hebrew and Greek, respectively, for 'Silwan' in the modern Arabic name ('Ain Silwan') of the pool at the mouth of El-Wad. All the ancient references support this identification (see Neh. 3:15; Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v, 4:1, 2; 6:1; 9:4; 12:2; ii, 16:2; vi, 7:2; 8:5). Despite its current designation as an 'ain' (spring), Siloam is not a spring; it is fed by a tunnel cut through the rock from the Gihon, or Virgin's Fountain."—L. B. Paton, in the article "Jerusalem," Stand. Bible Dictionary.[Pg 422]
4. Whence was the Messiah to Come?—Many stifled their inward promptings to a belief in Jesus as the Messiah, by the objection that all prophecies relating to His coming pointed to Bethlehem as His birthplace, and Jesus was of Galilee. Others rejected Him because they had been taught that no man was to know whence the Messiah came and they all knew Jesus came from Galilee. The seeming inconsistency is thus explained: The city of David, or Bethlehem in Judea, was beyond question the fore-appointed place of the Messiah's birth; but the rabbis had erroneously taught that soon after birth the Christ Child would be caught away, and after a time would appear as a Man, and that no one would know whence or how He had returned. Geikie (ii, p. 274), citing Lightfoot in part, thus states the popular criticism: "'Do not the rabbis tell us' said some, 'that the Messiah will be born at Bethlehem, but that He will be snatched away by spirits and tempests soon after His birth, and that when He returns the second time no one will know from whence He has come?' But we know this man comes from Nazareth."
4. Where Was the Messiah Supposed to Come From?—Many suppressed their internal beliefs in Jesus as the Messiah because they argued that all prophecies about His coming indicated that He would be born in Bethlehem, while Jesus was from Galilee. Others dismissed Him because they had been taught that no one would know where the Messiah came from, and they all knew Jesus was from Galilee. This apparent contradiction can be clarified: the city of David, or Bethlehem in Judea, was undeniably the foretold location of the Messiah's birth; however, the rabbis incorrectly taught that the Christ Child would be taken away shortly after birth and would later appear as an adult, with no one knowing where or how He returned. Geikie (ii, p. 274), referencing Lightfoot in part, summarizes the common criticism: "'Don’t the rabbis tell us,' some asked, 'that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, but that He will be taken away by spirits and storms shortly after His birth, and that when He comes back the second time, no one will know where He came from?' Yet we know this man is from Nazareth."
5. The Record Relating to the Woman Taken in Adultery.—Some modern critics claim that the verses John 7:53 and 8:1-11 inclusive are out of place as they appear in the authorized or King James version of the Bible, on the grounds that the incident therein recorded does not appear in certain of the ancient manuscript copies of John's Gospel, and that the style of the narrative is distinctive. In some manuscripts it appears at the end of the book. Other manuscripts contain the account as it appears in the English Bible. Canon Farrar pertinently asks (p. 404, note), why, if the incident is out of place or not of John's authorship, so many important manuscripts give place to it as we have it?
5. The Record Relating to the Woman Taken in Adultery.—Some modern critics argue that the verses John 7:53 and 8:1-11 don't belong where they are in the authorized or King James version of the Bible. They suggest this because the incident described doesn’t appear in some ancient manuscript copies of John's Gospel, and the narrative style is different. In some manuscripts, it is found at the end of the book, while others include it just as it appears in the English Bible. Canon Farrar raises a relevant question (p. 404, note): if the incident is out of place or not authored by John, why do so many significant manuscripts include it as we have it?
6. The Treasury, and Court of the Women.—"Part of the space within the inner courts was open to Israelites of both sexes, and was known distinctively as the Court of the Women. This was a colonnaded enclosure, and constituted the place of general assembly in the prescribed course of public worship. Chambers used for ceremonial purposes occupied the four corners of this court; and between these and the houses at the gates, were other buildings, of which one series constituted the Treasury wherein were set trumpet-shaped receptacles for gifts." (See Mark 12:41-44.)—The House of the Lord, pp. 57-58.
6. The Treasury and the Court of the Women.—"Part of the area within the inner courts was accessible to both male and female Israelites and was specifically known as the Court of the Women. This was a colonnaded space and served as the location for general assembly during public worship. Rooms used for ceremonial purposes filled the four corners of this court; and between these and the buildings at the gates were additional structures, one series of which made up the Treasury that contained trumpet-shaped collection bins for offerings." (See Mark 12:41-44.)—The House of the Lord, pp. 57-58.
7. The Sheepfold.—Dummelow's Commentary says, on John 10:2: "To understand the imagery, it must be remembered that Eastern folds are large open enclosures, into which several flocks are driven at the approach of night. There is only one door, which a single shepherd guards, while the others go home to rest. In the morning the shepherds return, are recognized by the doorkeeper, call their flocks round them, and lead them forth to pasture."[Pg 423]
7. The Sheepfold.—Dummelow's Commentary says, on John 10:2: "To grasp the imagery, it's important to know that in the East, sheepfolds are large open enclosures where multiple flocks are gathered as night approaches. There’s only one door, which a single shepherd oversees while the others head home to rest. In the morning, the shepherds come back, are recognized by the doorkeeper, call their flocks to them, and lead them out to pasture."[Pg 423]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[834] John 7:1-10.
[838] John 7:11-53.
[849] According to many excellent authorities, Jonah, Nahum, and Hosea were all of Galilee; and it is further believed that Elijah also was of Galilean nativity.
[849] Many reputable sources suggest that Jonah, Nahum, and Hosea all came from Galilee, and it is also thought that Elijah was born in Galilee.
[850] John 8:1-11.
[851] Deut. 22:22-27.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Deut. 22:22-27.
[852] Matt. 5:21-48.
[853] Deut. 17:6, 7; also 13:9.
[857] John 8:12-20.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 8:12-20.
[861] John 8:21-59.
[864] Exo. 3:14; compare 6:3.
[867] John 9.
John 9.
[868] Whether this incident occurred in immediate sequence to the events last considered, or at a later time after the return of Jesus to Jerusalem following an unrecorded departure therefrom, is not stated in the scriptural record. The value of the lesson is not affected by its place in the catalog of our Lord's works.
[868] It's not clear whether this incident happened right after the previous events we discussed or later on after Jesus returned to Jerusalem following an unrecorded trip away from there. The scriptural record doesn't specify. The importance of the lesson remains unchanged, regardless of where it fits in the list of our Lord's actions.
[873] John 10:1-21.
[874] Note the promise of a Shepherd to Israel, Isa. 40:11; 49:9, 10; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24; compare Jer. 3:15; 23:4; Heb, 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25; 5:4; Rev. 7:17. Read studiously Psalm 23.
[874] Note the promise of a Shepherd to Israel, Isa. 40:11; 49:9, 10; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24; compare Jer. 3:15; 23:4; Heb. 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25; 5:4; Rev. 7:17. Read Psalm 23 carefully.
[878] John 10:16; compare as to "one fold and one shepherd," Ezek. 37:22; Isa. 11:13; Jer. 3:18; 50:4. See "Articles of Faith," xviii,—"The Gathering of Israel."
[878] John 10:16; compare with "one flock and one shepherd," Ezek. 37:22; Isa. 11:13; Jer. 3:18; 50:4. See "Articles of Faith," xviii,—"The Gathering of Israel."
[879] B. of M., 3 Nephi 15:21; read verses 12-24; see chapter 39 herein.
[879] B. of M., 3 Nephi 15:21; read verses 12-24; see chapter 39 herein.
[880] 3 Nephi 16:1-5.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi 16:1-5.
CHAPTER 26.
OUR LORD'S MINISTRY IN PEREA AND JUDEA.
When or under what attendant circumstances our Lord departed from Jerusalem after the Feast of Tabernacles, in the last autumn of His earthly life, we are not told. The writers of the synoptic Gospels have recorded numerous discourses, parables, and miracles, as incidents of a journey toward Jerusalem, in the course of which, Jesus, accompanied by the apostles, traversed parts of Samaria and Perea, and the outlying sections of Judea. We read of Christ's presence in Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedication,[881] between two and three months after the Feast of Tabernacles; and it is probable that some of the events now to be considered occurred during that interval.[882] That Jesus left Jerusalem soon after the Feast of Tabernacles is certain; whether He returned to Galilee, or went only into Perea, possibly with a short detour across the border into Samaria, is not conclusively stated. We shall here as heretofore devote our study primarily to His words and works, with but minor regard to place, time, or sequence.
When exactly our Lord left Jerusalem after the Feast of Tabernacles in the last autumn of His life isn’t specified. The authors of the synoptic Gospels have documented many teachings, parables, and miracles that took place during a journey toward Jerusalem, where Jesus, along with His apostles, traveled through parts of Samaria and Perea, as well as the surrounding areas of Judea. We know Christ was in Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication,[881] which was about two to three months after the Feast of Tabernacles; it’s likely that some events we’re discussing occurred during that time.[882] It is certain that Jesus left Jerusalem shortly after the Feast of Tabernacles, but whether He went back to Galilee or just traveled to Perea, possibly with a quick trip into Samaria, isn’t clearly stated. Here, as before, we will focus on His words and actions, with only minimal attention to location, timing, or order.
HIS REJECTION IN SAMARIA.[885]
Jesus sent messengers ahead, to announce His coming and to prepare for His reception. In one of the Samaritan[Pg 424] villages He was refused entertainment and a hearing, "because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem." Racial prejudice had superseded the obligations of hospitality. This repulse is in unfavorable contrast with the circumstances of His earlier visit among the Samaritans, when He had been received with gladness and entreated to remain; but on that occasion He was journeying not toward but farther from Jerusalem.[886]
Jesus sent messengers ahead to announce His arrival and to prepare for how He would be welcomed. In one of the Samaritan[Pg 424] villages, He was denied hospitality and a chance to speak, "because his face was set on going to Jerusalem." Racial bias had taken priority over the duty of hospitality. This rejection stands in stark contrast to His earlier visit among the Samaritans, when He was welcomed with joy and asked to stay; on that occasion, He was traveling away from Jerusalem rather than toward it.[886]
The disrespect shown by the Samaritans was more than the disciples could endure without protest. James and John, those Sons of Thunder, were so resentful as to yearn for vengeance. Said they: "Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?"[887] Jesus rebuked His uncharitable servants thus: "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Repulsed in this village the little company went to another, as the Twelve had been instructed to do under like circumstances.[888] This was but one of the impressive lessons given to the apostles in the matter of tolerance, forbearance, charity, patience, and long-suffering.
The disrespect shown by the Samaritans was more than the disciples could handle without speaking up. James and John, the Sons of Thunder, were so angry that they wanted revenge. They said, "Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to destroy them, like Elias did?"[887] Jesus responded to His unkind followers: "You don’t know what kind of spirit you’re from. The Son of Man didn’t come to take people’s lives, but to save them." After being rejected in this village, the small group moved on to another one, just as the Twelve had been instructed to do in similar situations.[888] This was just one of the important lessons given to the apostles about tolerance, forbearance, charity, patience, and long-suffering.
Luke gives next place to the incident of three men who were desirous or willing to become disciples of Christ; one of them seems to have been discouraged at the prospect of hardship such as the ministry entailed; the others wished to be temporarily excused from service, one that he might attend the burial of his father, the other that he might first bid his loved ones farewell. This, or a similar occurrence, is recorded by Matthew in another connection, and has already received attention in these pages.[889]
Luke then mentions the incident involving three men who wanted to become disciples of Christ. One of them appeared to be discouraged by the difficulties that come with ministry. The others asked for temporary exemptions from service; one wanted to attend his father's burial, while the other wanted to say goodbye to his loved ones. A similar event is noted by Matthew in a different context, and it has already been discussed in this text.[889]
THE SEVENTY CHARGED AND SENT.
The supreme importance of our Lord's ministry, and the shortness of the time remaining to Him in the flesh, demanded more missionary laborers. The Twelve were to remain with Him to the end; every hour of possible instruction and training had to be utilized in their further preparation for the great responsibilities that would rest upon them after the Master's departure. As assistants in the ministry, He called and commissioned the Seventy, and straightway sent them forth,[890] "two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." The need of their service was explained in the introduction to the impressive charge by which they were instructed in the duties of their calling. "Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest."[891]
The critical importance of our Lord's ministry, along with the limited time He had left on Earth, called for more missionary workers. The Twelve were to stay with Him until the end; every available moment for teaching and training had to be used to prepare them for the significant responsibilities they would face after the Master's departure. As partners in the ministry, He chose and commissioned the Seventy, sending them out right away, "two by two ahead of Him into every city and place where He Himself was about to go." The need for their service was outlined in the introduction to the significant instructions they received regarding their responsibilities. "Therefore He said to them, The harvest is truly plentiful, but the workers are few: pray to the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest."
Many matters on which the Twelve had been instructed prior to their missionary tour were now repeated to the Seventy. They were told that they must expect unfriendly and even hostile treatment; their situation would be as that of lambs among wolves. They were to travel without purse or scrip, and thus necessarily to depend upon the provision that God would make through those to whom they came. As their mission was urgent, they were not to stop on the way to make or renew personal acquaintanceships. On entering a house they were to invoke peace upon it; if the household deserved the gift peace would rest therein, but otherwise the Lord's servants would feel that their invocation was void.[Pg 426][892] To any family by whom they were received they were to impart blessing—healing the afflicted, and proclaiming that the kingdom of God had come nigh unto that house. They were not to go from one house to another seeking better entertainment, nor should they expect or desire to be feasted, but they should accept what was offered, eating that which was set before them, thus sharing with the family. If rejected in any city, they were to depart therefrom, leaving, however, their solemn testimony that the city had turned away from the kingdom of God, which had been brought to its doors, and attesting the same by ridding themselves of the dust of that place.[893] It was not for them to pronounce anathema or curse, but the Lord assured them that such a city would bring upon itself a fate worse than the doom of Sodom.[894] He reminded them that they were His servants, and therefore whoever heard or refused to hear them would be judged as having so treated Him.
Many things that the Twelve had been taught before their missionary journey were repeated to the Seventy. They were warned to expect unfriendly and even hostile treatment; their situation would be like lambs among wolves. They were to travel without money or provisions and would need to rely on what God would provide through those they visited. Since their mission was urgent, they were not to pause on the way to make or renew personal connections. Upon entering a house, they were to bring peace to it; if the household was worthy, peace would settle there, but if not, the Lord's servants would know that their blessing was ineffective.[Pg 426][892] They were to bless any family that welcomed them—healing the sick and announcing that the kingdom of God was near that house. They were not to go from one house to another looking for better hospitality, nor should they expect or seek a feast, but should accept what was offered, eating what was put in front of them and sharing with the family. If rejected in any city, they were to leave, but not without giving a serious testimony that the city had turned away from the kingdom of God, which had come to its doorstep, and they would do this by shaking the dust off their feet.[893] They were not there to declare a curse or condemnation, but the Lord assured them that such a city would face a fate worse than Sodom’s doom.[894] He reminded them that they were His servants, so whoever listened to them or rejected them would be judged based on how they treated Him.
They were not restrained, as the Twelve had been, from entering Samaritan towns or the lands of the Gentiles. This difference is consistent with the changed conditions, for now the prospective itinerary of Jesus would take Him into non-Jewish territory, where His fame had already spread; and furthermore, His plan provided for an extension of the gospel propaganda, which was to be ultimately world-wide. The narrow Jewish prejudice against Gentiles in general and Samaritans in particular was to be discountenanced; and proof of this intent could not be better given than by sending authorized ministers among those peoples. We must keep in mind the progressiveness of the Lord's work. At first the field of gospel preaching was confined to the land of Israel,[895] but the beginning of its extension was inaugurated during our Lord's life, and was expressly enjoined upon the[Pg 427] apostles after His resurrection.[896] Duly instructed, the Seventy set out upon their mission.[897]
They weren't restricted, like the Twelve had been, from entering Samaritan towns or Gentile territories. This change makes sense given the new circumstances, as Jesus's upcoming journey would bring Him into non-Jewish areas where His reputation had already spread. Additionally, His plan aimed for the expansion of the gospel message, which was meant to reach the entire world. The existing Jewish bias against Gentiles in general and Samaritans in particular needed to be challenged; and the best way to demonstrate this intention was to send authorized ministers to those communities. We should remember the progressive nature of the Lord's mission. Initially, the preaching of the gospel was limited to the land of Israel,[895] but it began to expand during our Lord's life and was specifically commanded to the[Pg 427] apostles after His resurrection.[896] With proper guidance, the Seventy started their mission.[897]
Mention of the condemnation that would follow wilful rejection of the authorized servants of God aroused in our Lord's mind sad memories of the repulses He had suffered, and of the many unrepentant souls, in the cities wherein He had accomplished so many mighty works. In profound sorrow He predicted the woes then impending over Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.[898]
Mention of the condemnation that would come from willfully rejecting the approved messengers of God brought back to our Lord's mind painful memories of the rejections He had experienced, and the many unrepentant souls in the cities where He had performed so many amazing miracles. In deep sorrow, He foretold the troubles that were about to descend on Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.[898]
THE SEVENTY RETURN.
Considerable time may have elapsed, weeks or possibly months, between the departure of the Seventy and their return. We are not told when or where they rejoined the Master; but this we know, that the authority and power of Christ had been abundantly manifest in their ministry; and that they had rejoiced in the realization. "Lord," said they, "even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."[899] This testimony was followed by the Lord's solemn statement: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." This was said with reference to the expulsion of the rebellious son of the morning, after his defeat by Michael and the heavenly hosts.[900] Commending the Seventy for their faithful labors, the Lord gave them assurance of further power, on the implied condition of their continued worthiness: "I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you."[901] The promise that they should tread on serpents and scorpions included immunity from injury by venomous[Pg 428] creatures if encountered in the path of duty[902] and power to prevail over the wicked spirits that serve the devil, who is elsewhere expressly called the serpent.[903] Great as was the power and authority thus imparted, these disciples were told not to rejoice in such, nor primarily in the fact that evil spirits were subject unto them, but rather because they were accepted of the Lord, and that their names were written in heaven.[904]
A significant amount of time may have passed, weeks or even months, between the Seventy's departure and their return. We aren’t told when or where they rejoined the Master; however, we do know that Christ's authority and power were clearly evident in their ministry, and they celebrated that realization. "Lord," they said, "even the demons are subject to us in your name."[899] This testimony was met with the Lord's serious declaration: "I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning." This related to the expulsion of the rebellious morning star after being defeated by Michael and the heavenly hosts.[900] Praising the Seventy for their faithful work, the Lord assured them of continued power, on the implied condition of their ongoing worthiness: "I give you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing will harm you."[901] The promise that they would tread on serpents and scorpions included protection from venomous[Pg 428] creatures if encountered while doing their duty[902] and power to overcome the evil spirits that serve the devil, who is also called the serpent.[903] Despite the great authority and power given to them, these disciples were told not to rejoice in that, nor primarily because evil spirits were subject to them, but rather because they were accepted by the Lord and their names were written in heaven.[904]
The righteous joy of His servants and His contemplation of their faithfulness caused Jesus to rejoice. His happiness found its most appropriate expression in prayer, and thus He prayed: "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." Compared with the learned men of the time, such as the rabbis and scribes, whose knowledge served but to harden their hearts against the truth, these devoted servants were as babes in humility, trust, and faith. Such children were and are among the nobles of the kingdom. As in the hours of darkest sorrow, so in this moment of righteous exultation over the faithfulness of His followers, Jesus communed with the Father, to do whose will was His sole purpose.
The genuine joy of His followers and His reflection on their faithfulness made Jesus happy. His joy found its best expression in prayer, so He prayed: "I thank you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and skilled, and have revealed them to the humble: just as it seemed good in your sight." Compared to the educated men of the time, like the rabbis and scribes, whose knowledge only hardened their hearts against the truth, these devoted followers were like children in their humility, trust, and faith. Such children were and are among the greatest in the kingdom. Just as in times of deepest sorrow, in this moment of genuine joy over the faithfulness of His followers, Jesus connected with the Father, whose will was His only purpose.
Our Lord's joy on this occasion is comparable to that which He experienced when Peter had burst forth with the confession of his soul: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." In solemn discourse Jesus said: "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." Then in more intimate communion with the disciples He added: "Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see[Pg 429] those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them."
Our Lord's joy during this moment is similar to what He felt when Peter openly declared, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." In a serious conversation, Jesus said, "All things have been given to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." Then, in a more personal conversation with the disciples, He added, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see; for I tell you, many prophets and kings have wanted to see what you see but did not, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it."
WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?
We have seen that the Pharisees and their kind were constantly on the alert to annoy and if possible disconcert Jesus on questions of law and doctrine, and to provoke Him to some overt utterance or deed.[905] It may be such an attempt that is recorded by Luke in immediate sequence to his account of the joyous return of the Seventy,[906] for he tells us that the "certain lawyer," of whom he speaks, put a question to tempt Jesus. Viewing the questioner's motive with all possible charity, for the basal meaning of the verb which appears in our version of the Bible as "to tempt" is that of putting to test or trial and not necessarily and solely to allure into evil,[907] though the element of entrapping or ensnaring is connoted, we may assume that he wished to test the knowledge and wisdom of the famous Teacher, probably for the purpose of embarrassing Him. Certainly his purpose was not that of sincere search for truth.
We have seen that the Pharisees and their group were always on the lookout to annoy and, if possible, unsettle Jesus regarding matters of law and doctrine, trying to provoke Him into some clear statement or action.[905] It may be such an attempt that Luke records immediately after his account of the joyful return of the Seventy,[906] as he tells us that a "certain lawyer" asked a question to test Jesus. Considering the questioner's motive with as much goodwill as possible, since the basic meaning of the verb that appears in our version of the Bible as "to tempt" is to put to the test or trial and not just to entice into wrongdoing,[907] though there is an element of trapping implied, we can assume he intended to assess the knowledge and wisdom of the well-known Teacher, likely to embarrass Him. Clearly, his aim was not a sincere search for truth.
This lawyer, standing up among the people who had gathered to hear Jesus, asked: "Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"[908] Jesus replied by a counter question, in which was plainly intimated that if this man, who was professedly learned in the law, had read and studied properly, he should know without asking what he ought to do. "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" The man replied with an admirable summary of the commandments: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself"[909] The answer was approved. "This do, and thou shalt live" said Jesus. These simple[Pg 430] words conveyed a rebuke, as the lawyer must have realized; they indicated the contrast between knowing and doing. Having thus failed in his plan to confound the Master, and probably realizing that he, a lawyer, had made no creditable display of his erudition by asking so simple a question and then answering it himself, he tamely sought to justify himself by inquiring further; "And who is my neighbour?" We may well be grateful for the lawyer's question; for it served to draw from the Master's inexhaustible store of wisdom one of His most appreciated parables.
This lawyer, standing up among the crowd gathered to hear Jesus, asked, "Teacher, what do I need to do to get eternal life?"[908] Jesus responded with a question that clearly suggested that if this man, who was supposedly knowledgeable in the law, had really read and studied it properly, he would already know what he needed to do. "What is written in the law? How do you interpret it?" The man replied with a great summary of the commandments: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself"[909] Jesus approved of the answer. "Do this, and you will live," He said. These straightforward words carried a subtle rebuke, as the lawyer must have realized; they highlighted the difference between knowing and doing. After failing to trap the Teacher and likely recognizing that he, a lawyer, had not showcased his knowledge by asking such a simple question and then answering it himself, he sought to justify himself by asking, "And who is my neighbor?" We should be thankful for the lawyer's question, as it prompted one of the Master’s most treasured parables from His endless wisdom.
The story is known as the Parable of the Good Samaritan; it runs as follows:
The story is known as the Parable of the Good Samaritan; it goes like this:
"A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee."
A man was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho when he got attacked by robbers who stripped him of his clothes, hurt him, and left him half dead. By chance, a priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he crossed to the other side and passed by. Similarly, a Levite came to the spot, looked at him, and also passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came to where the man was, and when he saw him, he felt compassion for him. He approached him, bandaged his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and put him on his own animal. He took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day, when he was ready to leave, he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, "Take care of him, and if you spend more than this, I’ll reimburse you when I come back."
Then of the lawyer Jesus asked: "Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."[910]
Then Jesus asked the lawyer, "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by thieves?" The lawyer replied, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus then said, "Go and do the same."[910]
Whatever of motive there may have been in the lawyer's query, "Who is my neighbour?" aside from that of self-justification and a desire to retreat in the best form possible from an embarrassing situation, we may conceive to lie in the wish[Pg 431] to find a limitation in the application of the law, beyond which he would not be bound to go. If he had to love his neighbors as he loved himself, he wanted to have as few neighbors as possible. His desire may have been somewhat akin to that of Peter, who was eager to learn just how many times he was required to forgive an offending brother.[911]
Whatever the motive behind the lawyer's question, "Who is my neighbor?" whether for self-justification or to escape an awkward situation, it seems to stem from a desire to find a limit in the law's application, one that he wouldn't have to exceed. If he was required to love his neighbors as himself, he likely wanted to minimize the number of neighbors he had. His inclination may have been similar to Peter's, who wanted to know the exact number of times he needed to forgive a wrongdoer.[911]
The parable with which our Lord replied to the lawyer's question is rich in interest as a story alone, and particularly so as an embodiment of precious lessons. It was withal so true to existing conditions, that, like the story of the sower who went forth to sow, and other parables given by the Lord Jesus, it may be true history as well as parable. The road between Jerusalem and Jericho was known to be infested by highway robbers; indeed a section of the thoroughfare was called the Red Path or Bloody Way because of the frequent atrocities committed thereon. Jericho was prominent as a residence place for priests and Levites. A priest, who, out of respect to his office, if for none other cause, should have been willing and prompt in acts of mercy, caught sight of the wounded traveler and passed by on the far side of the road. A Levite followed; he paused to look, then passed on. These ought to have remembered the specified requirement of the law—that if one saw an ass or an ox fall down by the way, he should not hide himself, but should surely help the owner to lift the creature up again.[912] If such was their duty toward a brother's beast, much greater was their obligation when a brother himself was in so extreme a plight.
The parable that our Lord used in response to the lawyer's question is engaging as a story on its own, and even more so as a source of valuable lessons. It was also so reflective of real-life situations that, like the story of the sower who went out to plant seeds and other parables told by Jesus, it might be actual history as well as a parable. The road between Jerusalem and Jericho was known to be plagued by highway robbers; in fact, a part of the route was referred to as the Red Path or Bloody Way due to the frequent violent crimes committed there. Jericho was notable as a place where priests and Levites lived. A priest, who, out of respect for his position—if for no other reason—should have been eager and quick to help, saw the injured traveler and crossed to the other side of the road. A Levite came along next; he stopped to look, then continued on his way. They should have remembered the specific requirement of the law—that if someone saw an ox or a donkey fall on the road, they should not ignore it but should definitely help the owner lift the animal back up. If that was their duty toward a fellow's animal, their responsibility was even greater when a fellow human was in such dire trouble.
Doubtless priest as well as Levite salved his conscience with ample excuse for his inhumane conduct; he may have been in a hurry, or was fearful, perhaps, that the robbers would return and make him also a victim of their outrage. Excuses are easy to find; they spring up as readily and plentifully as weeds by the wayside. When the Samaritan[Pg 432] came along and saw the wretched state of the wounded man, he had no excuse for he wanted none. Having done what he could by way of emergency treatment as recognized in the medical practise of the day, he placed the injured one upon his own beast, probably a mule or an ass, and took him to the nearest inn, where he tended him personally and made arrangements for his further care. The essential difference between the Samaritan and the others was that the one had a compassionate heart, while they were unloving and selfish. Though not definitely stated, the victim of the robbers was almost certainly a Jew; the point of the parable requires it to be so. That the merciful one was a Samaritan, showed that the people called heretic and despized by the Jews could excel in good works. To a Jew, none but Jews were neighbors. We are not justified in regarding priest, Levite, or Samaritan as the type of his class; doubtless there were many kind and charitable Jews, and many heartless Samaritans; but the Master's lesson was admirably illustrated by the characters in the parable; and the words of His application were pungent in their simplicity and appropriateness.
Surely the priest and Levite justified their inhumane actions with plenty of excuses; they might have been in a rush, or maybe afraid that the robbers would come back and make them victims too. It's easy to find excuses; they pop up as quickly and abundantly as weeds by the roadside. When the Samaritan came along and saw the terrible condition of the injured man, he had no excuse because he didn't want one. After doing what he could for emergency care as understood in medical practice at the time, he put the injured man on his own animal, likely a mule or a donkey, and took him to the nearest inn, where he personally cared for him and arranged for his ongoing care. The main difference between the Samaritan and the others was that he had a compassionate heart, while they were uncaring and selfish. Though it's not explicitly stated, the victim of the robbers was almost certainly a Jew; the point of the parable necessitates this. That the one who showed mercy was a Samaritan showed that those labeled heretics and despised by the Jews could excel in good deeds. To a Jew, only fellow Jews were considered neighbors. We shouldn't see the priest, Levite, or Samaritan as representative of their groups; undoubtedly, there were many kind and charitable Jews, and many unfeeling Samaritans; but the Master's lesson was perfectly illustrated by the characters in the parable, and His words were striking in their simplicity and relevance.
MARTHA AND MARY.[913]
On one of His visits to Bethany, a small town about two miles from Jerusalem, Jesus was received at the home where dwelt two sisters, Martha and Mary. Martha was housekeeper, and therefore she assumed responsibility for the proper treatment of the distinguished Guest. While she busied herself with preparations and "was cumbered about much serving," well intended for the comfort and entertainment of Jesus, Mary sat at the Master's feet, listening with reverent attention to His words. Martha grew fretful in her bustling anxiety, and came in, saying: "Lord, dost thou not[Pg 433] care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me." She was talking to Jesus but really at Mary. For the moment she had lost her calmness in undue worry over incidental details. It is reasonable to infer that Jesus was on terms of familiarity in the household, else the good woman would scarcely have appealed to Him in a little matter of domestic concern. He replied to her complaining words with marked tenderness: "Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
On one of His visits to Bethany, a small town about two miles from Jerusalem, Jesus was welcomed at the home of two sisters, Martha and Mary. Martha took on the role of housekeeper, so she felt responsible for making sure their distinguished guest was treated well. While she busied herself with preparations and was overwhelmed with serving, intending to make Jesus comfortable, Mary sat at the Master's feet, listening intently to His words. Martha became anxious and frustrated in her efforts and came in, saying: "Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her to help me." She was speaking to Jesus but really directing her frustration at Mary. In that moment, she lost her calmness, worried about small details. It's reasonable to think that Jesus was familiar with their household, as otherwise, Martha wouldn't have turned to Him about a domestic issue. He responded to her complaints with great kindness: "Martha, Martha, you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed: and Mary has chosen what is better, which will not be taken away from her."
There was no reproof of Martha's desire to provide well; nor any sanction of possible neglect on Mary's part. We must suppose that Mary had been a willing helper before the Master's arrival; but now that He had come, she chose to remain with Him. Had she been culpably neglectful of her duty, Jesus would not have commended her course. He desired not well-served meals and material comforts only, but the company of the sisters, and above all their receptive attention to what He had to say. He had more to give them than they could possibly provide for Him. Jesus loved the two sisters and their brother as well.[914] Both these women were devoted to Jesus, and each expressed herself in her own way. Martha was of a practical turn, concerned in material service; she was by nature hospitable and self-denying. Mary, contemplative and more spiritually inclined, showed her devotion through the service of companionship and appreciation.[915]
There was no criticism of Martha's desire to provide well, nor any approval of possible neglect on Mary's part. We can assume that Mary had been a willing helper before the Master arrived; but now that He was there, she chose to stay with Him. If she had been neglectful of her duty, Jesus would not have praised her actions. He wanted more than just well-prepared meals and material comforts; He valued the sisters' company and, above all, their attentive listening to what He had to say. He had so much more to share with them than they could ever offer Him. Jesus loved both sisters and their brother as well.[914] Both women were devoted to Jesus, each showing it in her own way. Martha was practical, focused on material service; she was naturally hospitable and selfless. Mary, more contemplative and spiritually inclined, displayed her devotion through companionship and appreciation.[915]
By inattention to household duties, the little touches that make or mar the family peace, many a woman has reduced her home to a comfortless house; and many another has eliminated the essential elements of home by her self-assumed and persistent drudgery, in which she denies to her dear[Pg 434] ones the cheer of her loving companionship. One-sided service, however devoted, may become neglect. There is a time for labor inside the home as in the open; in every family time should be found for cultivating that better part, that one thing needful—true, spiritual development.
By neglecting household tasks, the little things that can make or break family harmony, many women have turned their homes into uninviting spaces; and many others have stripped away the essential qualities of home through their self-imposed and unending toil, denying their loved ones the joy of their loving presence. One-sided dedication, no matter how devoted, can become neglect. There’s a time for work inside the home just as there is outside; every family should make time for nurturing that higher purpose, that one thing that truly matters—genuine spiritual growth.
ASK, AND IT SHALL BE GIVEN YOU.[916]
"And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray." Our Lord's example and the spirit of prayer manifest in His daily life moved the disciples to ask for instruction as to how they should pray. No form of private prayer was given in the law, but formal prayers had been prescribed by the Jewish authorities, and John the Baptist had instructed his followers in the mode or manner of prayer. Responding to the disciples' request, Jesus repeated that brief epitome of soulful adoration and supplication which we call the Lord's Prayer. This He had before given in connection with the Sermon on the Mount.[917] On this occasion of its repetition, the Lord supplemented the prayer by explaining the imperative necessity of earnestness and enduring persistency in praying.
"And it happened that while he was praying in a certain place, when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, 'Lord, teach us to pray.' Our Lord's example and the spirit of prayer evident in His daily life inspired the disciples to seek guidance on how to pray. The law didn’t provide a specific form of private prayer, but the Jewish authorities had established formal prayers, and John the Baptist had taught his followers how to pray. In response to the disciples' request, Jesus repeated that brief summary of heartfelt devotion and supplication we now call the Lord's Prayer. He had previously shared it during the Sermon on the Mount.[917] This time, the Lord added to the prayer by emphasizing the critical importance of sincerity and persistent effort in praying."
The lesson was made plain by the Parable of the Friend at Midnight:
The lesson was made clear by the Parable of the Friend at Midnight:
"And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him? And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth."
"And he said to them, Which of you has a friend and goes to him at midnight, saying, Friend, please lend me three loaves of bread; a friend of mine has just arrived from a journey, and I have nothing to offer him? And the friend inside will answer, Don't bother me; the door is already locked, and my kids are in bed with me; I can't get up and give you anything. I tell you, even though he won't get up and give it to him because he's his friend, he will get up and give him whatever he needs because of his persistence."
The man to whose home a friend had come at midnight could not let his belated and weary guest go hungry, yet there was no bread in the house. He made his visitor's wants his own, and pleaded at his neighbor's door as though asking for himself. The neighbor was loath to leave his comfortable bed and disturb his household to accommodate another; but, finding that the man at the door was importunate, he at last arose and gave him what he asked, so as to get rid of him and be able to sleep in peace. The Master added by way of comment and instruction: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
The man whose friend arrived at his house at midnight couldn’t let his tired and late guest go hungry, but there was no bread in the house. He took on his visitor's needs as his own and knocked on his neighbor's door as if he were asking for himself. The neighbor was hesitant to leave his cozy bed and wake up his family to help someone else, but when he realized that the man at the door was persistent, he finally got up and gave him what he needed, just to get rid of him and go back to sleep. The Master added this as a comment and lesson: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
The hospitable man in the parable had refused to be repulsed; he kept on knocking until the door was opened; and as a result received what he wanted, found what he had set out to obtain. The parable is regarded by some as a difficult one to apply, since it deals with the selfish and comfort-loving element of human nature, and apparently uses this to symbolize God's deliberate delay. The explanation, however, is clear when the context is duly considered. The Lord's lesson was, that if man, with all his selfishness and disinclination to give, will nevertheless grant what his neighbor with proper purpose asks and continues to ask in spite of objection and temporary refusal, with assured certainty will God grant what is persistently asked in faith and with righteous intent. No parallelism lies between man's selfish refusal and God's wise and beneficent waiting. There must be a consciousness of real need for prayer, and real trust in God, to make prayer effective; and in mercy the Father sometimes delays the granting that the asking may be more fervent. But in the words of Jesus: "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"
The friendly man in the story didn’t let rejection stop him; he kept knocking until the door opened, and as a result, he got what he wanted and found what he was looking for. Some people find this story hard to understand because it highlights the selfish and comfort-seeking side of human nature and seems to use this to symbolize God’s intentional waiting. However, the explanation becomes clear when you consider the context. The lesson from the Lord is that if a person, despite their selfishness and reluctance to give, will still provide what their neighbor requests with genuine intention, and continues to ask despite objections and temporary refusals, then surely God will grant what is persistently asked for in faith and with a righteous heart. There’s no comparison between a person's selfish refusal and God's wise and kind waiting. For prayer to be effective, there must be a genuine awareness of need and true trust in God; sometimes, the Father delays His response out of mercy so that the requests can be more heartfelt. But as Jesus said, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"
Sometime later Jesus spake another parable, the moral of[Pg 436] which is so closely akin to that of the story of the midnight visitor, as to suggest the study of the later lesson here. It is known as the Parable of the Unjust Judge, or of the Importunate Widow:
Sometime later, Jesus told another parable, the moral of[Pg 436] which is very similar to the story of the midnight visitor, suggesting that we should look at the lesson here. It is known as the Parable of the Unjust Judge or the Persistent Widow:
"There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me."[918]
"There was a judge in a city who didn’t fear God or care about people. And there was a widow in that city; she came to him and said, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.' He refused for a while, but later he said to himself, 'Even though I don’t fear God or care about people, because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice; otherwise, she will wear me out with her constant requests.'"[918]
The judge was of wicked character; he denied justice to the widow, who could obtain redress from none other. He was moved to action by the desire to escape the woman's importunity. Let us beware of the error of comparing his selfish action with the ways of God. Jesus did not indicate that as the wicked judge finally yielded to supplication so would God do; but He pointed out that if even such a being as this judge, who "feared not God, neither regarded man," would at last hear and grant the widow's plea, no one should doubt that God, the Just and Merciful, will hear and answer. The judge's obduracy, though wholly wicked on his part, may have been ultimately advantageous to the widow. Had she easily obtained redress she might have become again unwary, and perchance a worse adversary than the first might have oppressed her. The Lord's purpose in giving the parable is specifically stated; it was "to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint."[919]
The judge was a deeply selfish person; he denied justice to the widow, who had no one else to turn to for help. He was pushed to act by his desire to be free from the woman's constant pleas. We should be careful not to make the mistake of comparing his selfish actions to God's ways. Jesus didn’t suggest that just because the wicked judge eventually gave in to her requests, God would do the same; rather, He pointed out that if even someone like this judge, who "didn't fear God and didn't care about people," would finally listen to the widow's request, then there’s no doubt that God, who is Just and Merciful, will hear and respond. The judge's stubbornness, though completely wrong on his part, might have ultimately helped the widow. If she had quickly received justice, she might have become careless again, and potentially face an even worse adversary than before. The Lord’s intention in telling this parable is clearly stated; it was "to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint."[919]
CRITICISM ON PHARISEES AND LAWYERS.[920]
Varied comment as to the source of our Lord's superhuman powers was aroused afresh by His merciful act of[Pg 437] expelling a demon from a man, who, in consequence of this evil possession had been dumb. The old Pharisaic theory, that He cast out devils through the power of "Beelzebub, the chief of the devils," was revived. The utter foolishness of such a conception was demonstrated, as it had been on an earlier occasion to which we have given attention.[921] The spiritual darkness, in which evil men grope for signs, the disappointment and condemnation that await them, and other precious precepts, Jesus elucidated in further discourse.[922]
Various opinions about the source of our Lord's extraordinary powers were rekindled by His compassionate act of[Pg 437] expelling a demon from a man who had been mute due to this evil possession. The old Pharisaic belief, that He cast out demons using the power of "Beelzebub, the chief of the demons," was brought back into discussion. The sheer absurdity of such an idea was proven, just as it had been on an earlier occasion that we previously addressed.[921] Jesus explained further about the spiritual darkness in which evil people search for signs, the disappointment and judgment that await them, and other valuable teachings in subsequent discussions.[922]
Then, by invitation He went to the house of a certain Pharisee to dine. Other Pharisees, as also lawyers and scribes, were present. Jesus intentionally omitted the ceremonial washing of hands, which all others in the company scrupulously performed before taking their places at table. This omission caused a murmur of disapproval if not an open expression of fault-finding. Jesus utilized the occasion by voicing a pungent criticism of Pharisaic externalism, which He likened to the cleansing of cups and platters on the outside, while the inside is left filthy. "Fools" said He, "did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?" In another form we may ask, Did not God who established the outward observances of the law, ordain the inward and spiritual requirements of the gospel also? In response to a question by one of the lawyers, Jesus included them in His sweeping reproof. Pharisees and scribes resented the censure to which they had been subjected, and "began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him." As our Lord's recorded utterances on this occasion appear also in His final denunciation of Pharisaism, later delivered at the temple, we may well defer further consideration of the matter until we take up in order that notable occurrence.[923]
Then, by invitation, He went to the house of a Pharisee to have dinner. Other Pharisees, along with lawyers and scribes, were present. Jesus deliberately skipped the ceremonial handwashing that everyone else in the group carefully did before sitting down to eat. This omission sparked murmurs of disapproval, if not outright criticism. Jesus took the opportunity to sharply criticize the Pharisees' focus on outward appearances, comparing it to cleaning the outside of cups and plates while leaving the inside dirty. "Fools," He said, "didn't the one who made what’s outside also make what’s inside?" In another way, we might ask, didn't God, who set the rules for outward observance of the law, also establish the internal and spiritual requirements of the gospel? In response to a question from one of the lawyers, Jesus included them in His sweeping criticism. The Pharisees and scribes were offended by the rebuke they received and "began to strongly insist that He speak on many topics: lying in wait for Him, and trying to catch something out of His mouth, so they could accuse Him." Since our Lord's remarks on this occasion also appear in His final condemnation of Pharisaism, which He later delivered at the temple, we should hold off on discussing this further until we examine that significant event.[923]
THE DISCIPLES ADMONISHED AND ENCOURAGED.[924]
Popular interest in our Lord's movements was strong in the region beyond Jordan, as it had been in Galilee. We read of Him surrounded by "an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another." Addressing the multitude, and more particularly His disciples, Jesus warned them of the leaven of the Pharisees, which He characterized as hypocrisy.[925] The recent scene at the table of a Pharisee gave special significance to the warning. Some of the precepts recorded in connection with His Galilean ministry were here repeated, and particular stress was laid upon the superiority of the soul to the body, and of eternal life as contrasted with the brief duration of mortal existence.
Popular interest in our Lord's activities was strong in the region beyond the Jordan, just like it had been in Galilee. We read about Him being surrounded by "an countless crowd of people, so much so that they were stepping on each other." While addressing the crowd, especially His disciples, Jesus cautioned them about the leaven of the Pharisees, which He described as hypocrisy.[925] The recent event at the table of a Pharisee added special meaning to this warning. Some of the teachings noted during His Galilean ministry were reiterated here, with particular emphasis on the importance of the soul over the body, and the contrast between eternal life and the brief nature of mortal existence.
One man in the company, intent on selfish interests and unable to see beyond the material affairs of life, spoke out saying, "Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me." Jesus promptly refused to act as mediator or judge in the matter. "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" was the Master's rejoinder. The wisdom underlying His refusal to interfere is apparent. As in the case of the guilty woman who had been brought before Him for judgment,[926] so in this instance, He refrained from intervention in matters of legal administration. An opposite course would have probably involved Him in useless disputation, and might have given color to a complaint that He was arrogating to Himself the functions of the legally established tribunals. The man's appeal, however, was made the nucleus of valuable instruction; his clamor for a share in the family inheritance caused Jesus to say: "Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth."
One man in the crowd, focused on his own selfish interests and unable to look beyond the material aspects of life, called out, "Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me." Jesus quickly refused to get involved as a mediator or judge in this issue. "Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?" was His response. The wisdom behind His refusal to interfere is clear. Just like with the guilty woman who had been brought to Him for judgment, He chose not to get involved in legal matters. To do otherwise might have drawn Him into pointless arguments and could have led to accusations that He was trying to take on the role of the established legal authorities. However, the man's request led to an important lesson; his demand for a portion of the family inheritance prompted Jesus to say, "Be careful and guard against all greed, for a person's life is not defined by the abundance of their possessions."
This combined admonition and profound statement of truth was emphasized by the Parable of the Foolish Rich Man. Thus runs the story:
This combined warning and deep truth was highlighted by the Parable of the Foolish Rich Man. Here’s how the story goes:
"The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."[927]
"The land of a certain wealthy man produced a bountiful harvest. He thought to himself, 'What should I do? I have no place to store my crops.' Then he said, 'Here's what I'll do: I'll tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I'll store all my crops and goods. I'll tell my soul, "You have plenty of goods stored up for many years; take it easy, eat, drink, and be merry."' But God said to him, 'You fool, this very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?' This is how it will be for anyone who stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God."[927]
The man's abundance had been accumulated through labor and thrift; neglected or poorly-tilled fields do not yield plentifully. He is not represented as one in possession of wealth not rightfully his own. His plans for the proper care of his fruits and goods were not of themselves evil, though he might have considered better ways of distributing his surplus, as for the relief of the needy. His sin was twofold; first, he regarded his great store chiefly as the means of securing personal ease and sensuous indulgence; secondly, in his material prosperity he failed to acknowledge God, and even counted the years as his own. In the hour of his selfish jubilation he was smitten. Whether the voice of God came to him as a fearsome presentiment of impending death, or by angel messenger, or how otherwise, we are not informed; but the voice spoke his doom: "Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee."[928] He had used his time and his powers of body and mind to sow, reap and garner—all for himself. And what came of it all? Whose should be the[Pg 440] wealth, to amass which he had jeopardized his soul? Had he been other than a fool he might have realized as Solomon had done, the vanity of hoarding wealth for another, and he perhaps of uncertain character, to possess.[929]
The man's wealth was earned through hard work and saving; neglected or poorly tended fields don’t produce much. He’s not depicted as someone who has wealth that doesn’t rightfully belong to him. His plans for managing his crops and possessions weren’t inherently wrong, though he could have thought of better ways to share his surplus, especially to help those in need. His wrongdoing was twofold; first, he saw his great wealth mainly as a way to secure his own comfort and indulgence; second, in his material success, he failed to recognize God and even counted the years as his own. In the moment of his selfish celebration, he was struck down. We don’t know whether God’s voice came to him as a terrifying warning of death, through an angel, or in some other way, but the voice declared his fate: "You fool, this night your soul will be demanded from you." He had spent his time and his mental and physical abilities to plant, harvest, and gather—all for himself. And what did it all amount to? Whose would the wealth be that he risked his soul to accumulate? If he had been anything other than a fool, he might have recognized, like Solomon did, the futility of hoarding wealth for someone else, possibly of questionable character, to own.
Turning to the disciples Jesus reiterated some of the glorious truths He had uttered when preaching on the mount,[930] and pointed to the birds of the air, the lilies and grass of the field, as examples of the Father's watchful care; He admonished His hearers to seek the kingdom of God, and, doing so, they should find all needful things added. "Fear not, little flock," He added in tone of affectionate and paternal regard, "for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." They were urged to store their wealth in bags that wax not old,[931] containers suited to the heavenly treasure which, unlike the goods of the foolish rich man, shall not be left behind when the soul is summoned. The man whose treasure is of earth leaves it all at death; he whose wealth is in heaven goes to his own, and death is but the portal to his treasury.
Turning to the disciples, Jesus repeated some of the amazing truths He had shared while preaching on the mount,[930] and pointed to the birds in the sky, the lilies, and the grass in the field as examples of the Father's constant care. He encouraged His listeners to seek the kingdom of God, assuring them that in doing so, they would find everything they need. "Don't be afraid, little flock," He said with a tone of love and concern, "because it is your Father's joy to give you the kingdom." They were encouraged to store their treasures in bags that don't get old,[931] containers meant for heavenly treasures that, unlike the possessions of the foolish rich man, won't be left behind when the soul is called. The person whose treasures are of this earth leaves everything behind at death; the person whose wealth is in heaven goes to their own, and death is just the doorway to their treasure.
The disciples were admonished to be ever ready, waiting as servants wait at night with lights burning, for their master's return; and, inasmuch as the lord of the household comes at his will, in the early or later watches, if when he comes he finds his faithful servants ready to open immediately to his knock he will honor them as they deserve. So is the Son of Man to come, perhaps when least expected. To a question interjected by Peter as to whether "this parable" was spoken to the Twelve only or to all, Jesus made no direct reply; the answer, however, was conveyed in the continuation of the allegory of contrast between faithful and wicked servants.[932] "Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household,[Pg 441] to give them their portion of meat in due season?" The faithful steward is a good type of the apostles, individually or as a body. As stewards they were charged with the care of the other servants, and of the household; and as to them more had been given than to the others, so of them more would be required; and they would be held to strict accountability for their stewardship.
The disciples were warned to always be ready, waiting like servants at night with their lights on for their master's return. Since the head of the household can come whenever he wants, whether early or late, if he finds his faithful servants ready to open the door as soon as he knocks, he will honor them as they deserve. The Son of Man will come the same way, perhaps when least expected. When Peter asked if "this parable" was meant for just the Twelve or for everyone, Jesus didn’t give a direct answer; however, he continued with the story, contrasting faithful and wicked servants.[932] "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord will put in charge of his household,[Pg 441] to give them their share of food at the proper time?" The faithful steward is a good example of the apostles, both individually and as a group. As stewards, they were responsible for taking care of the other servants and the household, and because they were given more than the others, they would be expected to do more as well; they would be held strictly accountable for their stewardship.
The Lord then referred feelingly to His own mission, and especially to the dreadful experiences then soon to befall Him, saying: "I have a baptism to be baptised with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" He told again of the strife and dissension that would follow the preaching of His gospel, and dwelt upon the significance of then current events. To those who, ever ready to interpret the signs of the weather, yet remained wilfully blind to the important developments of the times, He applied the caustic epithet, hypocrites![933]
The Lord then spoke passionately about His mission and especially the terrible experiences that were about to happen to Him, saying: "I have a baptism to undergo, and I’m feeling so constrained until it's done!" He reiterated the conflict and division that would arise from the preaching of His gospel, and emphasized the importance of the events happening at that time. To those who were quick to interpret the changes in the weather but remained willfully blind to the significant developments of the era, He called them hypocrites![933]
"EXCEPT YE REPENT YE SHALL ALL LIKEWISE PERISH."[934]
Some of the people who had been listening to our Lord's discourse reported to Him the circumstances of a tragical event that had taken place, probably but a short time before, inside the temple walls. A number of Galileans had been slain by Roman soldiers, at the base of the altar, so that their blood had mingled with that of the sacrificial victims. It is probable that the slaughter of these Galileans was incident to some violent demonstration of Jewish resentment against Roman authority, which the procurator, Pilate, construed as an incipient insurrection, to be promptly and forcibly quelled. Such outbursts were not uncommon, and the Roman tower or fortress of Antonia had been erected in a commanding position overlooking the temple grounds, and connected therewith by a wide flight of steps, so that soldiers[Pg 442] could have ready access to the enclosure at the first indication of turmoil. The purpose of the informants who brought this matter to the attention of Jesus is not stated; but we find probability in the thought that His reference to the signs of the times had reminded them of the tragedy, and that they were inclined to speculate as to the deeper significance of the occurrence. Some may have wondered as to whether the fate of the Galilean victims had befallen them as a merited retribution. Anyway, to some such conception as this Jesus directed His reply. By question and answer He assured them that those who had so been slain were not to be considered as sinners above other Galileans; "But," said He, "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
Some of the people who had been listening to our Lord’s talk reported to Him about a tragic event that had probably just happened inside the temple. A group of Galileans had been killed by Roman soldiers at the base of the altar, and their blood mixed with that of the sacrificial animals. It’s likely that the slaughter of these Galileans was related to some violent protest against Roman rule, which the governor, Pilate, saw as a potential uprising that needed to be swiftly and forcefully put down. Such incidents were not unusual, and the Roman tower or fortress of Antonia was built in a high position overlooking the temple grounds, connected by a wide flight of steps, allowing soldiers[Pg 442] quick access to the area at the first sign of trouble. The reason the informants brought this situation to Jesus' attention isn’t clear, but it’s likely that His mention of the signs of the times reminded them of the tragedy, and they were thinking about the deeper meaning of what had happened. Some may have wondered if the fate of the Galilean victims was deserved punishment. In any case, Jesus directed His reply towards thoughts like these. Through questions and answers, He reassured them that those who were killed were not greater sinners than other Galileans; "But," He said, "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
Then, referring on His own initiative to another catastrophe, He cited the instance of eighteen persons who had been killed by the fall of a tower at Siloam, and affirmed that these were not to be counted greater sinners than other Jerusalemites. "But," came the reiteration, "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." There were perhaps some who believed that the men upon whom the tower had fallen had deserved their fate; and this conception is the more probable if the generally accepted assumption be correct, that the calamity came upon the men while they were engaged under Roman employ in work on the aqueduct, for the construction of which Pilate had used the "corban" or sacred treasure, given by vow to the temple.[935]
Then, referring on His own initiative to another disaster, He mentioned the case of eighteen people who were killed when a tower fell at Siloam, and stated that these individuals were not greater sinners than other residents of Jerusalem. "But," He repeated, "unless you repent, you will all perish in the same way." There were probably some who thought that the men on whom the tower fell deserved what happened to them; this idea is more likely if we assume that the disaster occurred while they were working under Roman authority on the aqueduct, for which Pilate had used the "corban" or sacred funds that were vowed to the temple.[935]
It is not man's prerogative to pass upon the purposes and designs of God, nor to judge by human reason alone that this person or that suffers disaster as a direct result of individual sin.[936] Nevertheless men have ever been prone to so judge. There are many inheritors of the spirit of Job's friends, who assumed his guilt as certain because of the great misfortunes and sufferings that had come upon him.[937] Even while Jesus[Pg 443] spake, calamity dark and dire was impending over temple, city and nation; and unless the people would repent and accept the Messiah then in their midst, the decree of destruction would be carried to its dread fulfilment. Hence, as Jesus said, except the people repented they should perish. The imperative need of reformation was illustrated by the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree.
It is not up to humans to decide what God’s intentions are or to judge based solely on human reasoning that this person or that one suffers misfortune because of personal sin.[936] However, people have always been inclined to make such judgments. There are many who share the mindset of Job's friends, who assumed he must be guilty because of the terrible hardships and suffering he experienced.[937] Even while Jesus[Pg 443] was speaking, disaster loomed over the temple, city, and nation; and unless the people repented and accepted the Messiah who was among them, the decree of destruction would be fulfilled. Thus, as Jesus said, unless the people repented, they would perish. The urgent need for change was illustrated by the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree.
"A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down."[938]
A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; he came and looked for fruit on it but found none. So he said to the gardener, “Look, for three years I’ve come looking for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down; why should it use up the soil?” The gardener replied, “Sir, leave it alone for one more year. I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. If it produces fruit next year, great! If not, then you can cut it down.”[938]
In Jewish literature, particularly in rabbinical lore, the fig tree is of frequent mention as a symbol of the nation. The warning conveyed in the parable is plain; the element of possible escape is no less evident. If the fig tree represents the covenant people, then the vineyard is naturally the world at large, and the dresser of the vineyard is the Son of God, who by personal ministry and solicitous care makes intercession for the barren tree, in the hope that it may yet bear fruit. The parable is of universal application; but so far as it had special bearing upon the Jewish "fig tree" of that time, it was attended by an awful sequel. The Baptist had cried out in warning that the ax was even then in readiness, and every unfruitful tree would be hewn down.[939]
In Jewish literature, especially in rabbinical tradition, the fig tree is often mentioned as a symbol of the nation. The message in the parable is clear; the possibility of escape is just as apparent. If the fig tree represents the covenant people, then the vineyard naturally stands for the world at large, and the caretaker of the vineyard is the Son of God, who, through His personal ministry and attentive care, intercedes for the unfruitful tree, hoping it may still produce fruit. The parable has a universal meaning; however, in its specific reference to the Jewish "fig tree" of that time, it came with a dire consequence. The Baptist had proclaimed a warning that the axe was already ready, and every unproductive tree would be cut down.[939]
A WOMAN HEALED ON THE SABBATH.[940]
On a certain Sabbath Jesus was teaching in a synagog, of what place we are not told, though it was probably in one of the towns of Perea. There was present a woman who for[Pg 444] eighteen years had been suffering from an infirmity that had so drawn and atrophied the muscles as to bend her body so that she could in no wise straighten herself. Jesus called her to Him, and without waiting for petition or request, said simply, "Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity." These words He accompanied by the laying-on of hands, a feature of His healing ministrations not always performed. She was healed forthwith and stood erect; and, acknowledging the source of the power by which she had been released from her bonds, glorified God in a fervent prayer of thanksgiving. Doubtless many of the beholders rejoiced with her; but there was one whose soul was stirred by indignation only; and he, the ruler of the synagog. Instead of addressing himself to Jesus, of whose power he may have been afraid, he vented his ill feeling upon the people, by telling them there were six days in which men ought to work, and that on those days they who wished to be healed should come, but not on the Sabbath. The rebuke was ostensibly directed to the people, especially to the woman who had received the blessing, but in reality against Jesus; for if there were any element of work in the healing it had been done by Him, not by the woman nor by others. Upon the ruler of the synagog the Lord turned with direct address: "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? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?"
On a certain Sabbath, Jesus was teaching in a synagogue, although we don’t know exactly where, but it was likely in one of the towns of Perea. There was a woman there who had been suffering from a disability for eighteen years that had so weakened her muscles that she couldn't straighten her body. Jesus called her over and, without waiting for her to ask for help, simply said, "Woman, you are free from your disability." He laid hands on her, a part of His healing that he didn't always do. She was immediately healed and stood up straight, giving thanks to God in a heartfelt prayer, acknowledging the source of her healing. Many people rejoiced with her; however, one person, the ruler of the synagogue, was only filled with anger. Instead of confronting Jesus, who he may have feared, he expressed his frustration toward the crowd, telling them that there were six days for work and that those who wanted to be healed should come on those days, not on the Sabbath. His rebuke was aimed at the people, especially the woman who had been healed, but it was really directed at Jesus because the healing had been done by Him, not by the woman or anyone else. The Lord turned to the ruler of the synagogue and said directly, "You hypocrite! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it to water? And shouldn't this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan has bound for eighteen years, be set free from this bond on the Sabbath?"
It may be inferred that the woman's affliction had been more deeply seated than in the muscles; for Luke who was himself a physician[941] tells us she "had a spirit of infirmity," and records the significant words of the Lord to the effect that Satan had held her bound for eighteen years. But whatever her ailment, whether wholly physical or in part[Pg 445] mental and spiritual, she was freed from her bonds. Again was the Christ triumphant; His adversaries were shamed into silence, while the believers rejoiced. The rebuke to the ruler of the synagog was followed by a brief discourse in which Jesus gave to these people some of the teachings before delivered in Galilee; these included the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven.[942]
It can be concluded that the woman’s condition was more deeply rooted than just her muscles; for Luke, who was also a doctor[941] notes that she "had a spirit of infirmity," and he records the important words of the Lord saying that Satan had kept her bound for eighteen years. But regardless of her illness, whether it was entirely physical or partly[Pg 445] mental and spiritual, she was released from her chains. Once again, Christ was victorious; His opponents were left speechless, while the believers celebrated. Jesus followed His rebuke to the synagogue leader with a brief talk where He shared some of the teachings He had given before in Galilee; these included the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven.[942]
WILL MANY OR FEW BE SAVED?[943]
Continuing His journey toward Jerusalem, Jesus taught in many of the cities and towns of Perea. His coming had probably been announced by the Seventy, who had been sent to prepare the people for His ministry. One of those who had been impressed by His doctrines submitted this question: "Lord, are there few that be saved?" Jesus replied: "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able."[944] The counsel was enlarged upon to show that neglect or procrastination in obeying the requirements for salvation may result in the soul's loss. When the door is shut in judgment many will come knocking, and some will plead that they had known the Lord, having eaten and drunk in His company, and that He had taught upon their streets; but to them who had failed to accept the truth when offered the Lord shall say: "I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." The people were warned that their Israelitish lineage would in no wise save them, for many who were not of the covenant people would believe and be saved, while unworthy Israelites would be thrust out.[945] So is it that "There are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last."
Continuing His journey to Jerusalem, Jesus taught in many cities and towns of Perea. His arrival had probably been announced by the Seventy, who were sent to prepare the people for His ministry. One person who was moved by His teachings asked, "Lord, are there few that will be saved?" Jesus replied, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow gate, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and won't be able to." The advice was expanded to show that neglecting or delaying obedience to the requirements for salvation can lead to the soul's loss. When the door is shut in judgment, many will come knocking, and some will argue that they knew the Lord, having shared meals with Him and listened to Him teach in their streets; but to those who failed to accept the truth when it was offered, the Lord will say: "I tell you, I don't know where you're from; depart from me, all you who do evil." The people were warned that their Israelite heritage would not save them, for many who were not part of the covenant people would believe and be saved, while unworthy Israelites would be cast out. So it is that "There are those who are last that will be first, and there are those who are first that will be last."
JESUS WARNED OF HEROD'S DESIGN.[946]
On the day of the discourse last noted, certain Pharisees came to Jesus with this warning and advice: "Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee."[947] We have heretofore found the Pharisees in open hostility to the Lord, or secretly plotting against Him; and some commentators regard this warning as another evidence of Pharisaic cunning—possibly intended to rid the province of Christ's presence, or designed to drive Him toward Jerusalem, where He would be again within easy reach of the supreme tribunal. Ought we not to be liberal and charitable in our judgment as to the intent of others? Doubtless there were good men in the fraternity of Pharisees,[948] and those who came informing Christ of a plot against His life were possibly impelled by humane motives, and may even have been believers at heart. That Herod had designs against our Lord's liberty or life appears most probable in the answer Jesus made. He received the information in all seriousness, and His comment thereon is one of the strongest of His utterances against an individual. "Go ye," said He, "and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." The specifying of today, tomorrow, and the third day, was a means of expressing the present in which the Lord was then acting, the immediate future, in which He would continue to minister, since, as He knew, the day of His death was yet several months distant, and the time at which his earthly work would be finished and He be perfected. He placed beyond doubt the fact that He did not intend to hasten His steps, neither cut short His journey nor[Pg 447] cease His labors through fear of Herod Antipas, who for craft and cunning was best typified by a sly and murderous fox. Nevertheless it was Christ's intention to go on, and soon in ordinary course He would leave Perea, which was part of Herod's domain, and enter Judea; and at the foreknown time would make His final entry into Jerusalem, for in that city was He to accomplish his sacrifice. "It cannot be," He explained, "that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem."
On the day of the last discussion mentioned, some Pharisees came to Jesus with this warning: "Get out of here, because Herod wants to kill you." We have previously seen the Pharisees in open opposition to the Lord or secretly plotting against Him. Some commentators see this warning as another example of Pharisaic cunning—possibly aimed at getting rid of Christ from the region or trying to push Him towards Jerusalem, where He would be under the authority of the highest court. Should we not be generous and fair in our judgment of others' intentions? Surely there were good people among the Pharisees, and those who informed Christ of the threat to His life might have been motivated by genuine concern and may even have been true believers at heart. That Herod wanted to harm our Lord seems likely based on Jesus’ response. He took the information seriously, and His comment was one of the strongest statements made against someone. "Go tell that fox," He said, "Look, I’m casting out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will be completed." By mentioning today, tomorrow, and the third day, He was emphasizing the present, the near future, in which He would continue to do His work, knowing that His death was still several months away, as was the time when He would finish His earthly mission. He clearly indicated that He did not plan to rush His journey or stop His work out of fear of Herod Antipas, who was best represented by a sly, murderous fox. Nonetheless, it was Jesus' intention to move forward, and soon He would leave Perea, which was part of Herod's territory, and enter Judea; at the appointed time, He would make His final entry into Jerusalem, where He was to make His sacrifice. "It cannot be," He explained, "that a prophet perishes outside of Jerusalem."
The awful reality that He, the Christ, would be slain in the chief city of Israel wrung from Him the pathetic apostrophe over Jerusalem, which was repeated when for the last time His voice was heard within the temple walls.[949]
The terrible truth that He, the Christ, would be killed in the main city of Israel caused Him to express profound sorrow over Jerusalem, a sentiment He echoed when His voice was last heard within the temple walls.[949]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 26.
1. Christ's Ministry Following His Final Withdrawal From Galilee.—John tells us that when Jesus went from Galilee to Jerusalem to attend the Feast of Tabernacles, He went "not openly, but as it were in secret" (7:10). It appears improbable that the numerous works recorded by the synoptic writers as features of our Lord's ministry, which extended from Galilee through Perea, into Samaria and parts of Judea, could have attended that special and, as it were secret, journey, at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. The lack of agreement among writers as to the sequence of events in Christs' life is wide. A comparison of the "Harmonies" published in the most prominent Bible Helps (see e.g. Oxford and Bagster "Helps") exemplifies these divergent views. The subject-matter of our Lord's teachings maintains its own intrinsic worth irrespective of merely circumstantial incidents. The following excerpt from Farrar (Life of Christ, chap. 42) will be of assistance to the student, who should bear in mind, however, that it is professedly but a tentative or possible arrangement. "It is well known that the whole of one great section in St. Luke—from 9:51 to 18:30—forms an episode in the Gospel narrative of which many incidents are narrated by this Evangelist alone, and in which the few identifications of time and place all point to one slow and solemn progress from Galilee to Jerusalem (9:51; 13:22; 17:11; 10:38). Now after the Feast of Dedication our Lord retired into Perea, until He was summoned thence by the death of Lazarus (John 10:40, 42; 11:1-46); after the resurrection [raising] of Lazarus, He fled to Ephraim (11:54); and He did not leave His retirement at Ephraim until He went to Bethany, six days before His final Passover (12:1).
1. Christ's Ministry Following His Final Withdrawal From Galilee.—John tells us that when Jesus traveled from Galilee to Jerusalem to attend the Feast of Tabernacles, He did so "not openly, but as it were in secret" (7:10). It seems unlikely that the many events noted by the synoptic writers, which detail our Lord's ministry from Galilee through Perea, into Samaria and parts of Judea, could have accompanied that particular and somewhat secret journey during the Feast of Tabernacles. There is a significant lack of agreement among writers about the order of events in Christ's life. Comparing the "Harmonies" published in the leading Bible Helps (see e.g. Oxford and Bagster "Helps") demonstrates these differing perspectives. The content of our Lord's teachings holds its own intrinsic value, regardless of merely circumstantial events. The following excerpt from Farrar (Life of Christ, chap. 42) will be helpful for students, who should remember that it is intended as a tentative or possible arrangement. "It is well known that the entire section in St. Luke—from 9:51 to 18:30—forms an episode in the Gospel narrative, with many incidents reported only by this Evangelist, and where the few indicators of time and place all suggest a slow and solemn journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (9:51; 13:22; 17:11; 10:38). After the Feast of Dedication, our Lord retreated to Perea until He was called back by the death of Lazarus (John 10:40, 42; 11:1-46); following Lazarus's resurrection, He fled to Ephraim (11:54); and He didn’t leave His retreat in Ephraim until He went to Bethany, six days before His final Passover (12:1).
"This great journey, therefore, from Galilee to Jerusalem,[Pg 448] so rich in occasions which called forth some of His most memorable utterances, must have been either a journey to the Feast of Tabernacles or to the Feast of Dedication. That it could not have been the former may be regarded as settled, not only on other grounds, but decisively because that was a rapid and secret journey, this an eminently public and leisurely one.
"This great journey, then, from Galilee to Jerusalem,[Pg 448] filled with moments that brought out some of His most unforgettable sayings, must have been either a trip to the Feast of Tabernacles or to the Feast of Dedication. It's clear that it couldn't have been the former, not only for other reasons but also because that was a quick and secretive journey, while this one was very public and relaxed."
"Almost every inquirer seems to differ to a greater or less degree as to the exact sequence and chronology of the events which follow. Without entering into minute and tedious disquisitions where absolute certainty is impossible, I will narrate this period of our Lord's life in the order which, after repeated study of the Gospels, appears to me to be the most probable, and in the separate details of which I have found myself again and again confirmed by the conclusions of other independent inquirers. And here I will only premise my conviction—
"Almost everyone who investigates seems to have different views on the exact order and timing of the events that follow. Without getting into lengthy and boring discussions where certainty is unattainable, I will recount this period of our Lord's life in the sequence that, after studying the Gospels several times, seems to me the most likely. In the specific details, I have repeatedly found support in the conclusions of other independent researchers. And here, I want to state my belief—
"1. That the episode of St. Luke up to 18:30, mainly refers to a single journey, although unity of subject, or other causes, may have led the sacred writer to weave into his narrative some events or utterances which belong to an earlier or later epoch.
"1. The episode of St. Luke up to 18:30 primarily refers to a single journey, although the unity of the topic or other reasons may have prompted the sacred writer to include in his narrative some events or statements that belong to an earlier or later time."
"2. That the order of the facts narrated even by St. Luke alone is not, and does not in any way claim to be, strictly chronological; so that the place of any event in the narrative by no means necessarily indicates its true position in the order of time.
"2. The sequence of events described, even by St. Luke alone, is not, and doesn’t claim to be, strictly chronological; therefore, the position of any event in the narrative doesn’t necessarily reflect its actual timing."
"3. That this journey is identical with that which is partially recorded in Matt. 18:1; 20:16; Mark 10:1-31.
"3. That this journey is the same as the one that is partially recorded in Matt. 18:1; 20:16; Mark 10:1-31."
"4. That (as seems obvious from internal evidence) the events narrated in Matt. 20:17-28; Mark 10:32-45; Luke 18:31-34, belong not to this journey but to the last which Jesus ever took—the journey from Ephraim to Bethany and Jerusalem."
"4. It seems clear from the internal evidence that the events described in Matt. 20:17-28; Mark 10:32-45; Luke 18:31-34 belong not to this journey but to the last one Jesus ever made—the trip from Ephraim to Bethany and Jerusalem."
2. Jesus at the Home in Bethany.—Some writers (e.g. Edersheim) place this incident as having occurred in the course of our Lord's journey to Jerusalem to attend the Feast of Tabernacles; others (e.g. Geikie) assume that it took place immediately after that feast; and yet others (e.g. Farrar) assign it to the eve of the Feast of Dedication, nearly three months later. The place given it in the text is that in which it appears in the scriptural record.
2. Jesus at the Home in Bethany.—Some authors (like Edersheim) suggest that this event happened during Jesus' trip to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles; others (like Geikie) believe it occurred right after that feast; and some (like Farrar) date it to the night before the Feast of Dedication, nearly three months later. The position assigned to it in the text is where it’s found in the scriptural account.
3. Shall but Few be Saved?—Through latter-day revelation we learn that graded conditions await us in the hereafter, and that beyond salvation are the higher glories of exaltation. The specified kingdoms or glories of the redeemed, excepting the sons of perdition, are the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Telestial. Those who obtain place in the Telestial, the lowest of the three, are shown to be "as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore." And these shall not be equal, "For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared. And they shall be servants of the Most High, but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end." See Doc. and Cov. 76:111, 112; read the entire section; see also The Articles of Faith xxii:16-27; and p. 601 herein.[Pg 449]
3. Will Only a Few Be Saved?—Through recent revelations, we learn that different levels of existence await us in the afterlife, and beyond simple salvation are the greater rewards of exaltation. The specific kingdoms or glories for the redeemed, except for the sons of perdition, are the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Telestial. Those who find themselves in the Telestial, the lowest of the three, are described as "as countless as the stars in the sky or the sand on the seashore." However, they will not be equal, "For they will be judged according to their deeds, and everyone will receive based on their own actions and their own authority, in the places that are prepared. They will serve the Most High, but they cannot enter where God and Christ reside, for eternity." See Doc. and Cov. 76:111, 112; read the entire section; see also The Articles of Faith xxii:16-27; and p. 601 herein.[Pg 449]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[881] John 10:22.
[883] Luke 9:51.
[884] John 10:40; 11:54.
[885] Luke 9:51-56.
[888] Matt. 10:23.
[890] Luke 10:1-12.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 10:1-12.
[892] Edersheim (vol. ii, p. 138) says: "The expression 'if the son of peace be there' is a Hebraism, equivalent to 'if the house be worthy' (compare Matt. 10:13) and refers to the character of the head of the house and the tone of the household."
[892] Edersheim (vol. ii, p. 138) says: "The phrase 'if the son of peace is there' is a Hebraism, meaning 'if the house is deserving' (see Matt. 10:13) and relates to the nature of the head of the house and the atmosphere of the household."
[895] Matt. 10:5, 6; 15:24.
[896] Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15.
[897] Doc. and Cov. 107:25; 124:137-140; see also "Articles of Faith," xi:20, 28. The special office of the Seventy has been reestablished in the restored Church; and in this, the last dispensation, many quorums of Seventy are maintained for the work of the ministry. The office of the Seventy is one belonging to the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood.
[897] Doc. and Cov. 107:25; 124:137-140; see also "Articles of Faith," xi:20, 28. The special role of the Seventy has been reintroduced in the restored Church; and in this final dispensation, many quorums of Seventy are kept active for ministry work. The role of the Seventy is part of the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood.
[899] Luke 10:17.
[902] Compare Mark 16:18; Acts 28:5.
[904] Compare Rev. 13:8; 20:12; 21:27.
[906] Luke 10:25-37.
[907] Compare Gen. 22:1.
[910] Luke 10:30-37.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 10:30-37.
[912] Deut. 22:4; compare. Exo. 23:5.
[914] John 11:5.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 11:5.
[915] Compare John 12:2, 3.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Compare John 12:2, 3.
[916] Luke 11:1-13.
[920] Luke 11:37-54.
[923] Matt. 23; see chapter 31 herein.
[924] Luke 12:1-12.
Luke 12:1-12.
[927] Luke 12:14-21.
[928] Compare the fate that overtook Nebuchadnezzar, while the words of boastful pride were yet in his mouth (Dan. 4:24-33); and that of Belshazzar, before whose eyes appeared the hand of destiny in the midst of his riotous feast; in that night was the king's soul required of him. (Dan. 5.)
[928] Consider what happened to Nebuchadnezzar while he was still boasting (Dan. 4:24-33); and compare it to what occurred with Belshazzar, who witnessed the hand of fate during his wild feast; that very night, the king's life was taken from him. (Dan. 5.)
[930] Luke 12:22-31; compare Matt. 6:25-34.
[931] Compare Matt. 6:20.
Compare Matt. 6:20.
[932] Luke 12:35-48.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 12:35-48.
[933] Luke 12:49-57; compare Matt. 10:34-37.
[934] Luke 13:1-5.
Luke 13:1-5.
[937] Job 4:7; 8:2-14, 20; 22:5.
[938] Luke 13:6-9.
Luke 13:6-9.
[939] Luke 3:9.
[940] Luke 13:11-17.
[941] Colos. 4:14.
[944] Compare Matt. 7:13.
[946] Luke 13:31-33.
CHAPTER 27.
CONTINUATION OF THE PEREAN AND JUDEAN MINISTRY.
IN THE HOUSE OF ONE OF THE CHIEF PHARISEES.[950]
On a certain Sabbath Jesus was a guest at the house of a prominent Pharisee. A man afflicted with dropsy was there; he may have come with the hope of receiving a blessing, or possibly his presence had been planned by the host or others as a means of tempting Jesus to work a miracle on the holy day. The exercize of our Lord's healing power was at least thought of if not openly intimated or suggested, for we read that "Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?"[951] No one ventured to reply. Jesus forthwith healed the man; then He turned to the assembled company and asked: "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?"[952] The learned expositors of the law remained prudently silent.
On a certain Sabbath, Jesus was a guest at the home of a prominent Pharisee. A man suffering from edema was there; he might have come hoping to receive a blessing, or perhaps his presence was arranged by the host or others as a way to challenge Jesus into performing a miracle on the holy day. The possibility of our Lord healing was at least considered if not openly suggested, for we read that "Jesus answered and spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?"[951] No one dared to respond. Jesus immediately healed the man; then He turned to the gathered crowd and asked: "Which of you, having an ass or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?"[952] The knowledgeable interpreters of the law stayed wisely silent.
Observing the eager activity of the Pharisee's guests in securing for themselves prominent places at table, Jesus instructed them in a matter of good manners, pointing out not only the propriety but the advantage of decent self-restraint. An invited guest should not select for himself the seat of honor, for some one more distinguished than he may come, and the host would say: "Give this man place." Better is it to take a lower seat, then possibly the lord of the feast may say: "Friend, go up higher." The moral follows: "For[Pg 450] whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."[953]
Seeing the excited activity of the Pharisee's guests as they tried to secure the best spots at the table, Jesus taught them about good manners, highlighting not only the importance but also the benefits of self-control. An invited guest shouldn't choose the seat of honor for themselves, since someone more important may arrive, and the host would say, "Give this man your seat." It's better to take a lower seat, so that the host might say, "Friend, move up higher." The moral is: "For whoever lifts themselves up will be brought down; and whoever lowers themselves will be lifted up."
This festive gathering at the house of the chief Pharisee included persons of prominence and note, rich men and officials, leading Pharisees, renowned scholars, famous rabbis and the like. Looking over the distinguished company, Jesus said: "When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." This bit of wholesome advice was construed as a reproof; and some one attempted to relieve the embarrassing situation by exclaiming: "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God."[954] The remark was an allusion to the great festival, which according to Jewish traditionalism was to be a feature of signal importance in the Messianic dispensation. Jesus promptly turned the circumstance to good account by basing thereon the profoundly significant Parable of the Great Supper:
This festive gathering at the house of the chief Pharisee included notable people, wealthy individuals, officials, leading Pharisees, respected scholars, famous rabbis, and others. Looking over the distinguished crowd, Jesus said: "When you host a dinner or a supper, don’t invite your friends, family, or rich neighbors; otherwise, they might invite you back, and you’ll get repaid. But when you throw a feast, invite the poor, the disabled, the lame, the blind: And you will be blessed; because they can’t repay you: you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." This kind piece of advice was taken as a criticism; and someone tried to ease the awkwardness by saying: "Blessed is he who will eat bread in the kingdom of God."[954] The remark referenced the great festival, which, according to Jewish tradition, would be of great significance in the Messianic age. Jesus quickly took advantage of the situation by using it to teach the important Parable of the Great Supper:
"A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the[Pg 451] poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper."[955]
A certain man hosted a big dinner and invited many guests. He sent his servant at dinner time to say to those who were invited, "Come; everything is ready now." But they all started making excuses. The first said, "I’ve bought a piece of land, and I need to go check it out; please excuse me." Another said, "I’ve bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out; please excuse me." And another said, "I just got married, and I can’t come." The servant returned and reported these things to his master. The master of the house was angry and said to his servant, "Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the city and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame." The servant said, "Lord, I’ve done as you commanded, and there’s still room." The master said to the servant, "Go out to the highways and hedges and urge people to come in, so that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited will taste my dinner."
The story implies that invitations had been given sufficiently early to the chosen and prospective guests; then on the day of the feast a messenger was sent to notify them again, as was the custom of the time. Though called a supper, the meal was to be a sumptuous one; moreover, the principal meal of the day was commonly spoken of as supper. One man after another declined to attend, one saying: "I pray thee have me excused"; another: "I cannot come." The matters that engaged the time and attention of those who had been bidden, or as we would say, invited, to the feast, were not of themselves discreditable, far less sinful; but to arbitrarily allow personal affairs to annul an honorable engagement once accepted was to manifest discourtesy, disrespect and practical insult toward the provider of the feast. The man who had bought a field could have deferred the inspection; he who had just purchased cattle could have waited a day to try them under the yoke; and the newly married man could have left his bride and his friends for the period of the supper that he had promised to attend. Plainly none of these people wanted to be present. The master of the house was justly angry. His command to bring in the poor and the maimed, the halt and the blind from the city streets must have appealed to those who listened to our Lord's recital as a reminiscence of His counsel given a few minutes before, concerning the kind of guests a rich man could invite with profit to his soul. The second sending out[Pg 452] of the servant, this time into the highways and hedges outside the city walls, to bring in even the country poor, indicated boundless benevolence and firm determination on the householder's part.
The story suggests that invitations were sent out early to the selected and potential guests; then, on the day of the feast, a messenger was dispatched to remind them again, as was customary. Although it was called a supper, the meal was meant to be extravagant; moreover, the main meal of the day was generally referred to as supper. One by one, the invitees declined to attend, one saying: "Please excuse me," and another: "I can't come." The reasons for their attention and commitments, or what we might call excuses, were not inherently dishonorable or sinful; however, to prioritize personal matters over a promise made for an important occasion showed a lack of courtesy, disrespect, and an outright insult to the host. The man who bought a field could have postponed his visit; the one who just bought cattle could have waited a day to test them; and the newly married man could have stepped away from his bride and friends for the duration of the supper he had committed to attending. Clearly, none of these individuals wanted to be there. The master of the house was understandably angry. His order to bring in the poor and disabled from the streets must have resonated with those listening to our Lord's story as a reminder of His earlier advice about the type of guests a wealthy man could invite that would be beneficial for his soul. The second outreach of the servant, now sent to the roads and hedges outside the city to bring in even the rural poor, demonstrated the homeowner's immense generosity and steadfast resolve.
Explication of the parable was left to the learned men to whom the story was addressed. Surely some of them would fathom its meaning, in part at least. The covenant people, Israel, were the specially invited guests. They had been bidden long enough aforetime, and by their own profession as the Lord's own had agreed to be partakers of the feast. When all was ready, on the appointed day, they were severally summoned by the Messenger who had been sent by the Father; He was even then in their midst. But the cares of riches, the allurement of material things, and the pleasures of social and domestic life had engrossed them; and they prayed to be excused or irreverently declared they could not or would not come. Then the gladsome invitation was to be carried to the Gentiles, who were looked upon as spiritually poor, maimed, halt, and blind. And later, even the pagans beyond the walls, strangers in the gates of the holy city, would be bidden to the supper. These, surprized at the unexpected summons, would hesitate, until by gentle urging and effective assurance that they were really included among the bidden guests, they would feel themselves constrained or compelled to come. The possibility of some of the discourteous ones arriving later, after they had attended to their more absorbing affairs, is indicated in the Lord's closing words: "For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper."
Explication of the parable was left to the scholars to whom the story was addressed. Surely some of them would understand its meaning, at least in part. The covenant people, Israel, were the specially invited guests. They had been invited long ago, and by their own admission as the Lord's chosen had agreed to join the feast. When everything was ready, on the appointed day, they were each called by the Messenger sent by the Father; He was even then among them. But the concerns of wealth, the allure of material things, and the pleasures of social and family life had consumed them; and they asked to be excused or rudely stated they could not or would not attend. Then the joyful invitation was extended to the Gentiles, who were considered spiritually poor, crippled, lame, and blind. Later, even the outsiders beyond the walls, strangers at the gates of the holy city, would be invited to the supper. These, surprised by the unexpected invitation, would hesitate until gentle encouragement and effective assurance that they were indeed included among the invited guests would compel them to come. The possibility of some of the rude ones showing up later, after tending to their more pressing matters, is hinted at in the Lord's closing words: "For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper."
COUNTING THE COST.[956]
As had been in Galilee, so was it in Perea and Judea—great multitudes attended the Master whenever He appeared[Pg 453] in public. When once a scribe has presented himself as a disciple, offering to follow wherever the Master led, Jesus had indicated the self-denial, privation and suffering incident to devoted service, with the result that the man's enthusiasm was soon spent.[957] So now to the eager multitude Jesus applied a test of sincerity. He would have only genuine disciples, not enthusiasts of a day, ready to desert His cause when effort and sacrifice were most needed. Thus did He sift the people: "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. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple." Literal hatred toward one's family was not specified as a condition of discipleship; indeed a man who indulges hatred or any other evil passion is a subject for repentance and reformation. The preeminence of duty toward God over personal or family demands on the part of one who had assumed the obligations of a disciple was the precept.[958]
As it had been in Galilee, it was the same in Perea and Judea—vast crowds followed the Master whenever He appeared[Pg 453] in public. When a scribe decided to become a disciple, eager to follow wherever the Master led, Jesus made it clear that true devotion meant self-denial, hardship, and suffering, which quickly drained the man's enthusiasm.[957] So now, to the eager crowd, Jesus put them to the test of sincerity. He wanted only real disciples, not people who were just enthusiastic for a moment, ready to abandon His cause when effort and sacrifice were most necessary. Thus, He evaluated the crowd: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." He wasn't actually calling for literal hatred of one's family as a requirement for discipleship; in fact, someone who harbors hatred or any evil desire needs repentance and change. The key point was the priority of duty to God over personal or family obligations for someone who has taken on the responsibilities of a disciple.[958]
As Jesus pointed out, it is good common-sense to count well the cost before one enters upon a great undertaking, even in ordinary affairs. A man who wishes to build, say a tower or a house, tries to determine, before he begins the work, what the expense will be; otherwise he may be able to do no more than lay the foundation; then, not only will he find himself a loser, for the unfinished structure will be of no service, but people may laugh at his lack of prudent forethought. So also a king, finding his realm menaced by hostile invaders, does not rush into battle recklessly; he first tries to ascertain the strength of the enemy's forces; and then, if the odds against him be too great, he sends an embassage to treat for peace. "So likewise," said Jesus to the people around Him, "whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all[Pg 454] that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." All who entered His service would be expected to maintain their self-sacrificing devotion. He wanted no disciples who would become like salt that had spoiled, unsavory and useless. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."[959]
As Jesus pointed out, it's just good common sense to carefully consider the costs before committing to a major project, even in everyday situations. A person who wants to build, say, a tower or a house, should try to figure out the expenses before starting the work; otherwise, they might end up only laying the foundation and nothing more. Not only would this be a loss, as the incomplete structure would be of no use, but people might mock him for not planning ahead. Similarly, a king facing threats from invading forces doesn’t recklessly jump into battle; he first assesses the enemy's strength and, if the odds are too unfavorable, he sends a messenger to negotiate for peace. "In the same way," Jesus told the people around Him, "any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." Those who followed Him were expected to show unwavering dedication. He didn’t want disciples who would become like spoiled salt, tasteless and worthless. "Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear."
SALVATION FOR "PUBLICANS AND SINNERS"—ILLUSTRATIVE PARABLES.[960]
The Pharisees in Galilee had intolerantly criticized Jesus because of His friendly and helpful ministry among the publicans and their associates, who were disparagingly classed together as "publicans and sinners."[961] He had replied to these uncharitable aspersions by saying that a physician is most needed by them that are sick, and that He had come to call sinners to repentance. The Judean Pharisees raised a similar complaint, and were particularly virulent when they saw that "all the publicans and sinners" drew near to hear Him. He met their murmurs by presenting a number of parables, designed to show the incumbent duty of trying to recover the lost, and the joy of success in such God-like endeavor. The first of the series of parables was that of the Lost Sheep; this we have considered in connection with its earlier delivery in the course of instruction to the disciples in Galilee.[962] Its application in the present instance, however, is somewhat different from that of its former presentation. The lesson on this later occasion was directed to the self-seeking Pharisees and scribes who personified the theocracy, and whose bounden duty it should have been to care for the strayed and the lost. If the "publicans and sinners," whom these ecclesiasts so generally contemned, were nearly as bad as they were represented to be, if they were men who had broken through the close-hedged path of the law and[Pg 455] had become in a measure apostate, they were the ones toward whom the helping hand of missionary service could be best extended. In no instance of Pharisaic slur upon, or open denunciation of, these "publicans and sinners," do we find Jesus defending their alleged evil ways; His attitude toward these spiritually sick folk was that of a devoted physician: His concern over these strayed sheep was that of a loving shepherd whose chief desire was to find them out and bring them back to the fold. This neither the theocracy as a system nor its officials as individual ministers even attempted to do. The shepherd, on finding the sheep that was lost, thinks not at the time of reprimand or punishment; on the contrary, "when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them: Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost."
The Pharisees in Galilee harshly criticized Jesus for His friendly and helpful ministry among tax collectors and their associates, who were dismissively labeled as "tax collectors and sinners."[961] He responded to these unfair attacks by saying that a doctor is most needed by those who are sick, and that He came to call sinners to change their ways. The Judean Pharisees had a similar complaint and were particularly harsh when they saw that "all the tax collectors and sinners" were coming to hear Him. He addressed their complaints by sharing several parables to illustrate the responsibility of trying to bring back the lost and the joy that comes from succeeding in such a God-like mission. The first of these parables was that of the Lost Sheep; we have discussed this earlier in relation to Jesus' teachings to His disciples in Galilee.[962] However, its meaning in this context is slightly different from its previous presentation. The lesson this time was aimed at the self-serving Pharisees and scribes who represented the religious authority and should have been responsible for caring for those who were lost. If the "tax collectors and sinners," whom the religious leaders scorned, were nearly as bad as they claimed, if they had strayed from the strict path of the law and had become somewhat lost in their faith, they were the ones who would benefit most from the compassionate outreach of ministry. In no instances of Pharisaic insults against these "tax collectors and sinners" do we see Jesus defending their supposed wrongdoings; He treated these spiritually ill people as a caring doctor would: His concern for these lost sheep was like that of a loving shepherd whose main desire was to find them and bring them back to safety. This is something neither the religious system nor its leaders attempted to do. When the shepherd finds the lost sheep, he does not focus on scolding or punishing it; instead, "when he has found it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders. And when he arrives home, he calls his friends and neighbors together, saying to them: Rejoice with me; for I have found my lost sheep."
A direct application of the parable appears in the Lord's concise address to the Pharisees and scribes: "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." Were they the ninety and nine, who, by self-estimation had strayed not, being "just persons, which need no repentance?" Some readers say they catch this note of just sarcasm in the Master's concluding words. In the earlier part of the story, the Lord Himself appears as the solicitous Shepherd, and by plain implication His example is such as the theocratic leaders ought to emulate. Such a conception puts the Pharisees and scribes in the position of shepherds rather than of sheep. Both explications are tenable; and each is of value as portraying the status and duty of professing servants of the Master in all ages.
A direct application of the parable can be seen in the Lord's brief message to the Pharisees and scribes: "I tell you, there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, more than over ninety-nine righteous people who don’t need to repent." Were they the ninety-nine who, by their own estimation, had not gone astray, being "righteous people who don’t need to repent?" Some readers suggest they detect a note of sarcasm in the Master’s final words. Earlier in the story, the Lord Himself is shown as the caring Shepherd, and it clearly implies that His example is what the theocratic leaders should follow. This idea positions the Pharisees and scribes as shepherds rather than sheep. Both interpretations are valid; each offers valuable insights into the role and responsibility of those who profess to serve the Master throughout the ages.
Without break in the narrative, the Lord passed from the story of the lost sheep to the Parable of the Lost Coin.
Without interruption in the story, the Lord transitioned from the tale of the lost sheep to the Parable of the Lost Coin.
"Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she[Pg 456] lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost. Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth."
"Suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Won’t she light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together, saying, 'Rejoice with me; I have found the coin I lost.' In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of God’s angels over one sinner who repents."
Between this parable and that of the lost sheep there are certain notable differences, though the lesson in each is in general the same. The sheep had strayed by its own volition; the coin[963] had been dropped, and so was lost as a result of inattention or culpable carelessness on the part of its owner. The woman, discovering her loss institutes a diligent search; she sweeps the house, and perhaps learns of dirty corners, dusty recesses, cobwebby nooks, to which she had been oblivious in her self-complacency as an outwardly clean and conventional housewife. Her search is rewarded by the recovery of the lost piece, and is incidentally beneficial in the cleansing of her house. Her joy is like that of the shepherd wending his way homeward with the sheep upon his shoulders—once lost but now regained.
Between this parable and that of the lost sheep, there are some significant differences, though the overall lesson in both is quite similar. The sheep wandered off on its own; the coin[963] was dropped and lost due to carelessness or lack of attention from its owner. When the woman realizes her loss, she begins a thorough search; she cleans the house and possibly discovers neglected corners, dusty spots, and cobwebby places that she had ignored while thinking of herself as a tidy and typical housewife. Her effort pays off when she finds the lost coin, and it also helps in cleaning her home. Her happiness is like that of the shepherd heading home with the sheep on his shoulders—once lost but now found.
The woman who by lack of care lost the precious piece may be taken to represent the theocracy of the time, and the Church as an institution in any dispensational period; then the pieces of silver, every one a genuine coin of the realm, bearing the image of the great King, are the souls committed to the care of the Church; and the lost piece symbolizes the souls that are neglected and, for a time at least, lost sight of, by the authorized ministers of the Gospel of Christ. These cogent illustrations were followed by one yet richer in imagery and more impressively elaborate in detail. It is the never to be forgotten Parable of the Prodigal Son.[964]
The woman who lost the precious coin due to carelessness can be seen as representing the theocracy of that time and the Church as an institution in any era. The pieces of silver, each a genuine coin of the realm with the image of the great King, symbolize the souls entrusted to the Church's care. The lost coin represents the souls that are neglected and, at least for a time, overlooked by the authorized ministers of the Gospel of Christ. These powerful illustrations were followed by one even richer in imagery and more detailed: the unforgettable Parable of the Prodigal Son.[964]
"And he said, A certain man had two sons; And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this[Pg 458] thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."
"And he said, There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, 'Dad, give me the share of the inheritance that belongs to me.' So he divided his property between them. Not long after that, the younger son gathered everything he had and traveled to a distant country, where he squandered his wealth in reckless living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that country, and he began to be in need. He went and got a job with a citizen of that country, who sent him to the fields to feed pigs. He would have gladly filled his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired workers have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will get up and go back to my father and say to him, "Dad, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants."' So he got up and went to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him, and kissed him. The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate! For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate. Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked what was going on. 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.' The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours, who has squandered your property with prostitutes, comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!' 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. We had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'"
The demand of the younger son for a portion of the patrimony even during his father's lifetime, is an instance of deliberate and unfilial desertion; the duties of family cooperation had grown distasteful to him, and the wholesome discipline of the home had become irksome. He was determined to break away from all home ties, forgetful of what home had done for him and the debt of gratitude and duty by which he was morally bound. He went into a far country, and, as he thought, beyond the reach of the father's directing influence. He had his season of riotous living, of unrestrained indulgence and evil pleasure, through it all wasting his strength of body and mind, and squandering his father's substance; for what he had received had been given as a concession and not as the granting of any legal or just demand. Adversity came upon him, and proved to be a more effective minister for good than pleasure had been. He was reduced to the lowest and most menial service, that of herding swine, which occupation, to a Jew, was the extreme of degradation. Suffering brought him to himself. He, the son of honorable parentage, was feeding pigs and eating with them, while even the hired servants at home had good food in plenty and to spare. He realized not alone his abject foolishness in leaving his father's well-spread table to batten with hogs, but the unrighteousness of his selfish desertion; he was not only remorseful but repentant. He had sinned against his father and against God; he would return, confess his sin, and ask, not to be reinstated as a son, but to be allowed to work as a hired servant. Having resolved he delayed not, but immediately set out to find his long way back to home and father.
The younger son's demand for his share of the inheritance while his father was still alive was a clear act of ungratefulness. He had grown tired of family responsibilities, and the discipline of home life felt burdensome. He was determined to cut all ties to home, forgetting everything it had done for him and the sense of gratitude and duty he owed. He traveled to a distant land, believing he was beyond his father's influence. He indulged in a wild lifestyle, carefree and pursuing sinful pleasures, wasting his body and mind, and squandering his father's wealth; what he received was a gift, not a right or an entitlement. Hard times hit, proving to be a better teacher than pleasure had been. He fell into the lowest job possible: taking care of pigs, which was the ultimate humiliation for a Jew. His suffering made him realize his situation. Here he was, the son of respectable parents, feeding pigs and eating what they ate, while even the hired workers back home had plenty of good food. He recognized not just his foolishness in leaving his father's table for such a disgraceful existence, but also the selfishness of abandoning his family; he felt not just regret but true repentance. He had sinned against his father and against God; he planned to go back, admit his wrongdoing, and ask not to be taken back as a son but to be allowed to work as a hired hand. With this decision made, he wasted no time and immediately set off for home.
The father became aware of the prodigal's approach and hastened to meet him. Without a word of condemnation,[Pg 459] the loving parent embraced and kissed the wayward but now penitent boy, who, overcome by this undeserved affection, humbly acknowledged his error, and sorrowfully confessed that he was not worthy to be known as his father's son. It is noteworthy that in his contrite confession he did not ask to be accepted as a hired servant as he had resolved to do; the father's joy was too sacred to be thus marred, he would please his father best by placing himself unreservedly at that father's disposal. The rough garb of poverty was discarded for the best robe; a ring was placed on his finger as a mark of reinstatement; shoes told of restored sonship, not of employment as a hired servant. The father's glad heart could express itself only in acts of abundant kindness; a feast was made ready; for was not the son, once counted as dead now alive? Had not the lost been found again?
The father noticed the prodigal coming and rushed to meet him. Without saying a word of condemnation, [Pg 459] the loving parent embraced and kissed the wayward but now remorseful boy, who, overwhelmed by this undeserved love, humbly recognized his mistake and sadly admitted that he wasn't worthy to be called his father's son. It's notable that in his heartfelt confession he didn't ask to be taken back as a hired servant as he had planned; the father's joy was too precious to be spoiled, and he felt the best way to please his father was to put himself entirely at his father's mercy. The shabby clothes of poverty were replaced with the best robe; a ring was put on his finger as a sign of being welcomed back; shoes symbolized his restored status as a son, not as a hired worker. The father's joyful heart expressed itself through acts of overflowing kindness; a feast was prepared because wasn't the son, once thought to be dead, now alive? Hadn't the lost been found again?
So far the story sustains a relation of close analogy to the two parables that preceded it in the same discourse; the part following introduces another important symbolism. No one had complained at the recovery of the stray sheep nor at the finding of the lost coin; friends had rejoiced with the finder in each case. But the father's happiness at the return of the prodigal was interrupted by the grumbling protest of the elder son. He, on approaching the house, had observed the evidences of festal joy; and, instead of entering as was his right, had inquired of one of the servants as to the cause of the unusual rejoicing. On learning that his brother had returned and that the father had prepared a festival in honor of the event, this elder son grew angry, and churlishly refused to enter the house even after his father had come out and entreated him. He cited his own faithfulness and devotion to the routine labor of the farm, to which claim of excellence the father did not demur; but the son and heir reproached his father for having failed to give him so much as a kid with which to make merry with his friends; while now that the wayward and spendthrift son had come back the[Pg 460] father had killed for him even the fatted calf. There is significance in the elder one's designation of the penitent as "this thy son," rather than "my brother." The elder son, deafened by selfish anger, refused to hear aright the affectionate assurance; "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine," and with heart hardened by unbrotherly resentment he stood unmoved by the emotional and loving outburst, "this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."
So far, the story has closely mirrored the two parables that came before it in the same discussion; however, the next part introduces a significant symbol. No one complained about the recovery of the lost sheep or the finding of the lost coin; friends celebrated with the finder in each case. But the father’s joy at the return of the prodigal was interrupted by the grumbling of the older son. As he approached the house, he noticed signs of a joyful celebration; instead of entering as he had every right to, he asked one of the servants what was going on. When he learned that his brother had returned and that their father had thrown a party in his honor, the older son became furious and stubbornly refused to go inside, even when his father came out to plead with him. He pointed out his own loyalty and hard work on the farm, to which the father didn’t argue; yet the son complained that his father had never given him even a goat to celebrate with his friends, while now, the wayward and wasteful son was being honored with the fatted calf. It’s significant that the older son referred to the returning son as "this your son" instead of "my brother." The older son, blinded by selfish anger, couldn’t hear his father’s heartfelt words, "Son, you are always with me, and everything I have is yours," and hardened by unbrotherly resentment, he was unmoved by the emotional and loving statement, "this your brother was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found."
We are not justified in extolling the virtue of repentance on the part of the prodigal above the faithful, plodding service of his brother, who had remained at home, true to the duties required of him. The devoted son was the heir; the father did not disparage his worth, nor deny his deserts. His displeasure over the rejoicing incident to the return of his wayward brother was an exhibition of illiberality and narrowness; but of the two brothers the elder was the more faithful, whatever his minor defects may have been. The particular point emphasized in the Lord's lesson, however, had to do with his uncharitable and selfish weaknesses.
We can't praise the virtue of the prodigal's repentance more than the faithful, hard work of his brother, who stayed home and fulfilled his responsibilities. The devoted son was the heir; the father recognized his value and didn’t dismiss his contributions. His anger over the celebration for his wayward brother showed a lack of generosity and open-mindedness; still, among the two brothers, the older was the more loyal, despite his smaller flaws. However, the main point emphasized in the Lord's lesson was his unkind and selfish shortcomings.
Pharisees and scribes, to whom this masterpiece of illustrative incident was delivered, must have taken to themselves its personal application. They were typified by the elder son, laboriously attentive to routine, methodically plodding by rule and rote in the multifarious labors of the field, without interest except that of self, and all unwilling to welcome a repentant publican or a returned sinner. From all such they were estranged; such a one might be to the indulgent and forgiving Father, "this thy son," but never to them, a brother. They cared not who or how many were lost, so long as they were undisturbed in heirship and possession by the return of penitent prodigals. But the parable was not for them alone; it is a living perennial yielding the fruit of wholesome doctrine and soul-sustaining nourishment for all time. Not a word appears in condonation or excuse for the[Pg 461] prodigal's sin; upon that the Father could not look with the least degree of allowance;[965] but over that sinner's repentance and contrition of soul, God and the household of heaven rejoiced.
Pharisees and scribes, to whom this incredible story was told, must have seen themselves in its personal application. They were like the elder son, diligently focused on rules, methodically working through all the tasks in the field, with no interest beyond their own and completely unwilling to accept a repentant tax collector or a returning sinner. They were distant from such people; someone like that might be seen by the forgiving Father as "this your son," but never by them as a brother. They didn't care who was lost or how many, as long as their position and possessions weren't disturbed by the return of wayward sinners. However, the parable wasn't just for them; it's a timeless message offering valuable lessons and spiritual nourishment for all time. Not a word is said to excuse or justify the prodigal's sin; the Father could not look at it with any tolerance; but for that sinner's repentance and sorrow, both God and the heavenly hosts rejoiced.
The three parables which appear in the scriptural record as parts of a continuous discourse, are as one in portraying the joy that abounds in heaven over the recovery of a soul once numbered among the lost, whether that soul be best symbolized by a sheep that had wandered afar, a coin that had dropped out of sight through the custodian's neglect, or a son who would deliberately sever himself from home and heaven. There is no justification for the inference that a repentant sinner is to be given precedence, over a righteous soul who has resisted sin; were such the way of God, then Christ, the one sinless Man, would be surpassed in the Father's esteem by regenerate offenders. Unqualifiedly offensive as is sin, the sinner is yet precious in the Father's eyes, because of the possibility of his repentance and return to righteousness. The loss of a soul is a very real and a very great loss to God. He is pained and grieved thereby, for it is His will that not one should perish.[966]
The three parables found in the scripture as part of a continuous conversation all illustrate the joy in heaven over the recovery of a soul that was once lost. This could be represented by a sheep that strayed far away, a coin that went missing due to the keeper's neglect, or a son who intentionally cut himself off from home and heaven. There is no basis for believing that a repentant sinner should be prioritized over a righteous person who has resisted sin. If that were the case, then Christ, the only sinless Man, would be less valued by the Father than redeemed wrongdoers. Even though sin is undeniably offensive, the sinner is still precious in the Father's eyes because of the potential for repentance and a return to righteousness. The loss of a soul is a very real and significant loss to God. It pains and grieves Him because He desires that not one should perish.[966]
DISCIPLES INSTRUCTED BY PARABLE.
Addressing Himself more directly to the disciples present, who on this occasion probably comprized in addition to the apostles, many believers, including even some of the publicans, Jesus spake the Parable of the Unrighteous Steward.[967]
Addressing the disciples directly, who on this occasion likely included not just the apostles but also many other believers, including some tax collectors, Jesus told the Parable of the Unrighteous Steward.[967]
"And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer[Pg 462] steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
"And he also said to his disciples, There was a rich man who had a manager, and he was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and said, What’s this I hear about you? Give me an account of your management, because you can no longer be my manager. Then the manager said to himself, What should I do now that my boss is taking away my management? I can't dig, and I'm too ashamed to beg. I know what I’ll do so that when I'm removed from my management, people will welcome me into their homes. So he called in each of his boss's debtors. He asked the first, How much do you owe my boss? The man replied, A hundred measures of oil. He said, Take your bill and sit down quickly and write fifty. Then he asked another, And how much do you owe? He answered, A hundred measures of wheat. He told him, Take your bill and write eighty. The master praised the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the children of light."
The three preceding parables show forth their lessons through the relationship of close analogy and intimate similarities; this one teaches rather by its contrast of situations. The steward in the story was the duly authorized agent of his employer, holding what we would call the power-of-attorney to act in his master's name.[968] He was called to account because a report of his wastefulness and lack of care had reached the master's ears. The steward did not deny his guilt, and forthwith he received notice of dismissal. Considerable time would be required for making up his accounts preparatory to turning the stewardship over to his successor. This interval, during which he remained in authority, he determined to use so far as possible to his own advantage, even though he wrought further injustice to his master's interests. He contemplated the condition of dependence in which he would soon find himself. Through unthrift and extravagance he had failed to lay by any store from his earnings; he had wasted his own and his lord's substance. He felt that he was unfit for hard manual labor; and he would be ashamed to beg, particularly in the community in which he had been a lavish spender and a man of[Pg 463] influence. With the desire to put others under some obligation to himself so that when he was deposed he could the more effectively appeal to them, he called his lord's debtors and authorized them to change their bonds, bills of sale, or notes of hand, so as to show a greatly decreased indebtedness. Without doubt these acts were unrighteous; he defrauded his employer, and enriched the debtors through whom he hoped to be benefited. Most of us are surprized to know that the master, learning what his far-seeing though selfish and dishonest steward had done, condoned the offense and actually commended him for his foresight, "because he had done wisely" as our version reads, or "because he had done prudently" as many scholars aver to be the better rendering.
The three parables before this one share their lessons through close similarities; this one, however, teaches through contrasting situations. The steward in the story was the authorized representative of his employer, holding what we’d call power of attorney to act on his master’s behalf.[968] He was called to account because a report of his wastefulness and negligence had reached his master. The steward didn’t deny his wrongdoing, and immediately received notice of his dismissal. He knew it would take considerable time to sort out his accounts before handing over his responsibilities to the next steward. During this period, while he still had authority, he decided to benefit himself as much as possible, even if it further harmed his master’s interests. He realized he would soon find himself in a position of dependence. Due to his careless spending and extravagance, he hadn’t saved any money from his earnings; he had squandered both his own and his employer’s resources. He felt unfit for hard labor and would be embarrassed to beg, especially in a community where he had been a big spender and a person of influence. Wanting to create some obligation among others so that when he was fired, he could appeal to them for help, he called his master’s debtors and instructed them to modify their debts, bills of sale, or promissory notes to show significantly less owed. These actions were certainly dishonest; he cheated his employer and enriched the debtors in the hope of receiving their support. Many of us are surprised to learn that when his master found out what his crafty, yet selfish and dishonest steward had done, he forgave him and actually praised him for his foresight, saying he had "acted wisely," as our version puts it, or "had acted prudently," as many scholars argue is a more accurate translation.
In pointing the moral of the parable Jesus said:[969] "For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." Our Lord's purpose was to show the contrast between the care, thoughtfulness, and devotion of men engaged in the money-making affairs of earth, and the half hearted ways of many who are professedly striving after spiritual riches. Worldly-minded men do not neglect provision for their future years, and often are sinfully eager to amass plenty; while the "children of light," or those who believe spiritual wealth to be above all earthly possessions, are less energetic, prudent, or wise. By "mammon of unrighteousness" we may understand material wealth or worldly things. While far inferior to the treasures of heaven, money or that which it represents may be the means of accomplishing good, and of furthering the purposes of God. Our Lord's admonition was to utilize "mammon" in good works, while it lasted, for some day it shall fail, and only the results achieved[Pg 464] through its use shall endure.[970] If the wicked steward, when cast out from his master's house because of unworthiness, might hope to be received into the homes of these whom he had favored, how much more confidently may they who are genuinely devoted to the right hope to be received into the everlasting mansions of God! Such seems to be part of the lesson.
In emphasizing the moral of the story, Jesus said:[969] "For the people of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the children of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth; so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into eternal homes." The Lord aimed to highlight the difference between the care, foresight, and dedication of those involved in making money on earth, and the lackadaisical attitudes of many who claim to be pursuing spiritual wealth. People focused on earthly matters don’t ignore planning for their future and often eagerly strive to accumulate wealth; meanwhile, the "children of light," or those who believe that spiritual riches are more valuable than material possessions, tend to be less active, careful, or wise. The phrase "mammon of unrighteousness" refers to material wealth or worldly things. Although far less valuable than heavenly treasures, money or what it represents can be used for good and to advance God's purposes. The Lord encouraged us to use "mammon" for good deeds while we can, because one day it will be gone, and only the outcomes of our actions will remain.[Pg 464] If the dishonest steward, when removed from his master's house for being unworthy, could hope to be welcomed into the homes of those he had helped, how much more can those who are truly committed to doing right expect to be received into God's eternal homes! That seems to be part of the lesson.
It was not the steward's dishonesty that was extolled; his prudence and foresight were commended, however; for while he misapplied his master's substance, he gave relief to the debtors; and in so doing he did not exceed his legal powers, for he was still steward though he was morally guilty of malfeasance. The lesson may be summed up in this wise: Make such use of your wealth as shall insure you friends hereafter. Be diligent; for the day in which you can use your earthly riches will soon pass. Take a lesson from even the dishonest and the evil; if they are so prudent as to provide for the only future they think of, how much more should you, who believe in an eternal future, provide therefor! If you have not learned wisdom and prudence in the use of "unrighteous mammon," how can you be trusted with the more enduring riches? If you have not learned how to use properly the wealth of another, which has been committed to you as steward, how can you expect to be successful in the handling of great wealth should such be given you as your own? Emulate the unjust steward and the lovers of mammon, not in their dishonesty, cupidity, and miserly hoarding of the wealth that is at best but transitory, but in their zeal, forethought, and provision for the future. Moreover, let not wealth become your master; keep it to its place as a servant, for, "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."[Pg 465]
It wasn't the steward's dishonesty that was praised; instead, his practical thinking and foresight were recognized. While he mismanaged his master's resources, he helped the debtors, and in doing so, he didn't overstep his legal authority, even though he was morally wrong. The main takeaway is this: Use your wealth in a way that ensures you friends in the future. Be diligent; the time when you can use your earthly riches will soon be over. Learn from even the dishonest and wicked—if they are smart enough to plan for the only future they consider, how much more should you, who believe in an eternal future, prepare for it! If you haven't learned wisdom and carefulness in handling "unrighteous wealth," how can you be trusted with more lasting riches? If you don't know how to manage someone else's wealth, which has been entrusted to you as a steward, how can you expect to successfully handle great wealth if it's given to you? Follow the example of the unjust steward and the lovers of money, but not in their dishonesty, greed, and miserly hoarding of wealth that is ultimately temporary. Instead, imitate their enthusiasm, foresight, and planning for the future. Also, don’t let wealth rule over you; keep it in its place as a servant, because "No servant can serve two masters: either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."[Pg 465]
DERISION OF THE PHARISEES MET; ANOTHER ILLUSTRATIVE PARABLES.[971]
The Pharisees, who were covetous, or more precisely stated, who were lovers of money,[972] overheard the foregoing instructions to the disciples, and openly scoffed at the Teacher and the lesson. What did this Galilean, who owned nothing but the clothes He wore, know about money or the best way of administering wealth? Our Lord's reply to their words of derision was a further condemnation. They knew all the tricks of the business-world, and could outdo the unrighteous steward in crafty manipulation; and yet so successfully could they justify themselves before men as to be outwardly honest and straightforward; furthermore, they made ostentatious display of a certain type of simplicity, plainness, and self-denial, in which external observances they asserted superiority over the luxury-loving Sadducees; they had grown arrogantly proud of their humility, but God knew their hearts, and the traits and practises they most esteemed were an abomination in His sight. They posed as custodians of the law and expounders of the prophets. The "law and the prophets" had been in force until the Baptist's time, since which the gospel of the kingdom had been preached, and people were eager to enter it[973] though the theocracy strove mightily to prevent. The law had not been invalidated; easier were it that heaven and earth pass away than that one tittle of the law fail of fulfilment;[974] yet those Pharisees and scribes had tried to nullify the law. In the matter of divorce, for example, they, by their unlawful additions and false interpretations, had condoned even the sin of adultery.
The Pharisees, who were greedy, or more accurately, who loved money,[972] overheard the earlier teachings to the disciples and openly mocked the Teacher and the message. What did this Galilean, who owned nothing but the clothes on His back, know about money or the best way to handle wealth? Our Lord's response to their scorn was a further condemnation. They were well-versed in all the tricks of business and could outsmart the dishonest manager with their cunning; yet they were remarkably able to justify themselves before others, appearing outwardly honest and straightforward. Moreover, they made a big show of a certain type of simplicity, plainness, and self-denial, claiming to be superior to the luxury-loving Sadducees. They had grown arrogantly proud of their humility, but God knew their hearts, and the qualities and practices they valued most were detestable in His eyes. They acted as if they were the guardians of the law and interpreters of the prophets. The "law and the prophets" had been in place until the time of the Baptist, after which the gospel of the kingdom was preached, and people were eager to join it[973] even though the theocracy worked hard to stop them. The law was still valid; it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for even the smallest part of the law to fail to be fulfilled;[974] yet those Pharisees and scribes attempted to undermine the law. In the case of divorce, for instance, they had, through their wrongful additions and false interpretations, even justified the sin of adultery.
The Master gave as a further lesson the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:[Pg 466]
The Master provided an additional lesson with the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:[Pg 466]
"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."[975]
There was a rich man who dressed in purple and fine linen and lived extravagantly every day. At his gate, there was a beggar named Lazarus, who was covered in sores and wished he could eat the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. Eventually, the beggar died and was taken by angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, he looked up in torment and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. He called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I’m suffering in this fire." But Abraham replied, "Son, remember that during your lifetime you received good things, while Lazarus received bad things. Now he is comforted, and you are in torment. Moreover, there is a great chasm fixed between us, so those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross from there to us." The rich man said, "Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so they won't end up in this place of torment." Abraham said, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them." The rich man replied, "No, father Abraham, but if someone comes back from the dead, they will repent." Abraham answered, "If they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."[975]
The afflicted beggar is honored with a name; the other is designated simply as "a certain rich man."[976] The two are presented as the extremes of contrast between wealth and destitution. The rich man was clothed in the costliest attire, purple and fine linen; and his every-day fare was a sumptuous feast. Lazarus had been brought to the gates of the rich man's palace, and there left, a helpless mendicant, his body covered with sores. The rich man was attended by servitors ready to gratify his slightest desire; the poor beggar[Pg 467] at his gates had neither companions nor attendants except the dogs, which like himself waited for the refuse from the rich man's table. Such is the picture of the two in life. An abrupt change of scene brings into view the same two on the far side of the veil that hangs between the here and the hereafter. Lazarus died; no mention is made of his funeral; his festering body was probably thrown into a pauper's grave; but angels bore his immortal spirit into Paradise, the resting place of the blessed and commonly known in the figurative lore of the rabbis as Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died; his burial was doubtless an elaborate affair, but we read not of any angelic escort receiving his spirit. In hell he lifted up his eyes and saw, afar, Lazarus at peace in the abode of Abraham.
The suffering beggar is given a name; the other is simply referred to as "a certain rich man." [976] The two are shown as complete opposites of wealth and poverty. The rich man wore the finest clothing, purple and expensive linen; he feasted every day on lavish meals. Lazarus was brought to the rich man's palace gates and left there, a helpless beggar with sores all over his body. The rich man had servants to fulfill his every wish; the poor beggar at his gates had no company or help except for the dogs, who, like him, waited for leftovers from the rich man's table. That’s how they lived. An abrupt scene change reveals the two on the other side of the veil between this world and the next. Lazarus died; there’s no mention of his funeral; his decaying body was likely tossed into a pauper’s grave, but angels carried his spirit to Paradise, the resting place of the blessed, often referred to in rabbinic teachings as Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died; his burial was certainly elaborate, but there’s no mention of any angels welcoming his spirit. In hell, he looked up and saw Lazarus, at peace in Abraham's embrace.
As a Jew the man had often boasted of having Abraham for his father; and now the wretched spirit appealed to the patriarch of his race by the paternal address, "Father Abraham," and asked only the boon of a single drop of water to be placed on his parched tongue; this he prayed that Lazarus, the erstwhile beggar, might bring. The reply throws light on certain conditions existing in the spirit world, though as in the use of parables generally, the presentation is largely figurative. Addressing the poor tormented spirit as "Son," Abraham reminded him of all the good things he had kept for himself on earth, whilst Lazarus had lain a suffering, neglected beggar at his gates; now by the operation of divine law, Lazarus had received recompense, and he, retribution. Moreover, to grant his pitiful request was impossible, for between the abode of the righteous where Lazarus rested and that of the wicked where he suffered "there is a great gulf fixed," and passage between the two is interdicted. The next request of the miserable sufferer was not wholly selfish; in his anguish he remembered those from whom he had been separated by death, fain would he save his brothers from the fate he had met; and he prayed that Lazarus be[Pg 468] sent back to earth to visit the ancestral home, and warn those selfish, pleasure-seeking, and yet mortal brothers, of the awful doom awaiting them except they would repent and reform. There may have been in this petition an insinuation that had he been sufficiently warned he would have done better, and would have escaped the torment. To the reminder that they had the words of Moses and the prophets, which they should obey, he replied that if one went to them from the dead they would surely repent. Abraham answered that if they would not heed Moses and the prophets neither would "they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
As a Jew, the man often bragged about having Abraham as his father; now the tormented soul called out to the patriarch of his lineage with the plea, "Father Abraham," asking for just a single drop of water to cool his dry tongue; he hoped that Lazarus, the former beggar, might bring it to him. Abraham's response sheds light on the conditions in the spirit world, though, as with many parables, the presentation is largely figurative. Addressing the suffering spirit as "Son," Abraham reminded him of all the good things he had enjoyed on earth while Lazarus had suffered and been ignored at his gates; now, according to divine law, Lazarus had been rewarded, and he had received punishment. Furthermore, granting his desperate request was impossible, for between the home of the righteous, where Lazarus rested, and the place of the wicked, where he endured suffering, "there is a great gulf fixed," and crossing between the two is forbidden. The next request from the miserable sufferer wasn’t entirely selfish; in his anguish, he thought of those he had left behind at death and wished to save his brothers from the fate he had faced; he begged that Lazarus be sent back to earth to visit his family home and warn his self-absorbed, pleasure-seeking, and still-living brothers about the terrible fate awaiting them if they didn’t repent and change their ways. There may have been a hint in this plea that if he had been adequately warned, he would have made better choices and escaped his torment. When reminded that they had the teachings of Moses and the prophets to follow, he responded that if someone came back from the dead, they would definitely repent. Abraham replied that if they wouldn’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they wouldn’t be convinced even if "someone rose from the dead."
In any attempt to interpret the parable as a whole or definitely apply any of its parts, we should bear in mind that it was addressed to the Pharisees as an instructive rebuke for the derision and scorn with which they had received the Lord's warning concerning the dangers attending servitude to mammon. Jesus employed Jewish metaphors, and the imagery of the parable is such as would most directly appeal to the official expounders of Moses and the prophets. While as a practise it would be critically unfair to deduce doctrinal principles from parabolic incidents, we cannot admit that Christ would teach falsely even in parable; and therefore we accept as true the portrayal of conditions in the world of the disembodied. That righteous and unrighteous dwell apart during the interval between death and resurrection is clear. Paradise, or as the Jews like to designate that blessed abode, "Abraham's bosom," is not the place of final glory, any more than the hell to which the rich man's spirit was consigned is the final habitation of the condemned.[977] To that preliminary or intermediate state, however, men's works do follow them;[978] and the dead shall surely find that their abode is that for which they have qualified themselves while in the flesh.
In any effort to interpret the parable as a whole or specifically apply any of its parts, we should remember that it was directed at the Pharisees as a teaching moment aimed at their ridicule and disdain towards the Lord's warning about the dangers of serving money. Jesus used Jewish metaphors, and the imagery in the parable would resonate closely with the official interpreters of Moses and the prophets. While it would be unfair to draw doctrinal principles from parabolic incidents, we can’t assume that Christ would teach something false even in a parable; thus, we accept as true the depiction of conditions in the realm of the disembodied. It’s clear that the righteous and unrighteous are separated during the period between death and resurrection. Paradise, or what the Jews often refer to as "Abraham's bosom," is not the final place of glory, just as the hell where the rich man’s spirit ended up is not the final destination for the condemned. To that preliminary or intermediate state, however, people's actions do follow them; and the dead will certainly find that their dwelling is the one for which they have prepared themselves while alive.
The rich man's fate was not the effect of riches, nor was[Pg 469] the rest into which Lazarus entered the resultant of poverty. Failure to use his wealth aright, and selfish satisfaction with the sensuous enjoyment of earthly things to the exclusion of all concern for the needs or privations of his fellows, brought the one under condemnation; while patience in suffering, faith in God and such righteous life as is implied though not expressed, insured happiness to the other. The proud self-sufficiency of the rich man, who lacked nothing that wealth could furnish, and who kept aloof from the needy and suffering, was his besetting sin. The aloofness of the Pharisees, on which indeed they prided themselves, as their very name, signifying "separatists," expressed, was thus condemned. The parable teaches the continuation of individual existence after death, and the relation of cause to effect between the life one leads in mortality and the state awaiting him beyond.
The rich man's fate wasn’t caused by his wealth, nor was[Pg 469] Lazarus’s situation purely a result of poverty. Failing to use his wealth wisely and being selfishly focused on enjoying material things without caring for the needs or struggles of others led to the rich man's downfall. In contrast, Lazarus’s patience in suffering, faith in God, and the righteous life he led—though not explicitly stated—ensured his happiness. The rich man's arrogance, having everything money could buy and distancing himself from the needy and suffering, was his main flaw. The pride of the Pharisees, who called themselves "separatists," is similarly condemned here. The parable illustrates the continuation of individual existence after death and the relationship between how one lives during their lifetime and the state they will face afterward.
UNPROFITABLE SERVANTS.[979]
From the Pharisees, Jesus turned to His disciples and admonished them to diligence. Having cautioned them against unguarded utterances or actions at which others might take offense, He proceeded to impress the absolute necessity of unselfish devotion, toleration and forgiveness. The apostles, realizing the whole-souled service required of them, implored the Lord, saying: "Increase our faith." They were shown that faith was less fitly reckoned in terms of quantity than by test of quality; and the analogy of the mustard seed was again invoked. "And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you."[980] Their faith could best be gaged by obedience and untiring service.
From the Pharisees, Jesus turned to His disciples and encouraged them to stay diligent. After warning them against careless words or actions that might offend others, He stressed the importance of selfless commitment, tolerance, and forgiveness. The apostles, understanding the wholehearted service required of them, asked the Lord, saying: "Increase our faith." They learned that faith should be measured by its quality rather than its quantity, and the analogy of the mustard seed was once again referenced. "And the Lord said, If you had faith like a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you." Their faith could best be measured by their obedience and tireless service.
This was emphasized by the Parable of the Unprofitable Servants.[Pg 470]
This was highlighted by the Parable of the Unprofitable Servants.[Pg 470]
"But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."
"But which of you, having a servant farming or taking care of cattle, will say to him right away, when he comes in from the field, 'Go and sit down to eat'? And won’t you rather say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and get yourself ready to serve me until I’ve had my meal and my drink; then you can eat and drink'? Does he thank that servant because he did what he was told? I don’t think so. In the same way, when you have done everything you were instructed to do, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what we were supposed to do.'"
The servant might well feel that after a day's work in the field he is entitled to rest; but on reaching the house he finds other demands made upon him. The master has a right to the servant's time and attention; such was among the conditions under which the servant had been engaged; and while his employer might thank him or give some substantial reward, the servant cannot demand such recompense. So the apostles, who had given themselves entirely up to their Master's service, were not to hesitate nor demur, whatever the effort or sacrifice required. The best they could do would be no more than their duty required; and, without regard to the Master's estimate of their worth, they were to account themselves as unprofitable servants.[981]
The servant might feel that after a day working in the fields, he deserves a break; but when he gets home, he finds other expectations placed on him. The master has a right to the servant's time and attention; that was part of the agreement when the servant took the job. Even if the employer thanks him or gives him a meaningful reward, the servant can't demand that. Similarly, the apostles, who dedicated themselves completely to their Master's work, were not to hesitate or complain, no matter the effort or sacrifice needed. The best they could do would simply be what their duty required; and regardless of the Master's view of their worth, they were to see themselves as unprofitable servants.[981]
TEN LEPERS HEALED.[982]
In the course of His journey toward Jerusalem Jesus "passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." Ten men afflicted with leprosy approached, probably they came as near as the law permitted, yet they were afar off. These men were of mixed nationality; the plague under which they suffered in common had made them companions in distress. They cried aloud "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us."[Pg 471] The Lord answered: "Go shew yourselves unto the priests."[983] This instruction implied their ultimate healing; obedience would be the test of their faith. None who had been leprous could be lawfully restored to community life until pronounced clean by a priest. The stricken ten hastened to obey the Lord's command, "and it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed."[984] One of the ten turned back, and with loud voice glorified God; then he prostrated himself at the feet of Christ, giving thanks. We are told that the grateful one was a Samaritan, from which we infer that some or all of the others were Jews. Pained over the lack of gratitude on the part of the nine, Jesus exclaimed: "Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? There are not found that return to give glory to God, save this stranger." And to the cleansed Samaritan, still worshiping at His feet, the Lord said: "Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole." Doubtless the nine who came not back were obedient to the strict letter of the Lord's command; for He had told them to go to the priests; but their lack of gratitude and their failure to acknowledge the power of God in their restoration stand in unfavorable contrast with the spirit of the one; and he was a Samaritan. The occurrence must have impressed the apostles as another evidence of acceptability and possible excellence on the part of aliens, to the disparagement of Jewish claims of superiority irrespective of merit.
During His journey to Jerusalem, Jesus "went through the area between Samaria and Galilee." Ten men suffering from leprosy approached Him, likely as close as the law allowed, but they still kept their distance. These men were from different backgrounds; the illness they shared had united them in their pain. They shouted, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us." The Lord replied, "Go show yourselves to the priests." This instruction suggested they would be healed in time; their obedience would test their faith. No one with leprosy could rejoin society until a priest declared them clean. The ten hurried to follow Jesus' command, "and as they went, they were healed." One of the ten turned back and loudly praised God; then he fell at Christ's feet to give thanks. It's noted that the thankful man was a Samaritan, which suggests that some or all of the others were Jews. Upset by the lack of gratitude from the nine, Jesus asked, "Were there not ten cleansed? But where are the nine? No one returned to give glory to God except this foreigner." To the healed Samaritan, still worshiping at His feet, the Lord told him, "Get up, go on your way; your faith has made you whole." The nine who didn't return had likely followed the letter of Jesus' command; He had instructed them to go to the priests. However, their ingratitude and failure to recognize God's power in their healing stand in sharp contrast to the spirit of the one who returned, and he was a Samaritan. This incident must have struck the apostles as further evidence that outsiders could be accepted and excel, challenging the Jewish claims of superiority regardless of merit.
THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN.[985]
"And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:[Pg 472]
"And he told this parable to those who were confident in their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else:[Pg 472]
"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
"Two men went to the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself, 'God, I thank you that I’m not like other people—crooks, dishonest, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I have.' But the tax collector stood at a distance and wouldn’t even look up to heaven. He beat his chest and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' I tell you, this man went home justified rather than the other: for everyone who exalts themselves will be humbled, and the one who humbles themselves will be exalted."
We are expressly told that this parable was given for the benefit of certain ones who trusted in their self-righteousness as an assurance of justification before God. It was not addressed to the Pharisees nor to the publicans specifically. The two characters are types of widely separated classes. There may have been much of the Pharisaic spirit of self-complacency among the disciples and some of it even among the Twelve. A Pharisee and a publican went up to the temple to pray. The Pharisee prayed "with himself"; his words can hardly be construed as a prayer to God. That he stood while praying was not an impropriety, for the standing attitude was usual in prayer; the publican also stood. The Pharisee thanked God that he was so much better than other men; he was true to his class, a separatist who looked with disdain upon all who were not like him. That he was not like "this publican" was made a point of special thanksgiving. His boast, that he fasted twice a week and gave tithes of all that he possessed, was a specification of worthiness above what was required by the law as then administered; he thus implied that God was his debtor.[986] The publican, standing afar off, was so oppressed by his consciousness of sin and his absolute need of divine[Pg 473] help, that he cast down his eyes and smote upon his breast, craving mercy as a penitent sinner. The Pharisee departed, justified in his own conscience and before man, prouder than ever; the other went down to his house justified before God though still a despized publican. The parable is applicable to all men; its moral was summed up in a repetition of our Lord's words spoken in the house of the chief Pharisee: "For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."[987]
We are clearly told that this parable was shared for the benefit of those who relied on their self-righteousness as proof of their acceptance by God. It wasn’t directed specifically at the Pharisees or the tax collectors. The two characters represent very different groups. There may have been some of that Pharisee-like attitude of self-satisfaction among the disciples, and even some of the Twelve. A Pharisee and a tax collector went to the temple to pray. The Pharisee prayed "with himself"; his words were hardly a prayer directed to God. Standing while praying wasn’t inappropriate, as it was common to pray while standing; the tax collector also stood. The Pharisee thanked God that he was so much better than everyone else; he was true to his type, a separatist who looked down on all who weren’t like him. The fact that he wasn’t like "this tax collector" was a point of special gratitude for him. His claim that he fasted twice a week and gave tithes of everything he had was a sign of worthiness beyond what the law required at that time; he was basically suggesting that God owed him a favor. The tax collector, standing far off, was so overwhelmed by his awareness of his sins and his desperate need for divine help that he lowered his eyes and beat his chest, asking for mercy as a repentant sinner. The Pharisee left, feeling justified in his own eyes and those of people, prouder than ever; the other went home justified before God, even though he was still a despised tax collector. The parable is relevant to everyone; its message was summed up in a repeat of our Lord's words spoken in the house of the chief Pharisee: "For everyone who lifts themselves up will be brought low; and whoever humbles themselves will be lifted up."
ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.[988]
While wending His way by short stages toward Jerusalem, and while still "beyond" or on "the farther side" of Jordan, and therefore in Perean territory, Jesus was met by a body of Pharisees, who had come with the deliberate purpose of inciting Him to say or do something on which they could base an accusation. The question they had agreed to submit related to marriage and divorce, and no subject had been more vehemently contested in their own schools and among their own rabbis.[989] The crafty questioners may have hoped that Jesus would denounce the adulterous state in which Herod Antipas was then living, and so bring upon Himself the fury of Herodias, to which the Baptist had already died a victim. "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" they asked. Jesus cited the original and eternal law of God in the matter; and indicated the only rational conclusion to be drawn therefrom: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall[Pg 474] cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."[990] God had provided for honorable marriage, and had made the relation between husband and wife paramount even to that of children to parents; the severing of such a union was an invention of man, not a command of God. The Pharisees had a ready rejoinder: "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" Be it remembered that Moses had not commanded divorce, but had required that in case a man should separate from his wife he give her a bill of divorcement.[991] Jesus made this fact plain, saying: "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
While traveling in short stages toward Jerusalem and still "beyond" or on "the farther side" of Jordan, and thus in Perean territory, Jesus encountered a group of Pharisees who had come with the specific intention of provoking Him to say or do something they could use as an accusation. The question they had agreed to ask was about marriage and divorce, a topic that had been fiercely debated in their own schools and among their own rabbis. The crafty questioners may have hoped that Jesus would condemn the immoral relationship in which Herod Antipas was living at the time, thereby incurring the wrath of Herodias, just as the Baptist had already suffered for it. "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" they asked. Jesus referenced the original and eternal law of God on the subject and pointed out the only logical conclusion to be drawn: "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." God had established honorable marriage and prioritized the relationship between husband and wife even above that of children to parents; dissolving such a union was a human innovation, not a command from God. The Pharisees had a ready reply: "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" It's important to note that Moses did not command divorce, but required that if a man separated from his wife, he must give her a certificate of divorce. Jesus clarified this fact, saying, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."
The higher requirement of the gospel followed: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."[992] The Mosaic provision had been but permissive, and was justified only because of existing unrighteousness. Strict compliance with the doctrine enunciated by Jesus Christ is the only means by which a perfect social order can be maintained. It is important to note, however, that in His reply to the casuistical Pharisees, Jesus announced no specific or binding rule as to legal divorces; the putting away of a wife, as contemplated under the Mosaic custom, involved no judicial investigation or action by an established court. In our Lord's day the prevailing laxity in the matter of marital obligation had produced a state of appalling corruption in Israel; and woman, who by the law of God had been made a companion and partner[Pg 475] with man, had become his slave. The world's greatest champion of woman and womanhood is Jesus the Christ.[993]
The higher standards of the gospel are clear: "I tell you, anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."[992] The Mosaic law was just a allowance, justified only because of the existing wrongdoing. Strict adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ is the only way to maintain a perfect social order. It's important to note, however, that in His response to the tricky Pharisees, Jesus did not lay down any specific or mandatory rules about legal divorces. The act of putting away a wife, as was done under Mosaic law, did not require any court action or investigation. In Jesus' time, the general laxity surrounding marital obligations had led to terrible corruption in Israel; women, who by God's law were meant to be companions and partners with men, had become their slaves. Jesus Christ is the greatest advocate for women and their dignity.[993]
The Pharisees retired foiled in purpose and convicted in conscience. The Lord's strict construction of the marriage bond was startling even to some of the disciples; these came to Him privately, saying that if a man was so bound it would be better not to marry at all. Such a broad generalization the Lord disapproved except so far as it might apply in special cases. True, there were some who were physically incapacitated for marriage; others voluntarily devoted themselves to a celibate life, and some few adopted celibacy "for the kingdom of heaven's sake," that thereby they might be free to render all their time and energy to the Lord's service. But the disciples' conclusion that "it is not good to marry" was true only in the exceptional instances stated. Marriage is honorable;[994] for neither man without woman nor woman without man can be perfect in the Lord's sight.[995]
The Pharisees left feeling defeated and guilty. The Lord's strict view on marriage surprised even some of the disciples, who came to Him in private and suggested that if a man was so bound, it would be better not to marry at all. The Lord disagreed with this broad statement, except in specific cases. It's true that some people were unable to marry due to physical reasons; others chose to live a celibate life, and a few took on celibacy "for the kingdom of heaven's sake," so they could dedicate all their time and energy to serving the Lord. However, the disciples’ belief that "it is not good to marry" was only true in those exceptional cases. Marriage is honorable; [994] for neither man without woman nor woman without man can be perfect in the Lord's eyes.[995]
JESUS AND THE LITTLE ONES.[996]
The next event of record is one of surpassing sweetness, rich in precept and invaluable in example. Mothers brought their little children to Jesus, reverently desiring that the lives of those little ones be brightened by a sight of the Master and be blessed by a touch of His hand or a word from His lips. The circumstance appears in appropriate sequence to that of the Lord's instructions concerning the sacredness of marriage and the sanctity of the home. The disciples, zealous that their Master be not troubled unnecessarily, and conscious of the continuous demands on His time and attention, rebuked those who had so ventured to trespass.[Pg 476] Even the disciples seem to have been yet under the influence of the traditional conception that women and children were of inferior status, and that for such to seek the Lord's attention was an act of presumption. Jesus was displeased over the misdirected zeal of His followers, and rebuked them. Then He uttered that memorable sentence of infinite tenderness and divine affection: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." Taking the children one by one into His arms, He laid His hands upon them and blessed them.[997] Then said He: "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."[998]
The next significant event is incredibly sweet, filled with lessons and precious examples. Mothers brought their young children to Jesus, hoping that just seeing Him or receiving a touch or a word from Him would brighten their little ones' lives. This moment follows the Lord's teachings about the importance of marriage and the sanctity of family. The disciples, eager to protect their Master from unnecessary trouble and aware of his constant demands for attention, scolded those who dared to approach Him. It seems the disciples were still influenced by traditional views that regarded women and children as less important, believing it was bold for them to seek the Lord's attention. Jesus was not happy with His followers' misplaced enthusiasm and reprimanded them. Then He spoke those unforgettable words filled with tenderness and love: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." He took the children one by one into His arms, blessed them, and then said, "Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
"ONE THING THOU LACKEST."[999]
Jesus was accosted on the way by a young man, who came running to meet or overtake Him, and who knelt at His feet, inquiring: "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" The question was asked in earnestness; the questioner was in very different spirit from that of the lawyer who made a similar inquiry with the purpose of tempting the Master.[1000] Jesus said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." This remark was no denial of sinlessness on the Savior's part; the young man had called Him "good" by way of polite compliment rather than in recognition of His Godship, and Jesus declined to acknowledge the distinction when applied in that sense. The Lord's remark must have deepened the young man's conception as to the seriousness of his question. Then said Jesus: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." To the further inquiry, as to which commandments[Pg 477] were meant, Jesus cited the prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, and the bearing of false witness, and the requirements as to honoring parents, and loving one's neighbor as one's self. In simplicity and without pride or sense of self-righteousness, the young man said: "All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?" His evident sincerity appealed to Jesus, who looked upon him lovingly and said: "One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."[1001]
Jesus was approached on the road by a young man who came running to catch up with Him and knelt at His feet, asking, "Good Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?" The question was asked sincerely; the young man had a very different attitude from the lawyer who made a similar inquiry to test Him.[1000] Jesus replied, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." This statement didn’t deny the Savior's sinlessness; the young man had called Him "good" as a polite compliment rather than recognizing His divinity, and Jesus chose not to accept that distinction in this context. The Lord's words must have deepened the young man's understanding of the seriousness of his question. Then Jesus said, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments." When the young man further inquired which commandments, Jesus listed the prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, bearing false witness, as well as the commandments to honor parents and love your neighbor as yourself. With simplicity and without pride or self-righteousness, the young man replied, "I have kept all these things since I was a child: what do I still lack?" His evident sincerity touched Jesus, who looked at him with love and said, "One thing you lack: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, take up the cross, and follow me."[1001]
The young man was disappointed and saddened. He had probably expected to hear the great Teacher prescribe some one special observance, by which excellence could be achieved. Luke tells us that the young man was a ruler; this may mean that he was a presiding official in the local synagog or possibly a Sanhedrist. He was well versed in the law, and had been strict in obedience thereto. He desired to advance in good works and make clear his title to an eternal heritage. But the Master prescribed what he had least expected; "And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions." In his way, he yearned for the kingdom of God, yet more devotedly he loved his great possessions. To give up wealth, social position, and official distinction, was too great a sacrifice; and the necessary self-denial was a cross too heavy for him to bear, even though treasure in heaven and life eternal were offered him. Love of worldly things was this man's besetting weakness; Jesus diagnosed his case and prescribed a suitable remedy. We are not warranted in saying that the same treatment would be best in all cases of spiritual defection; but where the symptoms indicate the need, it may be employed with confidence as to the cure.[Pg 478]
The young man felt disappointed and sad. He probably expected the great Teacher to recommend a specific practice that would lead to excellence. Luke tells us that the young man was a ruler; this could mean he was a leader in the local synagogue or possibly part of the Sanhedrin. He was knowledgeable about the law and had followed it strictly. He wanted to grow in good deeds and clarify his claim to eternal life. But the Master suggested something he least anticipated; "And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions." In his heart, he longed for the kingdom of God, but he was more attached to his wealth. Giving up his riches, social standing, and official recognition felt like too much of a sacrifice; the required self-denial was a burden too heavy for him to carry, even though he was offered treasure in heaven and eternal life. His love for worldly things was his main weakness; Jesus identified his issue and provided a fitting solution. We can't assume that the same approach would work for everyone facing spiritual struggles; however, where the symptoms indicate a need, it can be used with confidence for healing.[Pg 478]
Gazing sorrowfully upon the retreating figure of the wealthy young ruler Jesus said to the disciples: "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." To impress the lesson more thoroughly He applied one of the figurative proverbs of the age, and said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."[1002] At this statement the disciples were amazed. "Who then can be saved?" they wondered. Jesus understood their perplexity, and encouraged them with the assurance that with God all things are possible. Thus were they given to understand that while wealth is a means of temptation to which many succumb, it is no insuperable obstacle, no insurmountable barrier, in the way of entrance to the kingdom. Had the young ruler followed the advice called forth by his inquiry, his possession of riches would have made possible to him meritorious service such as few are able to render. Willingness to place the kingdom of God above all material possessions was the one thing he lacked.[1003] Everyone of us may pertinently ask, What do I lack?
Gazing sadly at the retreating figure of the wealthy young ruler, Jesus said to the disciples, "Truly I tell you, it's very hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven." To make the lesson clearer, He used a popular saying of the time: "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."[1002] The disciples were shocked by this statement. "Then who can be saved?" they wondered. Jesus understood their confusion and encouraged them by saying that with God, anything is possible. They were made to realize that while wealth can tempt many, it isn't an impossible obstacle to entering the kingdom. If the young ruler had taken the advice he asked for, his wealth could have allowed him to do good deeds that few can manage. The one thing he lacked was the willingness to prioritize the kingdom of God over all material possessions.[1003] Each of us might rightly ask, "What do I lack?"
THE FIRST MAY BE LAST, AND THE LAST FIRST.[1004]
The sorrowful departure of the rich young ruler, whose great possessions were so much a part of his life that he could not give them up at the time, though we may hope that he afterward did, brought forth from Peter an abrupt question, which revealed the course of his thoughts and aspirations: "Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?" Whether he spoke for himself alone, or by his use of the plural "we" meant to include all the Twelve, is uncertain and unimportant. He[Pg 479] was thinking of the home and family he had left, and a longing for them was pardonable; he was thinking also of boats and nets, hooks and lines, and the lucrative business for which such things stood. All these he had forsaken; what was to be his reward? Jesus answered: "Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." It is doubtful that Peter or any other of the Twelve had ever conceived of so great a distinction. The day of regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, as Judge and King, is even yet future; but in that day, those of the Lord's Twelve who endured to the end shall be enthroned as judges in Israel. The further assurance was given that "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 an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." Rewards of such transcendent worth could scarcely be reckoned or their meaning comprehended. Lest those to whom they were promised might count too surely upon successful attainment, to the neglect of effort, and become proud withal, the Lord added this profound precept of caution: "But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first."
The sad departure of the wealthy young ruler, who was so tied to his possessions that he couldn't let them go at the time—though we can hope he did later—prompted Peter to ask a sudden question that revealed his thoughts and hopes: "Look, we’ve given up everything to follow you; what will we get in return?" It’s unclear whether he was speaking just for himself or if the "we" included all of the Twelve, but that's not really important. He was thinking about the home and family he had left behind, and it was understandable to long for them; he was also thinking about the boats and nets, hooks and lines, and the lucrative work they represented. He had given all that up; what would be his reward? Jesus replied: "Truly I tell you, those of you who have followed me will, in the renewal of all things when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." It's doubtful that Peter or any of the Twelve ever imagined such a great honor. The time of renewal, when the Son of Man will be on his throne as Judge and King, is still in the future; but on that day, those of the Lord's Twelve who endure until the end will be given the authority to judge in Israel. Jesus also assured them that "everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life." The rewards of such immense value are hard to quantify or truly understand. To prevent those who were promised these rewards from becoming too complacent or proud, the Lord added this important warning: "But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first."
It was the text of the sermon known to us as the Parable of the Laborers.[1005] Hear it:
It was the text of the sermon known to us as the Parable of the Laborers.[1005] Listen to it:
"For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said unto them:[Pg 480]
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a man who is the owner of a house, who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the workers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. He went out again around the third hour and saw others standing around idle in the marketplace, and he said to them:[Pg 480]
"Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."
"Go into the vineyard as well, and I will pay you whatever is fair. So they went. He went out again around noon and three o'clock, and did the same thing. At about five o'clock, he went out and saw others standing around doing nothing, and he asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day doing nothing?' They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He told them, 'Go into the vineyard, and you will be paid fairly.' When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, starting with the last hired and going to the first.' When those hired at five o'clock came, they received a dollar each. When the first ones came, they thought they would get more, but they too received a dollar each. After they received it, they complained to the owner, saying, 'These last workers only worked for an hour, and you've made them equal to us, who bore the burden and heat of the day.' But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I’m not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a dollar? Take your pay and go. I want to give the last workers the same as I gave you. Am I not allowed to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?' So the last will be first, and the first will be last: for many are invited, but few are chosen."
The procedure of a householder going into the marketplace to hire laborers was common to the time and place, and is still an ordinary occurrence in many lands. The first to be hired in the course of the story made a definite bargain as to wages. Those who were employed at nine, twelve, and three o'clock respectively went willingly without agreement as to what they were to receive; so glad were they to find a chance to work that they lost no time in specifying terms. At five o'clock in the afternoon or evening, when but a single hour of the working day remained, the last band of laborers went to work, trusting to the master's word that whatever was right they should receive. That they had not found work earlier in the day was no[Pg 481] fault of theirs; they had been ready and willing, and had waited at the place where employment was most likely to be secured. At the close of the day, the laborers came for their wages; this was in accordance with law and custom, for it had been established by statute in Israel that the employer should pay the servant, hired by the day, before the sun went down.[1006] Under instructions, the steward who acted as paymaster began with those who had been engaged at the eleventh hour; and to each of them he gave a denarius, or Roman penny, worth about fifteen cents in our money, and the usual wage for a day's work. This was the amount for which those who began earliest had severally bargained; and as these saw their fellow-workers, who had served but an hour, receive each a penny, they probably exulted in the expectation of receiving a wage proportionately larger, notwithstanding their stipulation. But each of them received a penny and no more. Then they complained; not because they had been underpaid, but because the others had received a full day's pay for but part of a day's work. The master answered in all kindness, reminding them of their agreement. Could he not be just to them and charitable to the rest if he so chose? His money was his own, and he could give of it as he liked. Were those grumblers justified in their evil displeasure because their master was charitable and good? "So," said Jesus, passing directly from the story to one of the lessons it was designed to teach, "the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."[1007]
The process of a homeowner going to the market to hire workers was typical for that time and place, and it still happens frequently in many countries. The first person hired in the story made a clear deal about their pay. Those who were hired at nine, twelve, and three o'clock went willingly without discussing their wages; they were just happy to find a job and didn’t waste time talking about pay. At five o'clock in the afternoon, when only one hour of the workday was left, the last group of workers started, trusting the employer to pay them what was fair. It wasn’t their fault they hadn’t found work earlier; they had been ready and waiting where jobs were most likely to be available. At the end of the day, the workers came to collect their wages; this was according to law and tradition, as it had been established by law in Israel that employers should pay daily laborers before sunset.[1006] Following instructions, the steward who handled payments began with those who had been hired at the last hour; he gave each of them a denarius, or Roman penny, which was worth about fifteen cents today, and was the standard pay for a day's work. This was the same amount the earlier workers had agreed upon; when these workers saw their fellow workers, who had only worked for an hour, receive a penny each, they likely expected to receive more, despite the pay they had agreed upon. But each of them only got a penny and nothing more. They then complained, not because they felt underpaid, but because the others were paid a full day's wage for only part of a day's work. The master kindly responded, reminding them of their agreement. Could he not be fair to them and generous to the others if he wanted? His money was his to give as he pleased. Were those complainers justified in their resentment because their master was generous and kind? “So,” said Jesus, moving directly from the story to one of its lessons, “the last shall be first, and the first last: for many are called, but few are chosen.”[1007]
The parable was plainly intended for the edification of the Twelve. It was called out by Peter's question, "What shall we have therefore?" It stands as truly in force today as when it was delivered by the Master, as a rebuke of the bargaining spirit in the Lord's work. God needs workers,[Pg 482] and such as will labor faithfully and effectively are welcomed into the vineyard. If, before beginning they insist on the stipulation of a wage, and this be agreed to, each shall receive his penny provided he has not lost his place through idleness or transgression. But those who diligently labor, knowing that the Master will give to them whatever is right, and with thought for the work rather than for the wage, shall find themselves more bountifully enriched. A man may work for wages and yet not be a hireling. Between the worthy hired servant and the hireling there is the difference that distinguishes the shepherd from the sheep herder.[1008] Was there not a suggestion of the hireling's spirit in the query of even the first of the apostles, "What shall we have therefore?" The Twelve had been called into service early in the Savior's ministry; they had responded to the call, without promise of even a penny; they were yet to feel the burden and heat of the day; but they were solemnly cautioned against attempt or desire to fix their reward. The Master shall judge as to the deserts of each servant; the wage at best is a free gift; for on the basis of strict accounting who of us is not in debt to God? The last called is as likely as the first to prove unworthy. No general reversal is implied whereby all the late comers shall be advanced and all the early workers demoted. "Many that are first shall be last" was the Lord's statement, and by implication we may understand that not all the last, though some of them, may be counted among the first. Of the many called or permitted to labor in the vineyard of the Lord, few may so excel as to be chosen for exaltation above their fellows. Even the call and ordination to the Holy Apostleship is no guarantee of eventual exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Iscariot was so called and placed among the first; now, verily he is far below the last in the kingdom of God. [Pg 483]
The parable was clearly meant to teach the Twelve. It was prompted by Peter's question, "What will we get out of it?" It is just as relevant today as it was when the Master originally shared it, serving as a reminder of the wrong attitude toward bargaining in the Lord's work. God needs workers, and those who commit to working diligently and effectively are welcomed into the vineyard. If, before starting, they insist on agreeing to a wage, then each will receive their penny, as long as they haven't lost their position through laziness or wrongdoing. However, those who work hard, trusting that the Master will reward them fairly and focusing more on the task than the pay, will find themselves rewarded abundantly. A person might work for pay but not be a mercenary. The distinction between a worthy hired servant and a mercenary is like the difference between a shepherd and a sheep herder. Wasn't there a hint of a mercenary mindset in the question from even the first of the apostles, "What will we get out of it?" The Twelve had been called to serve early in the Savior's ministry; they responded without any promise of even a penny and had yet to experience the struggles of the day. Yet, they were firmly warned against trying to dictate their reward. The Master will decide what each servant deserves; any wage is ultimately a free gift because, when it comes to strict accounting, who among us is not in debt to God? The last to be called could just as easily prove unworthy as the first. There is no implication of a complete overhaul where latecomers are elevated and early workers are demoted. "Many who are first will be last," the Lord said, and we can deduce that not all who are last, although some, may be counted among the first. Of all those called or allowed to work in the Lord's vineyard, few may excel enough to be chosen for greater honor than their peers. Even being called and ordained as an Apostle does not guarantee a place of honor in the heavenly kingdom. Iscariot was among the first called; now, in reality, he ranks far below the last in God's kingdom.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 27.
1. Rich Men and Their Stewards.—"'A certain rich man had a steward,' We learn here, incidentally, how evenly balanced are the various conditions of life in a community, and how little of substantial advantage wealth can confer on its possessor. As your property increases, your personal control over it diminishes; the more you possess the more you must entrust to others. Those who do their own work are not troubled with disobedient servants; those who look after their own affairs, are not troubled with unfaithful overseers."—Arnot's Parables of our Lord, p. 454.
1. Rich Men and Their Stewards.—"'A wealthy man had a manager.' This teaches us how balanced the different situations in life can be within a community and how little real benefit wealth actually brings to its owner. As your assets grow, your control over them decreases; the more you have, the more you need to rely on others. Those who handle their own tasks don’t deal with disobedient workers; those who manage their own affairs don’t face issues with untrustworthy supervisors."—Arnot's Parables of our Lord, p. 454.
2. The Mammon of Unrighteousness.—The revised version of Luke 16:9, reads: "And I say unto you, Make to yourself friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles." The Lord's counsel to the disciples was to so use worldly wealth as to accomplish good thereby, that when "it," i.e. all earthly possessions, fail, they would have friends to welcome them into "the eternal tabernacles" or heavenly mansions. In studying a parable based on contrasts, such as this one is, care must be exercized not to carry too far any one point of analogy. Thus, we cannot reasonably gather that Jesus intended even to intimate that the prerogative of receiving any soul into the "eternal tabernacles" or excluding therefrom, rests with those who on earth had been benefited or injured through that person's acts, except so far as their witness to his deeds may be taken into account in the final judgment. The whole parable is full of wisdom for him who is in search of such; to the hypercritical mind it may appear inconsistent, as so it did appear to the Pharisees who derided Jesus for the story He had told. Luke 16:14 is rendered in the revised version, "And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him."
2. The Mammon of Unrighteousness.—The revised version of Luke 16:9 reads: "And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by using worldly wealth, so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into eternal homes." The Lord advised the disciples to use material wealth for good, so that when "it," meaning all earthly possessions, is no longer available, they would have friends to greet them in "the eternal homes" or heavenly dwellings. When studying a parable that relies on contrasts, we must be careful not to stretch any single point of comparison too far. Therefore, we cannot reasonably conclude that Jesus suggested the ability to welcome anyone into the "eternal homes" or to exclude them rests with those who were affected by that person's actions on earth, except to the extent that their testimony about his deeds will be considered in the final judgment. The entire parable is filled with wisdom for those seeking it; to a hypercritical mind, it may seem inconsistent, as it did to the Pharisees who mocked Jesus for the story he told. Luke 16:14 is rendered in the revised version, "And the Pharisees, who loved money, heard all these things and ridiculed him."
3. Lazarus and Dives.—Of all our Lord's recorded parables this is the only one in which a personal name is applied to any of the characters. The name "Lazarus" used in the parable was also the true name of a man whom Jesus loved, and who, subsequent to the delivery of this parable, was restored to life after he had lain for days in the tomb. The name, a Greek variant of Eleazar, signifies "God is my help." In many theological writings, the rich man of this parable is called Dives, but the name is not of scriptural usage. "Dives" is a Latin adjective meaning "rich." Lazarus the brother of Martha and Mary (John 11:1, 2, 5) is one of three men mentioned by name as subjects of our Lord's beneficent miracles; the other two are Bartimeus (Mark 10:46) and Malchus (John 18:10). Commenting on the fact that our Lord gave a name to the beggar but left the rich man nameless in the parable, Augustine (in Sermon xli) suggestively asks: "Seems He not to you to have been reading from that book where He found the name of the poor man written, but found not the name of the rich; for that book is the Book of Life?"[Pg 484]
3. Lazarus and Dives.—Of all the parables recorded by our Lord, this is the only one where a character is given a personal name. The name "Lazarus" in the parable was also the actual name of a man Jesus loved, who, after this parable was told, was brought back to life after laying in the tomb for days. The name, a Greek variation of Eleazar, means "God is my help." In many theological texts, the rich man in this parable is referred to as Dives, but that name is not found in the scriptures. "Dives" is a Latin term meaning "rich." Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary (John 11:1, 2, 5), is one of three men specifically named as subjects of our Lord's miraculous acts; the other two are Bartimeus (Mark 10:46) and Malchus (John 18:10). Reflecting on the fact that our Lord named the beggar but left the rich man unnamed in the parable, Augustine (in Sermon xli) provocatively asks: "Does it not seem to you that He was reading from that book where He found the name of the poor man recorded but did not find the name of the rich; for that book is the Book of Life?"[Pg 484]
4. Divergent Views Concerning Divorce.—In relation to the different opinions upon this subject among Jewish authorities in the time of Christ, Geikie (vol. ii, p. 347-8) says: "Among the questions of the day fiercely debated between the great rival schools of Hillel and Shammai, no one was more so than that of divorce. The school of Hillel contended that a man had a right to divorce his wife for any cause he might assign, if it were no more than his having ceased to love her, or his having seen one he liked better, or her having cooked a dinner badly. The school of Shammai, on the contrary, held that divorce could be issued only for the crime of adultery, and offences against chastity. If it were possible to get Jesus to pronounce in favor of either school, the hostility of the other would be roused, and hence, it seemed a favorable chance for compromising Him." The following from Dummelow's Commentary, dealing with Matt. 5:32, is further illustrative: "Rabbi Akiba (Hillelite) said, 'If a man sees a woman handsomer than his own wife he may put her [his wife] away, because it is said, If she find not favor in his eyes.' The school of Hillel said 'If the wife cook her husband's food ill, by over-salting or over-roasting it, she is to be put away.' On the other hand Rabbi Jochanan (a Shammaite) said 'The putting away of a wife is odious.' Both schools agreed that a divorced wife could not be taken back.... Rabbi Chananiah said 'God has not subscribed His name to divorces, except among Israelites, as if He had said: I have conceded to the Israelites the right of dismissing their wives; but to the Gentiles I have not conceded it.' Jesus retorts that it is not the privilege but the infamy and reproach of Israel, that Moses found it necessary to tolerate divorce."
4. Different Opinions About Divorce.—Regarding the various views on this topic among Jewish leaders during the time of Christ, Geikie (vol. ii, p. 347-8) notes: "Among the issues heatedly debated between the prominent rival schools of Hillel and Shammai, none was more contentious than divorce. The school of Hillel argued that a man had the right to divorce his wife for any reason he chose, whether it was simply that he no longer loved her, found someone he liked better, or thought she prepared a meal poorly. On the other hand, the school of Shammai believed that divorce could only be granted for adultery or crimes against chastity. If they could get Jesus to take a side, the opposing school would be enraged, making it a good opportunity to trap Him." The following from Dummelow's Commentary, discussing Matt. 5:32, further illustrates this: "Rabbi Akiba (Hillelite) said, 'If a man sees a woman more attractive than his wife, he may divorce her, as it is said, If she finds no favor in his eyes.' The school of Hillel stated, 'If a wife overcooks or oversalts her husband's food, she should be divorced.' Conversely, Rabbi Jochanan (a Shammaite) said, 'Divorcing a wife is hateful.' Both schools agreed that a divorced wife could not be remarried to her former husband.... Rabbi Chananiah said, 'God has not endorsed divorce, except for Israelites, as if He were saying: I have granted the Israelites the right to divorce their wives, but I have not granted it to the Gentiles.' Jesus counters that it is not a privilege but a disgrace for Israel that Moses found it necessary to allow divorce."
5. Jesus the Ennobler of Woman.—Geikie thus paraphrases part of Christ's reply to the Pharisee's question concerning divorce, and comments thereon. "'I say, therefore, that whoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, which destroys the very essence of marriage by dissolving the oneness it had formed, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away for any other cause commits adultery, because the woman is still, in God's sight, wife of him who had divorced her.' This statement was of far deeper moment than the mere silencing of malignant spies. It was designed to set forth for all ages the law of His New Kingdom in the supreme matter of family life. It swept away for ever from His Society the conception of woman as a mere toy or slave of man, and based true relations of the sexes on the eternal foundation of truth, right, honor, and love. To ennoble the House and the Family by raising woman to her true position was essential to the future stability of His Kingdom, as one of purity and spiritual worth. By making marriage indissoluble, He proclaimed the equal rights of woman and man within the limits of the family, and, in this, gave their charter of nobility to the mothers of the world. For her nobler position in the Christian era, compared with that granted her in antiquity, woman is indebted to Jesus Christ."—Life and Words of Christ, vol. ii, p. 349.[Pg 485]
5. Jesus the Ennobler of Woman.—Geikie paraphrases part of Christ's response to the Pharisee's question about divorce and comments on it. "'I say, therefore, that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, which destroys the very essence of marriage by breaking the unity it creates, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries a woman who has been divorced for any other reason commits adultery because, in God's eyes, she is still the wife of the man who divorced her.' This statement was much more significant than simply silencing hostile critics. It was meant to establish the law of His New Kingdom regarding family life for all time. It permanently eliminated the idea of women as mere possessions or servants of men from His society and grounded the true relationship between the sexes on the unchanging principles of truth, justice, honor, and love. Elevating the Household and Family by recognizing women's true status was crucial for the future stability of His Kingdom, marked by purity and spiritual value. By making marriage unbreakable, He affirmed the equal rights of women and men within the family structure, thus granting their charter of nobility to the mothers of the world. For her elevated status in the Christian era, compared to her position in ancient times, woman owes much to Jesus Christ."—Life and Words of Christ, vol. ii, p. 349.[Pg 485]
6. The Blessing of Children.—When Christ, a resurrected Being, appeared among the Nephites on the western continent, He took the children, one by one, and blessed them; and the assembled multitude saw the little ones encircled as with fire, while angels ministered unto them. (3 Nephi 17:11-25.) Through modern revelation the Lord has directed that all children born in the Church be brought for blessing to those who are authorized to administer this ordinance of the Holy Priesthood. The commandment is as follows: "Every member of the church of Christ having children, is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in His name." (Doc. and Cov. 20:70.) Accordingly, it is now the custom in the Church to bring the little ones to the Fast-day service in the several wards, at which they are received one by one into the arms of the elders, and blessed, names being given them at the same time. The father of the child, if he be an elder, is expected to participate in the ordinance.
6. The Blessing of Children.—When Christ, a resurrected Being, appeared among the Nephites on the western continent, He took the children one by one and blessed them; the gathered crowd saw the little ones surrounded as if by fire, while angels ministered to them. (3 Nephi 17:11-25.) Through modern revelation, the Lord has instructed that all children born in the Church should be brought for blessing to those authorized to perform this ordinance of the Holy Priesthood. The commandment is as follows: "Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in His name." (Doc. and Cov. 20:70.) As a result, it is now customary in the Church to bring the little ones to the Fast-day service in each ward, where they are taken one by one into the arms of the elders and blessed, with names being given to them at the same time. The child's father, if he is an elder, is expected to take part in the ordinance.
The blessing of children is in no sense analogous to, far less is it a substitution for, the ordinance of baptism, which is to be administered only to those who have come to years of understanding, and who are capable of repentance. As the author has written elsewhere, "Some point to the incident of Christ blessing little children, and rebuking those who would forbid the little ones coming unto Him, (Matt. 19:13; Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15) as an evidence in favor of infant baptism; but, as has been tersely said:—'From the action of Christ's blessing infants, to infer they are to be baptized, proves nothing so much as that there is a want of better argument; for the conclusion would with more probability be derived thus: Christ blessed infants, and so dismissed them, but baptized them not; therefore infants are not to be baptized.'"—The author, Articles of Faith, vi:14. See paragraphs 11-17 in same lecture.
The blessing of children is not at all similar to, and certainly not a replacement for, the practice of baptism, which should only be given to those who have reached an age of understanding and are capable of repentance. As the author has noted in other writings, "Some people refer to the story of Christ blessing little children and reprimanding those who tried to stop them from coming to Him (Matt. 19:13; Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15) as proof in favor of infant baptism; but, as has been succinctly said:—'From Christ's act of blessing infants, to conclude that they should be baptized demonstrates nothing so much as a lack of stronger argument; for the conclusion could more likely be drawn this way: Christ blessed infants and then sent them away, but did not baptize them; therefore, infants are not to be baptized.'"—The author, Articles of Faith, vi:14. See paragraphs 11-17 in the same lecture.
7. The Camel and the Needle's Eye.—In comparing the difficulty of a rich man entering the kingdom with that of a camel passing through the eye of a needle, Jesus used a rhetorical figure, which, strong and prohibitory as it appears in our translation, was of a type familiar to those who heard the remark. There was a "common Jewish proverb, that a man did not even in his dreams see an elephant pass through the eye of a needle" (Edersheim). Some interpreters insist that a rope, not a camel, was mentioned by Jesus, and these base their contention on the fact that the Greek word kamelos (camel) differs in but a single letter from kamilos (rope), and that the alleged error of substituting "camel" for "rope" in the scriptural text is chargeable to the early copyists. Farrar (p. 476) rejects this possible interpretation on the ground that proverbs involving comparisons of a kind with that of a camel passing through the eye of a needle are common in the Talmud.
7. The Camel and the Needle's Eye.—When Jesus compared the challenge of a rich person entering the kingdom to a camel squeezing through the eye of a needle, he was using a rhetorical device that, despite sounding harsh in our translation, was something familiar to his audience. There was a common Jewish saying that "a man couldn’t even imagine an elephant going through the eye of a needle” (Edersheim). Some interpreters argue that Jesus actually referred to a rope, not a camel. They base this on the fact that the Greek word kamelos (camel) differs by just one letter from kamilos (rope), suggesting that early copyists made a mistake by switching "camel" for "rope" in the text. However, Farrar (p. 476) dismisses this interpretation because proverbs with comparisons similar to a camel going through the eye of a needle are common in the Talmud.
It has been asserted that the term "needle's eye" was applied to a small door or wicket set in or alongside the great gates in the walls of cities; and the assumption has been raised that Jesus[Pg 486] had such a wicket in mind when He spoke of the seeming impossibility of a camel passing through a needle's eye. It would be possible though very difficult for a camel to squeeze its way through the little gate, and it could in no wise do so except when relieved of its load and stripped of all its harness. If this conception be correct, we may find additional similitude between the fact that the camel must first be unloaded and stripped, however costly its burden or rich its accoutrement, and the necessity of the rich young ruler, and so of any man, divesting himself of the burden and trappings of wealth, if he would enter by the narrow way that leadeth into the kingdom. The Lord's exposition of His saying is all-sufficient for the purposes of the lesson: "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26.)
It has been said that the term "needle's eye" referred to a small door or wicket built into or next to the large gates of city walls. There's a belief that Jesus[Pg 486] had this kind of wicket in mind when He mentioned the seeming impossibility of a camel going through a needle's eye. While it would be very difficult, a camel could manage to squeeze through the little gate, but only if it was unloaded and stripped of all its harness. If this idea is accurate, we can see a parallel in the fact that the camel needs to be unloaded and stripped, no matter how valuable its load or impressive its equipment, just like the rich young ruler, and anyone else, must let go of the burden and trappings of wealth if they want to enter the narrow way leading to the kingdom. The Lord's clarification of His statement is more than enough for the lesson: "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26.)
8. Undue Concern as to Wages in the Lord's Service.—The instructive and inspiring Parable of the Laborers was called forth by Peter's question of self-interest—"What shall we have therefore?" In tender mercy the Lord refrained from directly rebuking His impulsive servant for undue concern as to the wage to be expected; but He turned the incident to excellent purpose by making it the text of a valuable lesson. The following treatment by Edersheim (vol. ii, p. 416) is worth consideration. "There was here deep danger to the disciples: danger of lapsing into feelings akin to those with which the Pharisees viewed the pardoned publicans, or the elder son in the parable his younger brother; danger of misunderstanding the right relations, and with it the very character of the kingdom, and of work in and for it. It is to this that the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard refers. The principle which Christ lays down is, that, while nothing done for Him shall lose its reward, yet, from one reason or another, no forecast can be made, no inferences of self-righteousness may be drawn. It does not by any means follow, that most work done—at least, to our seeing and judging—shall entail a greater reward. On the contrary, 'many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.' Not all, nor yet always and necessarily, but 'many.' And in such cases no wrong has been done; there exists no claim, even in view of the promises of due acknowledgment of work. Spiritual pride and self assertion can only be the outcome either of misunderstanding God's relation to us, or else of a wrong state of mind towards others—that is, it betokens mental or moral unfitness. Of this the Parable of the Laborers is an illustration.... But, while illustrating how it may come that some who were first are last, and how utterly mistaken or wrong is the thought that they must necessarily receive more than others, who, seemingly, have done more—how, in short, work for Christ is not a ponderable quantity, so much for so much, nor yet we be the judges of when and why a worker has come—it also conveys much that is new, and, in many respects, most comforting."[Pg 487]
8. Excessive Concern About Wages in the Lord's Service.—The insightful and encouraging Parable of the Laborers was prompted by Peter's self-interested question—"What will we get?" In His gentle mercy, the Lord chose not to directly reprimand His impulsive disciple for his excessive worry about the expected wages; instead, He used the moment to impart a valuable lesson. Edersheim's analysis (vol. ii, p. 416) deserves attention: "There was a real risk for the disciples: the risk of developing feelings similar to those of the Pharisees towards the forgiven tax collectors or the older son in the parable towards his younger brother; the risk of misunderstanding the correct relationships, and consequently, the very essence of the kingdom and the work within it. This is what the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard illustrates. The principle that Christ establishes is that while nothing done for Him will go unrewarded, no predictions can be made, and no conclusions of self-righteousness should be drawn for various reasons. It does not necessarily mean that most of the work done—at least, from our perspective—will earn a greater reward. On the contrary, 'many who are first will be last; and the last will be first.' Not all, nor always, but 'many.' In such cases, no injustice has occurred; there is no entitlement, even considering the promises of appropriate recognition for work. Spiritual pride and self-assertion only arise from misunderstanding God’s relationship with us or harboring a negative mindset towards others—that is, they indicate mental or moral unfitness. The Parable of the Laborers exemplifies this... However, while it illustrates how some who are first may end up last, and how utterly incorrect it is to assume they must receive more than others who, on the surface, seem to have done more—how, in essence, work for Christ is not a measurable quantity, nor are we the judges of when and why a worker has come—it also conveys much that is new and, in many ways, truly comforting."[Pg 487]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[950] Luke 14:1-24.
[951] The question is identical with that asked of Jesus in the synagog at Capernaum preliminary to the healing of the man with the withered hand (Matt. 12:10).
[951] The question is the same as the one posed to Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum before he healed the man with the withered hand (Matt. 12:10).
[954] Compare Matt. 8:11; Rev. 19:9. The expression "eat bread" is a Hebraism, signifying eating in full as at a feast rather than partaking of bread only.
[954] Compare Matt. 8:11; Rev. 19:9. The phrase "eat bread" is a Hebrew idiom, meaning to eat fully as one would at a feast, rather than just having bread.
[956] Luke 14:25-35.
[959] Compare Matt. 5:13; Mark 9:50
[960] Luke 15.
[964] Luke 15:11-32.
[967] Luke 16:1-8.
[969] Luke 16:9-13.
[971] Luke 16:14-31.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 16:14-31.
[973] Revised version, Luke 16:16: "The law and the prophets were until John; from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man entereth violently into it."
[973] Revised version, Luke 16:16: "The law and the prophets lasted until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God is announced, and everyone is trying to get in forcefully."
[975] Luke 16:19-31.
[978] Rev. 14:13.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Rev. 14:13.
[979] Luke 17:1-10.
[981] Compare Job 22:3; 35:7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Compare Job 22:3; 35:7.
[982] Luke 17:11-19. Many writers treat this occurrence as having immediately followed the repulse of Jesus and the apostles in a certain Samaritan village (Luke 9:52-56). We give it place in the order followed by Luke, the sole recorder of the two incidents.
[982] Luke 17:11-19. Many authors consider this event to have happened right after Jesus and the apostles were turned away from a Samaritan village (Luke 9:52-56). We include it in the sequence laid out by Luke, the only one to document both events.
[985] Luke 18:9-14. Luke's narrative, the order of which we have followed in the events succeeding Christ's departure from Jerusalem after the Feast of Tabernacles, includes our Lord's reply to the Pharisee's question as to "when the kingdom of God should come," and additions thereto (17:20-37); these matters were afterward treated with greater fulness in a discourse near Jerusalem (Matt. 24) and will be considered in connection with that later event. The Parable of the Importunate Widow (Luke 18:1-7) has already received attention, (page 436).
[985] Luke 18:9-14. Luke's account, which we have followed in the sequence of events following Christ's departure from Jerusalem after the Feast of Tabernacles, includes our Lord's response to the Pharisee's question about "when the kingdom of God will come," as well as additional points (17:20-37); these topics were later discussed in more detail during a speech near Jerusalem (Matt. 24) and will be addressed along with that later incident. The Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-7) has already been covered, (page 436).
[986] Note to what blasphemous extreme the doctrine of supererogation, or excess of merit, was carried by the papacy in the 13th century; see "The Great Apostasy," 913-15.
[986] Take note of how far the doctrine of supererogation, or excess merit, was taken by the papacy in the 13th century; see "The Great Apostasy," 913-15.
[987] Compare Luke 14:11.
[988] Matt. 19:3-12; see also Mark 10:2-12. This subject is introduced by Matthew and Mark directly preceding that of Christ blessing little children; which latter is recorded by Luke next after the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. We therefore turn from Luke's record to the accounts given by the other synoptic writers.
[988] Matt. 19:3-12; see also Mark 10:2-12. This topic is introduced by Matthew and Mark right before the story of Christ blessing little children; which is noted by Luke right after the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. So, we will move from Luke's account to the narratives provided by the other synoptic authors.
[991] Deut. 24:1-4.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Deut. 24:1-4.
[994] Compare Heb. 13:4.
[995] Compare 1 Cor. 11:11.
[1005] Matt. 20:1-16. The parable is the outgrowth of the events immediately preceding it. Matt. 19:27-30 should be read as part of the narrative continued in chap. 20. The existing division into chapters is unfortunate.
[1005] Matt. 20:1-16. The parable comes from the events that happened just before it. Matt. 19:27-30 should be read as part of the ongoing story in chapter 20. The current chapter divisions are unfortunate.
[1006] Deut. 24:15.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Deut. 24:15.
CHAPTER 28.
THE LAST WINTER.
AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION.[1009]
Jesus returned to Jerusalem in time to attend the Feast of Dedication during the last winter of His earthly life. This feast, like that of Tabernacles, was one of national rejoicing, and was celebrated annually for a period of eight days beginning on the 25th of Chislev,[1010] which corresponds in part to our December. It was not one of the great feasts prescribed by Mosaic statute, but had been established in 164 or 163 B.C. at the time of the rededication of the Temple of Zerubbabel following the rehabilitation of the sacred structure after its profane desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes, the pagan king of Syria.[1011] While the festival was in progress, Jesus went to the temple and was seen walking in the part of the enclosure known as Solomon's Porch.[1012] His presence soon became known to the Jews, who came crowding about Him in unfriendly spirit, ostensibly to ask questions. Their inquiry was: "How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly," The mere asking of such a question evidences the deep and disturbing impression which the ministry of Christ had produced among the official classes and the people generally; in their estimation, the works he had wrought appeared as worthy of the Messiah.
Jesus returned to Jerusalem just in time for the Feast of Dedication during the last winter of His life on Earth. This feast, like the Feast of Tabernacles, was a national celebration and was held every year for eight days starting on the 25th of Chislev,[1010] which partially aligns with our December. It wasn’t one of the major feasts outlined by Mosaic law, but it was established in 164 or 163 B.C. during the rededication of the Temple of Zerubbabel after it had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, the pagan king of Syria.[1011] While the festival was taking place, Jesus went to the temple and was seen walking in an area known as Solomon's Porch.[1012] Word quickly spread among the Jews, who gathered around Him with a hostile attitude, seemingly to ask questions. They asked, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us clearly.” The fact that they were asking such a question showed the deep and unsettling impression that Jesus' ministry had made on both the leaders and the general public; they believed that the miracles He performed were fitting for the Messiah.
The Lord's reply was indirect in form, though in substance and effect incisive and unmistakable. He referred them to His former utterances and to His continued works. "I told you," He said, "and ye believed not: the works that[Pg 488] I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." The reference to what had been before told was a reminder of His teachings on the occasion of an earlier sojourn among them, when He had proclaimed Himself as the I AM, who was older and greater than Abraham, and of His other proclamation of Himself as the Good Shepherd.[1013]
The Lord's response was indirect in how it was expressed, but its meaning and effect were clear and unmistakable. He referenced His previous statements and ongoing works. "I told you," He said, "and you didn’t believe: the works that[Pg 488] I do in my Father's name, they testify about me. But you don’t believe because you aren’t one of my sheep, as I mentioned. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, nor will anyone snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one." The reference to previous teachings served as a reminder of His messages during an earlier visit among them, when He declared Himself as the I AM, who is older and greater than Abraham, as well as His declaration of being the Good Shepherd.[1013]
He could not well answer their inquiry by a simple unqualified affirmation, for by such He would have been understood as meaning that He claimed to be the Messiah according to their conception, the earthly king and conqueror for whom they professed to be looking. He was no such Christ as they had in mind; yet was He verily Shepherd and King to all who would hear His words and do His works; and to such He renewed the promise of eternal life and the assurance that no man could pluck them out of His own or the Father's hand. To this doctrine, both exalted and profound in scope, the casuistical Jews could offer no refutation, nor could they find therein the much desired excuse for open accusation; our Lord's concluding sentence, however, stirred the hostile throng to frenzy. "I and my Father are one" was His solemn declaration.[1014] In their rage they scrambled for stones wherewith to crush Him. Owing to the unfinished state of the temple buildings, there were probably many blocks and broken fragments of rock at hand; and this was the second murderous attempt upon our Lord's life within the purlieus of His Father's House.[1015]
He couldn’t simply answer their question with a yes or no, because that would imply he was claiming to be the Messiah they expected—an earthly king and conqueror they were waiting for. He wasn’t the kind of Christ they had in mind; yet, He truly was a Shepherd and King to anyone willing to listen to His words and follow His actions. To those people, He renewed the promise of eternal life and assured them that no one could take them out of His hand or the Father's hand. The complex and profound nature of this teaching left the questioning Jews without a way to counter it or a reason to openly accuse Him; however, His final statement drove the crowd into a frenzy. "I and my Father are one" was His serious declaration.[1014] In their anger, they rushed for stones to attack Him. Because the temple buildings were still under construction, there were likely many blocks and broken pieces of rock nearby; this was the second attempt on our Lord's life right near His Father’s House.[1015]
Fearless, and with the compelling calmness of more than human majesty, Jesus said: "Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?" They angrily retorted: "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."[1016] Plainly they had found no ambiguity in His words. He then cited to them the scriptures, wherein even judges empowered by divine authority are called gods,[1017] and asked: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken: say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" Then, reverting to the first avouchment that His own commission was of the Father who is greater than all, He added: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."[1018] Again the Jews sought to take Him, but were foiled by means not stated; He passed from their reach and departed from the temple.
Fearless and with the calmness of something greater than human, Jesus said: "I've shown you many good works from my Father; for which of those works are you stoning me?" They replied angrily: "We're not stoning you for a good work, but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, are claiming to be God." [1016] Clearly, they found no confusion in His words. He then referenced the scriptures, where even judges given divine authority are called gods,[1017] and asked: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken: do you say of him, whom the Father has set apart and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming'? Because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" Then returning to His first assertion that His mission was from the Father who is greater than all, He added: "If I do not the works of my Father, don’t believe me. But if I do, even if you don’t believe me, believe the works: so you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I in him." [1018] Again, the Jews tried to seize Him, but were prevented by unspecified means; He slipped away from them and left the temple.
OUR LORD'S RETIREMENT IN PEREA.[1019]
The violent hostility of the Jews in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the theocracy, was such that Jesus withdrew from the city and its neighborhood. The day for His sacrifice had not yet come, and while His enemies could not kill Him until He allowed Himself to be taken into their hands, His work would be retarded by further hostile disturbances. He retired to the place at which John the Baptist had begun his[Pg 490] public ministry, which is probably also the place of our Lord's baptism. The exact location is not specified; it was certainly beyond Jordan and therefore in Perea. We read that Jesus abode there, and from this we gather that He remained in one general locality instead of traveling from town to town as had been His custom. People resorted to Him even there, however, and many believed on Him. The place was endeared to those who had gone to hear John and to be baptized by him;[1020] and as these recalled the impassioned call to repentance, the stirring proclamation of the kingdom by the now murdered and lamented Baptist, they remembered his affirmation of One mightier than himself, and saw in Jesus the realization of that testimony. "John," they said, "did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true."
The intense hostility of the Jews in Jerusalem, the center of the theocracy, was such that Jesus left the city and its surroundings. The time for His sacrifice had not yet arrived, and although His enemies couldn't kill Him until He allowed Himself to be captured, further hostile actions would hinder His work. He retired to the place where John the Baptist began his public ministry, which is also likely where Jesus was baptized. The exact location isn't mentioned; it was certainly beyond the Jordan River, so it was in Perea. We read that Jesus stayed there, leading us to conclude that He remained in one area instead of moving from town to town as He usually did. People still came to Him there, and many believed in Him. This place was special to those who went to hear John and be baptized by him; and as they remembered his passionate call to repentance and the powerful announcement of the kingdom by the now killed and mourned Baptist, they recalled his claim of Someone greater than himself and recognized Jesus as the fulfillment of that testimony. "John," they said, "did no miracles, but everything John said about this man was true."
The duration of this sojourn in Perea is nowhere recorded in our scriptures. It could not have lasted more than a few weeks at most. Possibly some of the discourses, instructions, and parables already treated as following the Lord's departure from Jerusalem after the Feast of Tabernacles in the preceding autumn, may chronologically belong to this interval. From this retreat of comparative quiet, Jesus returned to Judea in response to an earnest appeal from some whom He loved. He left the Bethany of Perea for the Judean Bethany, where dwelt Martha and Mary.[1021]
The length of Jesus' stay in Perea isn't documented in our scriptures. It likely didn't last more than a few weeks at most. Some of the teachings, lessons, and parables that we’ve seen as happening after His departure from Jerusalem following the Feast of Tabernacles the previous autumn might actually fit into this period. From this relatively quiet retreat, Jesus returned to Judea after receiving a heartfelt request from some people He cared about. He left the Bethany in Perea for the Bethany in Judea, where Martha and Mary lived.[1021]
LAZARUS RESTORED TO LIFE.[1022]
Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, lay ill in the family home at Bethany of Judea. His devoted sisters sent a messenger to Jesus, with the simple announcement, in which, however, we cannot fail to recognize a pitiful appeal: "Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." When Jesus[Pg 491] received the message, He remarked: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby." This was probably the word carried back to the sisters, whom Jesus loved. Lazarus had died in the interval; indeed he must have expired soon after the messenger had started with the tidings of the young man's illness. The Lord knew that Lazarus was dead; yet He tarried where He was for two days after receiving the word; then He surprized the disciples by saying: "Let us go into Judea again." They sought to dissuade the Master by reminding Him of the recent attempt upon His life at Jerusalem, and asked wonderingly, "Goest thou thither again?" Jesus made clear to them that He was not to be deterred from duty in the time thereof, nor should others be; for as He illustrated, the working day is twelve hours long; and during that period a man may walk without stumbling, for he walks in the light, but if he let the hours pass and then try to walk or work in darkness, he stumbles. It was then His day to work, and He was making no mistake in returning to Judea.
Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, was sick at home in Bethany, Judea. His caring sisters sent a messenger to Jesus with a simple but heartfelt message: "Lord, the one you love is sick." When Jesus got the message, He said, "This sickness will not end in death, but is for the glory of God so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." This was likely the message taken back to the sisters, whom Jesus loved. In the meantime, Lazarus had died; he probably passed away soon after the messenger left with news of his illness. The Lord knew Lazarus was dead, yet He stayed where He was for two more days after receiving the news; then He surprised His disciples by saying, "Let’s go back to Judea." They tried to talk Him out of it, reminding Him of the recent attempt on His life in Jerusalem, and asked in disbelief, "Are you going back there again?" Jesus made it clear that He wouldn’t be deterred from His purpose in the right time, and others shouldn’t be either. He explained that the workday is twelve hours long; during that time, a person can walk without stumbling because they walk in the light. But if they let the time pass and then try to walk or work in darkness, they will stumble. It was time for Him to work, and He was not making a mistake by returning to Judea.
He added: "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep." The simile between death and sleep was as common among the Jews as with us;[1023] but the disciples construed the saying literally, and remarked that if the sick man was sleeping it would be well with him. Jesus set them right. "Lazarus is dead," He said, and added, "And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him." It is evident that Jesus had already decided to restore Lazarus to life; and, as we shall see, the miracle was to be a testimony of our Lord's Messiahship, convincing to all who would accept it. A return to Judea at that time was viewed by at least some of the apostles with serious apprehension; they feared for their Master's safety, and thought[Pg 492] that their own lives would be in peril; nevertheless they did not hesitate to go. Thomas boldly said to the others: "Let us also go, that we may die with him."
He added, "Our friend Lazarus is sleeping, but I’m going to wake him up." The comparison between death and sleep was just as common among the Jews as it is today; [1023] but the disciples took his words literally and commented that if the sick man was sleeping, he must be doing well. Jesus corrected them, saying, "Lazarus is dead," and added, "And I’m glad for your sake that I wasn’t there, so that you may believe; now let’s go to him." It's clear that Jesus had already made up his mind to bring Lazarus back to life; and as we will see, the miracle was meant to prove our Lord’s Messiahship, convincing all who would accept it. Returning to Judea at that time worried at least some of the apostles; they feared for their Master’s safety and thought that their own lives might be in danger; yet they didn’t hesitate to go. Thomas confidently said to the others, "Let’s go too, so we can die with him."
Arriving on the outskirts of Bethany, Jesus found that Lazarus "had lain in the grave four days already."[1024] The bereaved sisters were at home, where had gathered, according to custom, friends to console them in their grief. Among these were many prominent people, some of whom had come from Jerusalem. Word of the Master's approach reached Martha first, and she hastened to meet Him. Her first words were: "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." It was an expression of anguish combined with faith; but, lest it appear as lacking in trust, she hastened to add: "But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee." Then said Jesus in words of assuring tenderness: "Thy brother shall rise again." Perhaps some of the Jews who had come to comfort her had said as much, for they, the Sadducees excepted, believed in a resurrection; and Martha failed to find in the Lord's promise anything more than a general assurance that her departed brother should be raised with the rest of the dead. In natural and seemingly casual assent she remarked: "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Then said Jesus: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"
Arriving on the outskirts of Bethany, Jesus discovered that Lazarus "had been in the grave for four days already."[1024] The grieving sisters were at home, where friends had gathered, as was customary, to comfort them in their sorrow. Among these were many notable people, some of whom had come from Jerusalem. Martha was the first to hear about the Master's arrival, and she rushed out to meet Him. Her first words were: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother wouldn’t have died." It was an expression of pain mixed with faith; but, to avoid seeming like she lacked trust, she quickly added: "But I know that even now, whatever you ask God, God will give you." Jesus responded with comforting words: "Your brother will rise again." Perhaps some of the Jews who had come to comfort her had said something similar, for they—except for the Sadducees—believed in a resurrection; and Martha didn’t interpret the Lord's promise as anything more than a general assurance that her brother would be raised with everyone else. Naturally and casually, she said: "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Then Jesus said: "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, even though they die, will live again. And whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
The sorrowing woman's faith had to be lifted and centered in the Lord of Life with whom she was speaking. She had before confessed her conviction that whatever Jesus asked of God would be granted; she had to learn that unto Jesus had already been committed power over life and death. She was hopefully expectant of some superhuman interposition by the Lord Jesus in her behalf, yet she knew not[Pg 493] what that might be. Apparently at this time she had no well-defined thought or even hope that He would call her brother from the tomb. To the Lord's question as to whether she believed what He had just said, she answered with simple frankness; all of it she was not able to understand; but she believed in the Speaker even while unable to fully comprehend His words. "Yea, Lord," she said, "I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
The grieving woman's faith needed to be lifted and focused on the Lord of Life with whom she was speaking. She had previously shared her belief that whatever Jesus asked of God would be granted; she needed to realize that power over life and death had already been entrusted to Jesus. She was filled with hopeful anticipation of some extraordinary intervention by the Lord Jesus on her behalf, yet she didn’t know what that might look like. At that moment, she didn’t have a clear idea or even hope that He would bring her brother back from the grave. When the Lord asked her if she believed what He had just said, she answered honestly; she couldn’t understand everything, but she believed in the one speaking even while struggling to fully grasp His words. "Yes, Lord," she said, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world."
Then she returned to the home, and with precaution of secrecy on account of the presence of some whom she knew to be unfriendly to Jesus, said to Mary: "The Master is come, and calleth for thee." Mary left the house in haste. The Jews who had been with her thought that she had been impelled by a fresh resurgence of grief to go again to the grave, and they followed her. When she reached the Master, she knelt at His feet, and gave expression to her consuming sorrow in the very words Martha had used: "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." We cannot doubt that the conviction so voiced had been the burden of comment and lamentation between the two sisters—if only Jesus had been with them they would not have been bereft of their brother.
Then she went back home, and being careful to keep it a secret because some people there were hostile to Jesus, said to Mary, "The Master is here and is asking for you." Mary hurried out of the house. The Jews who had been with her thought she was rushing to the grave again because of her grief, so they followed her. When she reached the Master, she knelt at His feet and expressed her deep sorrow with the same words Martha had used: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother wouldn't have died." It's clear that this feeling had been a topic of conversation and lament between the two sisters—if only Jesus had been with them, they wouldn't have lost their brother.
The sight of the two women so overcome by grief, and of the people wailing with them, caused Jesus to sorrow, so that He groaned in spirit and was deeply troubled. "Where have ye laid him?" He asked; and Jesus wept. As the sorrowing company went toward the tomb, some of the Jews, observing the Lord's emotion and tears, said: "Behold how he loved him!" but others, less sympathetic because of their prejudice against Christ, asked critically and reproachfully: "Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?" The miracle by which a man blind from birth had been made to see was very generally known, largely because[Pg 494] of the official investigation that had followed the healing.[1025] The Jews had been compelled to admit the actuality of the astounding occurrence; and the question now raised as to whether or why One who could accomplish such a wonder could not have preserved from death a man stricken with an ordinary illness, and that man one whom He seemed to have dearly loved, was an innuendo that the power possessed by Jesus was after all limited, and of uncertain or capricious operation. This manifestation of malignant unbelief caused Jesus again to groan with sorrow if not indignation.[1026]
The sight of the two women overwhelmed by grief, along with the people mourning with them, caused Jesus to feel sorrowful, prompting Him to groan in His spirit and feel deeply troubled. "Where have you laid him?" He asked; and Jesus cried. As the grieving group made their way to the tomb, some of the Jews observed the Lord's emotion and tears, saying, "Look how He loved him!" However, others, who were less sympathetic due to their prejudice against Christ, asked critically, "Couldn’t this man, who opened the eyes of the blind, have prevented this man from dying?" The miracle of healing a man who had been blind from birth was widely known, largely due to the official investigation that followed the healing. The Jews had been forced to acknowledge the reality of this astonishing event; and the question now raised about why someone who could perform such a miracle couldn't save a man suffering from a common illness—especially one He seemed to have loved deeply—implied that Jesus' power was ultimately limited and uncertain. This display of malicious disbelief made Jesus groan again, filled with sorrow if not anger.
The body of Lazarus had been interred in a cave, the entrance to which was closed by a great block of stone. Such burial-places were common in that country, natural caves or vaults hewn in the solid rock being used as sepulchres by the better classes of people. Jesus directed that the tomb be opened. Martha, still unprepared for what was to follow, ventured to remonstrate, reminding Jesus that the corpse had been four days immured, and that decomposition must have already set in.[1027] Jesus thus met her objection: "Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?" This may have had reference both to His promise spoken to Martha in person—that her brother should rise again—and to the message sent from Perea—that the illness of Lazarus was not unto final death at that time, but for the glory of God and that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
The body of Lazarus was buried in a cave with a large stone blocking the entrance. Such burial sites were common in that area, where natural caves or vaults carved into solid rock were used as graves by the more affluent people. Jesus commanded that the tomb be opened. Martha, still not ready for what was about to happen, hesitated to protest, reminding Jesus that the body had been buried for four days and that decomposition must have already begun.[1027] Jesus responded to her concern: "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" This likely referred both to His promise made to Martha in person—that her brother would rise again—and to the message sent from Perea—that Lazarus's illness was not meant for final death at that time, but for God's glory and so that the Son of God might be glorified through it.
The stone was removed. Standing before the open portal of the tomb, Jesus looked upward and prayed: "Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." He did not ask the Father for power or authority;[Pg 495] such had already been given Him; but He gave thanks, and in the hearing of all who stood by acknowledged the Father and expressed the oneness of His own and the Father's purposes. Then, with a loud voice He cried: "Lazarus, come forth." The dead man heard that voice of authoritative command; the spirit straightway reentered the tabernacle of flesh, the physical processes of life were resumed; and Lazarus, again alive, came forth. His freedom of motion was limited, for the grave clothes hampered his movements, and his face was still bound by the napkin by which the lifeless jaw had been held in place. To those who stood near, Jesus said: "Loose him, and let him go."
The stone was rolled away. Standing before the open tomb, Jesus looked up and prayed: "Father, I thank you for hearing me. I know you always hear me, but I said this for the sake of the people standing here, so they may believe that you sent me." He didn't ask the Father for power or authority; that had already been given to Him. Instead, He gave thanks, acknowledging the Father in front of everyone and expressing the unity of His and the Father's purposes. Then, with a loud voice, He called out: "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man heard that commanding voice; immediately, his spirit returned to his body, and the processes of life resumed. Lazarus, now alive again, came out. His movements were restricted because the grave clothes were confining him, and his face was still wrapped with the cloth that had been used to hold his lifeless jaw in place. To those nearby, Jesus said: "Unbind him, and let him go."
The procedure throughout was characterized by deep solemnity and by the entire absence of every element of unnecessary display. Jesus, who when miles away and without any ordinary means of receiving the information knew that Lazarus was dead, doubtless could have found the tomb; yet He inquired: "Where have ye laid him?" He who could still the waves of the sea by a word could have miraculously effected the removal of the stone that sealed the mouth of the sepulchre; yet He said: "Take ye away the stone." He who could reunite spirit and body could have loosened without hands the cerements by which the reanimated Lazarus was bound; yet He said: "Loose him, and let him go." All that human agency could do was left to man. In no instance do we find that Christ used unnecessarily the superhuman powers of His Godship; the divine energy was never wasted; even the material creation resulting from its exercize was conserved, as witness His instructions regarding the gathering up of the fragments of bread and fish after the multitudes had been miraculously fed.[1028]
The entire process was marked by serious reverence and a complete lack of any unnecessary showiness. Jesus, who was miles away and had no usual means of getting information, knew that Lazarus was dead and could have easily found the tomb; yet He asked, "Where have you laid him?" He, who could calm the waves of the sea with just a word, could have miraculously removed the stone that sealed the entrance to the tomb; instead, He said, "Take away the stone." He, who could bring the spirit and body back together, could have loosened the wrappings binding the revived Lazarus without any physical effort; yet He instructed, "Loose him, and let him go." Everything humanly possible was left to man. In no instance do we see Christ unnecessarily using His divine powers; His divine energy was never squandered; even the material results from its application were preserved, as shown by His instructions about gathering the leftovers of bread and fish after the miraculous feeding of the crowds.[1028]
The raising of Lazarus stands as the third recorded instance of restoration to life by Jesus.[1029] In each the miracle[Pg 496] resulted in a resumption of mortal existence, and was in no sense a resurrection from death to immortality. In the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the spirit was recalled to its tenement within the hour of its quitting; the raising of the widow's son is an instance of restoration when the corpse was ready for the grave; the crowning miracle of the three was the calling of a spirit to reenter its body days after death, and when, by natural processes the corpse would be already in the early stages of decomposition. Lazarus was raised from the dead, not simply to assuage the grief of mourning relatives; myriads have had to mourn over death, and so myriads more shall have to do. One of the Lord's purposes was that of demonstrating the actuality of the power of God as shown forth in the works of Jesus the Christ, and Lazarus was the accepted subject of the manifestation; just as the man afflicted with congenital blindness had been chosen to be the one through whom "the works of God should be made manifest."[1030]
The raising of Lazarus is the third recorded instance of Jesus bringing someone back to life.[1029] In each case, the miracle resulted in a return to normal life, and it wasn't a resurrection to immortality. In the case of Jairus's daughter, her spirit was brought back within an hour of leaving her body; the raising of the widow's son happened just as he was about to be buried; and the most remarkable of the three was when Jesus called Lazarus's spirit to return to his body days after he had died, at a point when the body would have started to decompose. Lazarus was raised not just to ease the sorrow of those who mourned him; many have mourned the death of loved ones, and many more will continue to do so. One of the reasons the Lord performed this miracle was to show the true power of God as demonstrated through the works of Jesus the Christ, with Lazarus being the chosen example; similar to how the man born blind was selected to show that "the works of God should be made manifest."[1030]
That the Lord's act of restoring Lazarus to life was of effect in testifying to His Messiahship is explicitly stated.[1031] All the circumstances leading up to final culmination in the miracle contributed to its attestation. No question as to the actual death of Lazarus could be raised, for his demise had been witnessed, his body had been prepared and buried in the usual way, and he had lain in the grave four days. At the tomb, when he was called forth, there were many witnesses, some of them prominent Jews, many of whom were unfriendly to Jesus and who would have readily denied the miracle had they been able. God was glorified and the divinity of the Son of Man was vindicated in the result.
That the Lord's act of bringing Lazarus back to life clearly demonstrated His role as the Messiah is stated outright.[1031] All the events leading up to this miracle contributed to its significance. There was no doubt about Lazarus's actual death; he had been seen dead, his body had been prepared and buried in the usual way, and he had been in the tomb for four days. At the tomb, when he was called out, there were many witnesses, including some prominent Jews, many of whom were opposed to Jesus and would have easily denied the miracle if they could have. God was glorified, and the divinity of the Son of Man was confirmed by the outcome.
THE HIERARCHY GREATLY AGITATED OVER THE MIRACLE.[1032]
As in connection with most of our Lord's public acts—while some of those who heard and saw were brought to[Pg 497] believe in Him, others rejected the proffered lesson and reviled the Master—so with this mighty work—some were stirred to faith and others went their ways each with mind darkened and spirit more malignant than ever. Some of those who had seen the dead man raised to life went immediately and reported the matter to the rulers, whom they knew to be intensely hostile toward Jesus. In the parable we have recently studied, the spirit of the rich man pleaded from his place of anguish that Lazarus, the once pitiable beggar, be sent from paradise to earth, to warn others of the fate awaiting the wicked, to which appeal Abraham replied: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."[1033] Now a Lazarus had been in reality raised from the dead, and many of the Jews rejected the testimony of his return and refused to believe in Christ through whom alone death is overcome. The Jews tried to get Lazarus into their power that they might kill him and, as they hoped, silence forever his testimony of the Lord's power over death.[1034]
As with most of our Lord's public actions—while some of those who heard and saw were led to believe in Him, others dismissed the lesson and insulted the Master—so it was with this amazing event. Some were stirred to faith, while others went on their way, their minds darkened and their spirits more malicious than before. Some of those who had witnessed the dead man being brought back to life immediately went and reported the incident to the authorities, who they knew were deeply hostile towards Jesus. In the parable we recently explored, the spirit of the rich man pleaded from his place of torment that Lazarus, the formerly pitiable beggar, be sent from paradise to earth to warn others of the fate awaiting the wicked. To this, Abraham replied: "If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Now Lazarus had actually been raised from the dead, and many of the Jews rejected the evidence of his return and refused to believe in Christ, the one through whom death is defeated. The Jews tried to seize Lazarus so they could kill him and, as they hoped, silence his testimony about the Lord's power over death.
The chief priests, who were mostly Sadducees, and the Pharisees with them assembled in council to consider the situation created by this latest of our Lord's great works. The question they discussed was: "What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." As stated by themselves, there was no denying the fact of the many miracles wrought by Jesus; but instead of earnestly and prayerfully investigating as to whether these mighty works were not among the predicted characteristics of the Messiah, they thought only of the possible effect of Christ's influence in alienating the people from the established theocracy, and of the fear that the Romans, taking advantage of the situation,[Pg 498] would deprive the hierarchs of their "place" and take from the nation what little semblance of distinct autonomy it still possessed. Caiaphas, the high priest,[1035] cut short the discussion by saying: "Ye know nothing at all." This sweeping assertion of ignorance was most likely addressed to the Pharisees of the Sanhedrin; Caiaphas was a Sadducee. His next utterance was of greater significance than he realized: "Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." John solemnly avers that Caiaphas spake not of himself, but by the spirit of prophecy, which, in spite of his implied unworthiness, came upon him by virtue of his office, and that thus: "He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." But a few years after Christ had been put to death, for the salvation of the Jews and of all other nations, the very calamities which Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin had hoped to avert befell in full measure; the hierarchy was overthrown, the temple destroyed, Jerusalem demolished and the nation disrupted. From the day of that memorable session of the Sanhedrin, the rulers increased their efforts to bring about the death of Jesus, by whatever means they might find available. They issued a mandate that whosoever knew of His whereabouts should give the information to the officials, that they might promptly take Him into custody.[1036]
The chief priests, mostly Sadducees, and the Pharisees gathered in council to discuss the situation created by the latest of our Lord's great works. They asked, "What should we do? This man performs many miracles. If we let him be, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come take away our place and nation." They acknowledged the many miracles Jesus had performed, but instead of seriously and prayerfully considering whether these mighty works were signs of the Messiah, they focused solely on how Christ's influence could lead people away from the established theocracy, fearing that the Romans would take advantage of the situation and strip the hierarchs of their "place" and the nation of its remaining semblance of autonomy. Caiaphas, the high priest, interrupted the discussion by saying, "You know nothing at all." This blunt statement of ignorance was likely directed at the Pharisees; Caiaphas was a Sadducee. His next statement carried more weight than he realized: "Nor consider that it is better for us that one man die for the people, so that the whole nation doesn’t perish." John solemnly asserts that Caiaphas spoke not from his own wisdom but by the spirit of prophecy, which, despite his unworthiness, came upon him because of his position, and thus: "He prophesied that Jesus would die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but also that he would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad." Just a few years after Christ was put to death for the salvation of the Jews and all other nations, the very disasters Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin had hoped to avoid came to pass in full measure; the hierarchy was overthrown, the temple destroyed, Jerusalem demolished, and the nation disrupted. From the day of that significant Sanhedrin meeting, the rulers intensified their efforts to arrange for Jesus' death by any means necessary. They issued a directive that anyone who knew his whereabouts should inform the authorities so they could take him into custody.
JESUS IN RETIREMENT AT EPHRAIM.[1037]
The hostility of the ecclesiastical rulers became so great that Jesus once more sought retirement in a region sufficiently far from Jerusalem to afford Him security from the[Pg 499] watchful and malignant eyes of His powerful and openly avowed enemies. But a few weeks of mortal life remained to Him, and the greater part of this brief period had to be devoted to the further instruction of the apostles. He prudently withdrew from the vicinity of Bethany and "went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples." Thus did our Lord spend the rest of the winter and probably the early days of the succeeding spring. That His retreat was private if not practically secret is suggested by John's statement that "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews"; and further indication is found in the fact that although the chief priests and Pharisees had virtually set a price upon His head, no man gave information as to His whereabouts. The place of this last retirement is not definitely known; it is generally thought to be the locality elsewhere called Ephrain and Ephron,[1038] which lay a little less than twenty miles northerly from Jerusalem. Equally uncertain is the duration of our Lord's abode there. When He emerged again into public notice, it was to enter upon His solemn march toward Jerusalem and the cross.
The hostility of the church leaders grew so intense that Jesus sought solitude in a location far enough from Jerusalem to keep Him safe from the[Pg 499] watchful and hostile eyes of His powerful and openly declared enemies. Only a few weeks of His life remained, and most of that time had to be dedicated to further teaching the apostles. He wisely moved away from Bethany and "went to a region near the wilderness, to a city called Ephraim, and there stayed with His disciples." This is how our Lord spent the rest of the winter and likely the early days of the following spring. His retreat was private, if not almost secret, as shown by John's statement that "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews"; further evidence is in the fact that despite the chief priests and Pharisees putting a bounty on His head, no one revealed where He was. The exact location of this last retreat is unknown; it is generally believed to be the area also referred to as Ephrain and Ephron,[1038] which was located just under twenty miles north of Jerusalem. The length of our Lord's stay there is equally uncertain. When He returned to public life, it was to begin His solemn journey toward Jerusalem and the cross.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 28.
1. Origin of the Feast of Dedication.—Concerning the second temple, known as the Temple of Zerubbabel, the author has written elsewhere: "Of the later history of this temple the biblical record gives but few details; but from other sources we learn of its vicissitudes. In connection with the Maccabean persecution the House of the Lord was profaned. A Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, captured Jerusalem (168 to 165 B.C.) and perpetrated blasphemous outrage against the religion of the people. He plundered the temple and carried away its golden candlestick, its golden altar of incense, its table of shewbread, and even tore down the sacred veils, which were of fine linen and scarlet. His malignity was carried so far that he purposely desecrated the altar of sacrifice by offering swine thereon, and erected a heathen altar within the sacred enclosure. Not content with the violation of the temple, this wicked monarch had altars erected in the towns, and ordered the offering of unclean beasts upon[Pg 500] them. The rite of circumcision was forbidden on pain of death, and the worship of Jehovah was declared a crime. As a result of this persecution many of the Jews apostatized, and declared that they belonged to the Medes and Persians—the nations from whose dominion they had been delivered by the power of God.... Then in the year 163 B.C. the House was rededicated; and the occasion was remembered in annual festival thereafter under the name of the Feast of Dedication."—The House of the Lord, pp. 51-53. According to Josephus (Ant. xii, 7:7) the festival came to be known as The Lights; and brilliant illumination both of the temple and of dwellings, was a feature of the celebration. Traditional accounts say that eight days had been set as the duration of the feast, in commemoration of a legendary miracle by which the consecrated oil in the only jar found intact, and bearing the unbroken seal of the high priest, had been made to serve for temple purposes through eight days, which time was required for the ceremonial preparation of a new supply.
1. Origin of the Feast of Dedication.—Regarding the second temple, known as the Temple of Zerubbabel, the author has stated elsewhere: "The biblical record provides only a few details about the later history of this temple; however, we learn about its challenges from other sources. During the Maccabean persecution, the House of the Lord was desecrated. A Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, took control of Jerusalem (168 to 165 B.C.) and committed blasphemous acts against the people's religion. He looted the temple and took away its golden candlestick, its golden altar of incense, its table of shewbread, and even destroyed the sacred veils, which were made from fine linen and scarlet. His cruelty went so far that he intentionally defiled the altar of sacrifice by offering pigs on it and built a pagan altar within the sacred area. Not satisfied with violating the temple, this evil king ordered altars to be erected in towns and commanded the offering of unclean animals on them. The rite of circumcision was banned under the threat of death, and worshiping Jehovah was declared a crime. As a result of this persecution, many Jews turned away from their faith and claimed to belong to the Medes and Persians—the nations from which they had been freed by God's power.... Then in 163 B.C., the House was rededicated; and this event was celebrated annually thereafter as the Feast of Dedication."—The House of the Lord, pp. 51-53. According to Josephus (Ant. xii, 7:7), the festival became known as The Lights; and dazzling illumination of both the temple and homes was a significant part of the celebration. Traditional accounts state that the feast lasted eight days, commemorating a legendary miracle where the consecrated oil in the only jar found intact, bearing the unbroken seal of the high priest, lasted for eight days, which was the time needed to prepare a new supply.
3. The Oneness of Christ and the Father.—The revised version gives for John 10:30: "I and the Father are one" instead of "I and my Father are one." By "the Father" the Jews rightly understood the Eternal Father, God. In the original Greek "one" appears in the neuter gender, and therefore expresses oneness in attributes, power, or purpose, and not a oneness of personality which would have required the masculine form. For treatment of the unity of the Godhead, and the separate personality of each Member, see Articles of Faith, ii, 20-24.
3. The Oneness of Christ and the Father.—The updated version for John 10:30 states, "I and the Father are one" instead of "I and my Father are one." The Jews correctly interpreted "the Father" as referring to the Eternal Father, God. In the original Greek, "one" is in the neuter gender, which conveys oneness in attributes, power, or purpose, rather than a oneness of personality that would have needed the masculine form. For a discussion on the unity of the Godhead and the distinct personality of each Member, see Articles of Faith, ii, 20-24.
4. The Place of our Lord's Retirement.—Jesus went "beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized" (John 10:40). This was probably Bethabara (1:28), which is called Bethany in some of the earliest manuscripts and is so designated in the latest revised version. Care must be taken not to confuse this Perean Bethany with the Bethany in Judea, the home of Martha and Mary, which was within two miles of Jerusalem.
4. The Place of our Lord's Retirement.—Jesus went "beyond Jordan into the place where John first baptized" (John 10:40). This was likely Bethabara (1:28), which is referred to as Bethany in some of the earliest manuscripts and is labeled that way in the latest revised version. It's important not to confuse this Perean Bethany with the Bethany in Judea, the home of Martha and Mary, which was just two miles from Jerusalem.
5. Lazarus in the Tomb Four Days.—On the very probable assumption that the journey from Bethany in Judea to the place where Jesus was, in Perea, would require one day, Lazarus must have died on the day of the messenger's departure; for this day and the two days that elapsed before Jesus started toward Judea, and the day required for the return, would no more than cover the four days specified. It was and still is the custom in Palestine as in other oriental countries to bury on the day of death.
5. Lazarus in the Tomb Four Days.—Assuming it took a day to travel from Bethany in Judea to where Jesus was in Perea, Lazarus must have died on the day the messenger left. The day of death, the two days before Jesus began His journey to Judea, and the day needed for the return add up to the four days mentioned. It's still customary in Palestine, as in other Eastern countries, to bury someone on the same day they die.
It was the popular belief that on the fourth day after death the spirit had finally departed from the vicinity of the corpse, and that thereafter decomposition proceeded unhindered. This may explain Martha's impulsive though gentle objection to having the tomb of her brother opened four days after his death[Pg 501] (John 11:39). It is possible that the consent of the next of kin was required for the lawful opening of a grave. Both Martha and Mary were present, and in the presence of many witnesses assented to the opening of the tomb in which their brother lay.
It was commonly believed that on the fourth day after death, the spirit had finally left the area around the body, and that from then on, decomposition happened freely. This might explain Martha's sudden but gentle objection to opening her brother's tomb four days after he passed away[Pg 501] (John 11:39). It's possible that the approval of the next of kin was needed to legally open a grave. Both Martha and Mary were there, and with many witnesses around, they agreed to the opening of the tomb where their brother rested.
6. Jesus Groaned in Spirit.—The marginal readings for "he groaned in the spirit" (John 11:33) and "again groaning in himself" (v. 38), as given in the revised version, are "was moved with indignation in the spirit" and "being moved with indignation in himself." All philological authorities agree that the words in the original Greek express sorrowful indignation, or as some aver, anger, and not alone a sympathetic emotion of grief. Any indignation the Lord may have felt, as intimated in verse 33, may be attributed to disapproval of the customary wailing over death, which as vented by the Jews on this occasion, profaned the real and soulful grief of Martha and Mary; and His indignation, expressed by groaning as mentioned in verse 38, may have been due to the carping criticism uttered by some of the Jews as recorded in verse 37.
6. Jesus Groaned in Spirit.—The alternate translations for "he groaned in the spirit" (John 11:33) and "again groaning in himself" (v. 38), as noted in the revised version, are "was moved with indignation in the spirit" and "being moved with indignation in himself." All linguistic experts agree that the words in the original Greek convey sorrowful indignation, or as some suggest, anger, rather than just a sympathetic feeling of grief. Any indignation the Lord might have felt, as hinted in verse 33, could be attributed to disapproval of the customary mourning practices over death, which, as expressed by the Jews on this occasion, tarnished the genuine and heartfelt grief of Martha and Mary; and His indignation, shown by groaning as mentioned in verse 38, might have been provoked by the critical comments made by some of the Jews as recorded in verse 37.
7. Caiaphas, High Priest that Year.—John's statement that Caiaphas was high priest "that same year" must not be construed as meaning that the office of high priest was of a single year's tenure. Under Jewish law the presiding priest, who was known as the high priest, would remain in office indefinitely; but the Roman government had arrogated to itself the appointive power as applying to this office; and frequent changes were made. This Caiaphas, whose full name was Josephus Caiaphas, was high priest under Roman appointment during a period of eleven years. To such appointments the Jews had to submit, though they often recognized as the high priest under their law, some other than the "civil high priest" appointed by Roman authority. Thus we find both Annas and Caiaphas exercizing the authority of the office at the time of our Lord's arrest and later. (John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6; compare Luke 3:2.) Farrar (p. 484, note) says: "Some have seen an open irony in the expression of St. John (11:49) that Caiaphas was high priest 'that same year,' as though the Jews had got into this contemptuous way of speaking during the rapid succession of priests—mere phantoms set up and displaced by the Roman fiat—who had in recent years succeeded each other. There must have been at least five living high priests, and ex-high priests at this council—Annas, Ismael Ben Phabi, Eleazar Ben Haman, Simon Ben Kamhith, and Caiaphas, who had gained his elevation by bribery."
7. Caiaphas, High Priest that Year.—John's remark that Caiaphas was high priest "that same year" shouldn't be interpreted to mean that the position of high priest was only for one year. According to Jewish law, the high priest would usually stay in office indefinitely; however, the Roman government took control of appointing this position, leading to frequent changes. This Caiaphas, whose full name was Josephus Caiaphas, served as high priest under Roman appointment for eleven years. The Jews had to accept these appointments, even though they often recognized someone else as high priest according to their laws, besides the "civil high priest" appointed by Rome. Thus, we see both Annas and Caiaphas holding authority at the time of our Lord's arrest and afterward. (John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6; compare Luke 3:2.) Farrar (p. 484, note) mentions: "Some have noted an obvious irony in St. John's expression (11:49) that Caiaphas was high priest 'that same year,' as if the Jews had developed this dismissive way of speaking due to the rapid turnover of priests—mere figures set up and removed by Roman orders—who had recently taken office. There must have been at least five living high priests and ex-high priests at this council—Annas, Ismael Ben Phabi, Eleazar Ben Haman, Simon Ben Kamhith, and Caiaphas, who achieved his position through bribery."
8. Divinely Appointed Judges Called "gods."—In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called "gods." To this scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon's Porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title "gods." Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Exo. 4:16; 7:1). Jesus Christ possessed divine authorization, not through the word of God transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherent attribute. The inconsistency of calling human judges "gods," and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of God, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds.[Pg 502]
8. Divinely Appointed Judges Called "gods."—In Psalm 82:6, judges appointed by God are referred to as "gods." The Savior referenced this scripture in His response to the Jews in Solomon's Porch. These judges served as representatives of God and are honored with the elevated title "gods." This title is similar to what is said about Moses (Exo. 4:16; 7:1). Jesus Christ had divine authority, not through a message from God delivered by humans, but as an inherent quality. The inconsistency of calling human judges "gods" while accusing Christ of blasphemy for calling Himself the Son of God would have been clear to the Jews if not for their sinful blindness. [Pg 502]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1009] John 10:22-39.
[1018] A better rendering of the last verse is: "But if I do them [i.e. the Father's works], though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."—(Revised version.)
[1018] A clearer version of the last verse is: "But if I perform these works [i.e. the Father's works], even if you don’t believe me, believe the works; so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father."—(Revised version.)
[1019] John 10:40-42.
[1022] John 11:1-46.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 11:1-46.
[1030] John 9:3.
[1031] John 12:9-11, 17.
[1032] John 11:46-54.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 11:46-54.
[1034] John 12:10.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 12:10.
[1036] John 11:57.
[1037] John 11:54.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 11:54.
[1038] 2 Chron. 13:19; Josh. 15:9.
CHAPTER 29.
ON TO JERUSALEM.
JESUS AGAIN FORTELLS HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION.[1039]
Each of the three synoptic writers has made record of this last journey to Jerusalem and of occurrences connected therewith. The deep solemnity of the developments now so near at hand, and of the fate He was setting out to meet so affected Jesus that even the apostles were amazed at His absorption and evident sadness; they fell behind in amazement and fear. Then He paused, called the Twelve about Him, and in language of absolute plainness, without metaphor or simile, He said: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again."
Each of the three gospel writers recorded this final journey to Jerusalem and the events surrounding it. The serious nature of what was about to happen and the fate He was about to face affected Jesus so deeply that even the apostles were struck by His intense focus and clear sadness; they fell back in amazement and fear. Then He stopped, gathered the Twelve around Him, and spoke in straightforward language, without any metaphors or comparisons, saying: "Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that the prophets wrote about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles, mocked, treated with contempt, and spat on. They will whip Him and kill Him, but on the third day, He will rise again."
It is to us an astounding fact that the Twelve failed to comprehend His meaning; yet Luke unqualifiedly affirms: "And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." This avouchment of the Savior's approaching death and resurrection spoken in confidential certainty to the Twelve was the third of its kind; and still they could not bring themselves to accept the awful truth.[1040] According to Matthew's account, they were told of the very manner by which the Lord should die—that the Gentiles should crucify Him; yet they understood not. To them there was some[Pg 503] dreadful incongruity, some dire inconsistency or inexplicable contradiction in the sayings of their beloved Master. They knew Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God; and how could such a One be brought into subjection and be slain? They could not fail to realize that some unprecedented development in His life was impending; this they may have vaguely conceived to be the crisis for which they had been waiting, the open proclamation of His Messianic dignity, His enthronement as Lord and King. And such indeed was to be, though in a manner far different from their anticipations. The culminating prediction—that on the third day He would rise again—seems to have puzzled them the most; and, at the same time, this assurance of ultimate triumph may have made all intermediate occurrences appear as of but secondary and transitory import. They persistently repelled the thought that they were following their Lord to the cross and the sepulchre.
It’s astonishing to us that the Twelve didn’t understand His meaning; yet Luke clearly states: "And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." This declaration of the Savior's coming death and resurrection, spoken privately to the Twelve, was the third of its kind; yet they still couldn’t accept the harsh truth.[1040] According to Matthew's account, they were told exactly how the Lord would die—that the Gentiles would crucify Him; yet they didn’t understand. To them, there was a terrible contradiction, some dire inconsistency in the words of their beloved Master. They recognized Him as the Christ, the Son of the living God; and how could someone like that be brought down and killed? They had to sense that something unprecedented was about to happen in His life; they may have vaguely thought it was the moment they had been waiting for, the open announcement of His Messianic glory, His elevation as Lord and King. And indeed, that was to occur, although in a way completely different from what they expected. The final prediction—that on the third day He would rise again—seems to have confused them the most; and at the same time, this promise of ultimate victory may have made everything that happened in between seem of secondary importance. They continually rejected the idea that they were following their Lord to the cross and the grave.
THE QUESTION OF PRECEDENCE AGAIN.[1041]
Notwithstanding all the instructions the apostles had received concerning humility, and though they had before them the supreme example of the Master's life and conduct, in which the fact that service was the only measure of true greatness was abundantly demonstrated, they continued to dream of rank and honor in the kingdom of the Messiah. Perhaps because of the imminence of the Master's triumph, with which they all were particularly impressed at this time though ignorant of its real significance, certain of the Twelve appealed to the Lord in the course of this journey with a most ambitious request. The petitioners were James and John, though according to Matthew's record their mother[1042] was the first to ask. The request was that when Jesus came into possession of His kingdom, He would so signally honor[Pg 504] the aspiring pair as to install them in seats of eminence, one on His right hand, the other on His left. Instead of sharply rebuking such presumption, Jesus gently but impressively asked: "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" The answer was full of self-confidence inspired by ignorant misapprehension. "We are able," they replied. Then said Jesus: "Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."
Despite all the teachings the apostles had received about humility, and even though they had the ultimate example of the Master's life showing that true greatness was measured by service, they continued to aspire for status and recognition in the Messiah's kingdom. Perhaps due to the approaching triumph of the Master, which left a strong impression on them at this time—though they were unaware of its true significance—some of the Twelve made an ambitious request to the Lord during this journey. The request came from James and John, although according to Matthew, their mother[1042] made the first appeal. They asked that when Jesus came into His kingdom, He would honor them by placing one at His right hand and the other at His left. Instead of firmly rebuking their presumption, Jesus gently but seriously asked, "Are you able to drink the cup that I am going to drink and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" Their answer was filled with overconfidence born from misunderstanding. "We are able," they replied. Jesus then said, "You will indeed drink from my cup and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with; but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. Those places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."
The ten apostles were indignant at the two brothers, possibly less through disapproval of the spirit that had prompted the petition than because the two had forestalled the others in applying for the chief posts of distinction. But Jesus, patiently tolerant of their human weaknesses, drew the Twelve around Him, and taught them as a loving father might instruct and admonish his contentious children. He showed them how earthly rulers, such as princes among the Gentiles, domineer over their subjects, manifesting lordship and arbitrarily exercizing the authority of office. But it was not to be so among the Master's servants; whoever of them would be great must be a servant indeed, willingly ministering unto his fellows; the humblest and most willing servant would be the chief of the servants. "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."[1043]
The ten apostles were upset with the two brothers, perhaps not so much because they disagreed with the request but because the brothers beat them to the punch in asking for the top positions. However, Jesus, patiently accepting their human flaws, gathered the Twelve around Him and taught them like a caring father would guide his argumentative children. He pointed out how earthly leaders, like kings among the Gentiles, control their subjects, showing off their authority and exercising power in a domineering way. But that wasn’t how it was supposed to be among His followers; anyone who wanted to be great needed to be a true servant, gladly helping others. The one who serves the most humbly and willingly would be the greatest of all. "For even the Son of Man didn’t come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."[1043]
SIGHT RESTORED TO THE BLIND NEAR JERICHO.[1044]
In the course of His journey Jesus came to Jericho, at or near which city He again exerted His wondrous power in opening the eyes of the blind. Matthew states that two[Pg 505] sightless men were made to see, and that the miracle was enacted as Jesus was leaving Jericho; Mark mentions but one blind man, whom he names Bartimeus or the son of Timeus, and agrees with Matthew in saying that the healing was effected when Jesus was departing from the city; Luke specifies but one subject of the Lord's healing mercy, "a certain blind man," and chronicles the miracle as an incident of Christ's approach to Jericho. These slight variations attest the independent authorship of each of the records, and the apparent discrepancies have no direct bearing upon the main facts, nor do they detract from the instructional value of the Lord's work. As we have found to be the case on an earlier occasion, two men were mentioned though but one figures in the circumstantial accounts.[1045]
As Jesus traveled, He arrived in Jericho, where He again demonstrated His incredible power by healing the blind. Matthew notes that two blind men were given their sight, and this miracle took place as Jesus was leaving Jericho. Mark mentions only one blind man, named Bartimeus, the son of Timeus, and also states that the healing occurred as Jesus was departing the city. Luke refers to just one recipient of Jesus' healing, describing "a certain blind man," and places the miracle as Jesus was approaching Jericho. These small differences show that each account was written independently, and the apparent contradictions do not affect the main facts or lessen the significance of Jesus' work. As we've seen before, there are instances where two men are mentioned, even if only one is detailed in the accounts.
The man who is more particularly mentioned, Bartimeus, sat by the wayside, asking alms. Jesus approached, accompanied by the apostles, many other disciples, and a great multitude of people, probably made up largely of travelers on their way to Jerusalem to attend the Passover festival, the time for which was about a week ahead. Hearing the tramp of so great a company the sightless beggar inquired what it all meant, and was answered, "Jesus of Nazareth passeth by." Eager lest the opportunity of gaining the Master's attention be lost, he immediately cried in a loud voice: "Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me." His appeal, and particularly his use of the title, Son of David, show that he knew of the great Teacher, had confidence in His power to heal and faith in Him as the promised King and Deliverer of Israel.[1046] Those who were in advance of Jesus in the company tried to silence the man, but the more they rebuked him the louder and more persistently did he cry: "Thou son of David, have mercy on me." Jesus halted in His course and directed that the man be brought[Pg 506] to Him. Those who but a moment before would have stopped the blind man's yearning appeal, now that the Master had noticed him were eager to be of service. To the sightless one they brought the glad word: "Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee"; and he, casting aside his outer garment lest it hinder, came in haste to Christ. To the Lord's question, "What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee?" Bartimeus answered: "Lord, that I may receive my sight." Then Jesus spake the simple words of power and blessing: "Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee." The man, full of gratitude and knowing that nothing short of divine interposition could have opened his eyes, followed his Benefactor, glorifying God in heartfelt prayers of thanksgiving, in which many of those who had witnessed the miracle fervently joined.
The man specifically mentioned, Bartimeus, sat by the roadside, asking for money. Jesus approached, along with his apostles, many other followers, and a large crowd, likely made up mostly of travelers on their way to Jerusalem for the Passover festival, which was about a week away. Hearing the sound of such a big crowd, the blind beggar asked what was happening and was told, "Jesus of Nazareth is passing by." Eager not to miss the chance to get the Master's attention, he immediately shouted, "Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me." His cry, especially his use of the title Son of David, showed that he knew about the great Teacher, believed in His healing power, and had faith in Him as the promised King and Savior of Israel.[1046] Those who were in front of Jesus tried to silence him, but the more they told him to be quiet, the louder and more insistently he shouted, "Son of David, have mercy on me." Jesus stopped and ordered that the man be brought to Him. Those who had just tried to quiet the blind man's desperate call were now eager to help since the Master had noticed him. They brought him the joyful news: "Take heart, get up; He’s calling you"; and he, throwing aside his outer coat so it wouldn't get in the way, hurried to Christ. When the Lord asked, "What do you want me to do for you?" Bartimeus replied, "Lord, I want to see." Then Jesus spoke the simple words of power and blessing: "Receive your sight; your faith has saved you." The man, full of gratitude and knowing that only a divine intervention could have restored his sight, followed his Benefactor, praising God in heartfelt prayers of thanks, joined by many who had seen the miracle.
ZACCHEUS, THE CHIEF AMONG THE PUBLICANS.[1047]
Jericho was a city of considerable importance; among its resident officials was a staff of publicans, or collectors of customs, and of these the chief was Zaccheus,[1048] who had grown rich from the revenues of office. He had doubtless heard of the great Galilean who hesitated not to mingle with publicans, detested though they were by the Jews in general; he may have known, also, that Jesus had placed one of this publican class among the most prominent of the disciples. That Zaccheus was a Jew is indicated by his name, which is a variant of "Zacharias," with a Greek or Latin termination; he must have been particularly obnoxious to his people on account of his advanced status among the publicans, all of whom were in Roman employ. He had a great desire to see Jesus; the feeling was not one of mere curiosity; he had been impressed and set thinking by the things he had heard about this Teacher from Nazareth. But[Pg 507] Zaccheus was a little man, and could not ordinarily see over the heads of others; so he ran ahead of the company and climbed a tree alongside the road. When Jesus reached the place, to the great surprize of the man in the tree He looked up and said: "Zaccheus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house." Zaccheus came down with haste, and joyfully received the Lord as his guest. The multitude by whom Jesus had been accompanied appear to have been generally friendly toward Him; but at this turn of affairs they murmured and criticized, saying that the Master "was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner"; for all publicans were sinners in Jewish eyes, and Zaccheus admitted that the opprobrium in his case was possibly deserved. But having seen and conversed with Jesus, this chief among the publicans believed and was converted. As proof of his change of heart Zaccheus then and there voluntarily vowed unto the Lord to make amends and restitution if it were found that he owed such. "Behold, Lord," he said, "the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." These were works meet for repentance. The man realized that he could not change his past; but he knew he could in part at least atone for some of his misdeeds. His pledge to restore in fourfold measure whatever he had wrongfully acquired was in line with the Mosaic law as to restitution, but far in excess of the recompense required.[1049] Jesus accepted the man's profession of repentance, and said: "This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham." Another stray sheep had been returned to the fold; another lost treasure had been found; another wayward son had come back to the Father's house.[1050] "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."
Jericho was an important city, and among its officials was a team of tax collectors, with Zaccheus as the chief. He had become wealthy from his position. He likely had heard about the great Galilean who was known for associating with tax collectors, even though they were generally hated by the Jews. He might also have known that Jesus had chosen one of these tax collectors to be one of his most significant disciples. Zaccheus was a Jew, as indicated by his name, a variant of "Zacharias," with a Greek or Latin ending. His high position among the tax collectors, all of whom worked for the Romans, made him particularly disliked by his fellow Jews. He had a strong desire to see Jesus; it wasn’t just curiosity, as he had been moved and made to think by what he had heard about this Teacher from Nazareth. But Zaccheus was short and couldn’t see over the crowd, so he ran ahead and climbed a tree by the road. When Jesus reached that spot, to Zaccheus’s astonishment, He looked up and said, "Zaccheus, hurry and come down; for today I must stay at your house." Zaccheus quickly came down and welcomed Jesus joyfully as his guest. The crowd that had been following Jesus seemed to generally support Him; however, they began to grumble and criticize when they saw Him go with someone they labeled "a sinner," since all tax collectors were viewed as sinners by the Jews, and Zaccheus knew that the criticism in his case was probably justified. But after meeting and talking with Jesus, this chief tax collector believed and was transformed. To show his change of heart, Zaccheus promised the Lord he would make repairs and restitution if he owed anyone anything. "Look, Lord," he said, "I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I’ve taken anything from anyone through false accusation, I will repay them four times the amount." These were deeds fitting for repentance. Zaccheus understood he could not change his past, but he realized he could at least make amends for some of his wrongs. His promise to repay fourfold for what he had wrongfully taken aligned with the Mosaic law about restitution but exceeded the required repayment. Jesus accepted Zaccheus’s declaration of repentance and said, "Salvation has come to this house today, since he is also a son of Abraham." Another lost soul had been brought back; another treasure had been found; another wayward son had returned to the Father’s home. "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost."
UNTO EVERY ONE THAT HATH SHALL BE GIVEN.[1051]
As the multitude approached Jerusalem, Jesus being in their midst, expectation ran high as to what the Lord would do when He reached the capital of the nation. Many of those with Him were looking for a proclamation of His royal authority and "they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear." Jesus told them a story; we call it the Parable of the Pounds:
As the crowd got closer to Jerusalem, with Jesus in the middle of them, everyone was eager to see what He would do when He arrived in the capital. Many people with Him were hoping for a declaration of His royal authority and "they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately show up." Jesus shared a story with them; we call it the Parable of the Pounds:
"A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be[Pg 509] given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
A certain nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself and then return. He called his ten servants, gave them ten pounds, and said to them, "Put this money to work until I get back." But his citizens hated him and sent a message after him, saying, "We don’t want this man to be our king." When he returned, having received the kingdom, he commanded these servants to be brought to him so he could find out how much each one had earned by trading. The first servant came in and said, "Master, your pound has earned ten pounds." The nobleman replied, "Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very small matter, you will be in charge of ten cities." The second servant came and said, "Master, your pound has earned five pounds." He said to him, "You will be in charge of five cities." Another servant came and said, "Master, here is your pound; I kept it safe in a cloth because I was afraid of you. You are a hard man; you take what you didn’t lay down and reap what you didn’t sow." The nobleman answered, "I will judge you by your own words, you worthless servant. You knew that I was a hard man, taking what I didn't lay down and reaping what I didn’t sow. Why didn’t you put my money in the bank, so when I returned, I could have collected it with interest?" Then he said to those standing by, "Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds." They replied, "But master, he has ten pounds!" He responded, "I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given; but from the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. And as for those enemies of mine who didn’t want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."
Both the circumstances of the story and the application of the parable were more readily apparent to the Jewish multitude than they are to us. The departure of a certain nobleman from a vassal province to the court of the suzerain to seek investiture of kingly authority, and the protest of the citizens over whom he asserted the right to reign, were incidents of Jewish history still fresh in the minds of the people to whom Christ spoke.[1052] The explication of the parable is this: The people were not to look for an immediate establishment of the kingdom in temporal power. He who would be king was pictured as having departed for a far country from which he would assuredly return. Before leaving he had given to each of his servants a definite sum of money; and by their success in using this he would judge of their fitness to serve in offices of trust. When he returned he called for an accounting, in the course of which the cases of three servants are specified as types. One had so used the pound as to gain ten pounds; he was commended and received a reward such as only a sovereign could give, the governorship of ten cities. The second servant, with equal capital had increased it only five fold; he was properly rewarded in proportion by appointment as governor over five cities. The third gave back what he had received, without increase, for he had failed to use it. He had no reason and only a very poor excuse to offer for his dereliction. In justice he was severely reprimanded, and the money was taken from him. When the king directed that the pound so forfeited by the unfaithful servant be given to him who already had ten, some surprize was manifest amongst those who stood by; but the king explained, that "unto every one that[Pg 510] hath shall be given," for such a one uses to advantage the means entrusted to his care, while "from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him"; for he has demonstrated his utter unfitness to possess and use aright. This part of the parable, while of general application, must have appealed to the apostles as particularly apt; for each of them had received in trust an equal endowment through ordination, and each would be required to account for his administration.
Both the story's context and the meaning of the parable were clearer to the Jewish crowd than they are to us today. The departure of a nobleman from a subordinate region to the ruler's court to get kingly authority, along with the citizens' complaints about his claim to leadership, were recent events in Jewish history that were still fresh in the minds of those who heard Christ's words.[1052] The explanation of the parable is this: The people were not supposed to expect an immediate establishment of the kingdom through earthly power. The future king was portrayed as leaving for a distant place, from which he would definitely return. Before leaving, he had given each of his servants a specific amount of money; their success in managing this money would determine their suitability for positions of responsibility. Upon his return, he asked for an accounting, highlighting the cases of three servants as examples. One had successfully turned the pound into ten pounds; he was praised and rewarded with something only a king could grant—the governorship of ten cities. The second servant, with the same initial amount, had only increased it five times; he was fairly rewarded and appointed as governor over five cities. The third servant returned the original amount without any gain because he had failed to utilize it. He had no valid reason and only a weak excuse for his negligence. As punishment, he was sternly reprimanded, and his money was taken away. When the king ordered that the money taken from the unfaithful servant be given to the one who already had ten, those who were present were surprised. However, the king clarified that "to everyone who has, more will be given," since such individuals effectively use the resources entrusted to them, while "from those who have not, even what they do have will be taken away," as they have shown they cannot properly possess or use their resources. This part of the parable, while generally applicable, likely resonated particularly well with the apostles; they had all received the same equal gifts through ordination and would each be held accountable for how they managed them.
The fact is apparent that Christ was the nobleman who was to be invested with the authority of kingship, and who would return to require the accounting at the hands of His trusted servants.[1053] But many of the citizens hated Him and would protest His investiture, saying they would not have Him to reign over them.[1054] When He does return in power and authority, these rebellious citizens shall surely receive the punishment they deserve.[1055]
It's clear that Christ was the nobleman who was set to receive the power of kingship and would come back to demand an account from His trusted servants.[1053] However, many of the citizens hated Him and protested against His rule, declaring they didn't want Him to be their king.[1054] When He returns with power and authority, those rebellious citizens will definitely face the consequences they deserve.[1055]
IN THE HOUSE OF SIMON THE LEPER.[1056]
Six days before the Feast of the Passover, that is to say before the day on which the paschal lamb was to be eaten,[1057] Jesus arrived at Bethany, the home town of Martha and Mary, and of Lazarus who had recently died and been restored to life. The chronology of events during the last week of our Lord's life supports the generally accepted belief that in this year, the fourteenth day of Nisan, on which the Passover festival began, fell on Thursday; and this being so, the day on which Jesus reached Bethany was the preceding Friday, the eve of the Jewish Sabbath. Jesus fully realized that this Sabbath was the last He would live to see in mortality.[Pg 511] The Gospel-writers have drawn a veil of reverent silence over the events of that day. It appears that Jesus passed His last Sabbath in retirement at Bethany. The journey afoot from Jericho had been no easy walk, for the road ascended to an altitude of nearly three thousand feet, and was withal otherwise a toilsome way.
Six days before the Passover Feast, meaning before the day the lamb would be eaten,[1057] Jesus arrived in Bethany, home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, who had recently died and come back to life. The timeline of events in the last week of Jesus' life supports the widely accepted view that in this year, the fourteenth day of Nisan, when the Passover festival began, was a Thursday; therefore, the day Jesus reached Bethany was the previous Friday, the eve of the Jewish Sabbath. Jesus fully understood that this Sabbath would be the last one He would experience in His earthly life.[Pg 511] The Gospel writers have maintained a respectful silence about what happened that day. It seems that Jesus spent His final Sabbath in solitude at Bethany. The journey on foot from Jericho had not been easy, as the road climbed to nearly three thousand feet in altitude and was a challenging trek overall.
On Saturday,[1058] probably in the evening after the Sabbath had passed, a supper was spread for Jesus and the Twelve in the house of Simon the leper. No other mention of this man, Simon, appears in scripture. If he was living at the time our Lord was entertained in the house known by his name, and if he was present, he must have been previously healed of his leprosy, as otherwise he could not have been allowed within the town, far less to be one of a festal company. It is reasonable to think that the man had once been a victim of leprosy and had come to be currently known as Simon the leper, and that he was one among the many sufferers from this dread disease who had been healed through the Lord's ministrations.
On Saturday,[1058] probably in the evening after the Sabbath was over, a dinner was arranged for Jesus and the Twelve at Simon the leper's house. There’s no other mention of this man, Simon, in the scriptures. If he was alive when our Lord was hosted in his house, and if he was there, he must have been healed of his leprosy beforehand, since otherwise he couldn't have been in town, let alone part of a celebratory gathering. It's reasonable to think that Simon was once a victim of leprosy and was known as Simon the leper, and that he was one of the many people suffering from this terrible disease who had been healed by the Lord's teachings.
Martha was in charge of the supper arrangements on this memorable occasion, and her sister Mary was with her, while Lazarus sat at table with Jesus. Many have assumed that the house of Simon the leper was the family home of the two sisters and Lazarus, in which case it is possible that Simon was the father of the three; but of such relationship we have no proof.[1059] There was no attempt to secure unusual privacy at this supper. Such occasions were customarily marked by the presence of many uninvited lookers-on in that time; and we are not surprized to learn, therefore, that many people were there and that they had come "not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead." Lazarus was a subject of much interest and doubtless of curiosity among the people;[Pg 512] and at the time of his privileged and intimate association with Jesus in Bethany, the chief priests were plotting to put him to death, on account of the effect his restoration had had upon the people, many of whom believed on Jesus because of the miracle.
Martha was in charge of the dinner arrangements for this memorable occasion, and her sister Mary was with her, while Lazarus sat at the table with Jesus. Many people believe that Simon the leper’s house was the family home of the two sisters and Lazarus, so it's possible that Simon was their father; however, we have no proof of this. [1059] There wasn't any effort to ensure special privacy for this dinner. Such occasions typically had many uninvited onlookers at the time, so it’s not surprising to hear that many people were there and that they came “not just for Jesus’ sake, but to see Lazarus too, whom he had raised from the dead.” Lazarus was a topic of great interest and undoubtedly curiosity among the crowd; [Pg 512] and during his close association with Jesus in Bethany, the chief priests were scheming to kill him due to the impact his resurrection had on the people, many of whom came to believe in Jesus because of the miracle.
That supper in Bethany was an event never to be forgotten. Mary, the more contemplative and spiritually minded of the two sisters, she who loved to sit at the feet of Jesus and listen to His words, and who had been commended for having so chosen the one needful thing, which her more practical sister lacked,[1060] brought from among her treasures an alabaster cruse containing a pound of costly spikenard ointment; she broke the sealed flask[1061] and poured its fragrant contents upon the head and feet of her Lord, and wiped His feet with her loosened tresses.[1062] To anoint the head of a guest with ordinary oil was to do him honor; to anoint his feet also was to show unusual and signal regard; but the anointing of head and feet with spikenard, and in such abundance, was an act of reverential homage rarely rendered even to kings.[1063] Mary's act was an expression of adoration; it was the fragrant outwelling of a heart overflowing with worship and affection.
That dinner in Bethany was an unforgettable event. Mary, the more thoughtful and spiritually minded of the two sisters, who loved to sit at Jesus' feet and listen to His words, had been praised for choosing the one necessary thing that her more practical sister did not. She brought out of her treasures an alabaster jar filled with a pound of expensive spikenard ointment; she broke the sealed flask and poured its fragrant contents on the head and feet of her Lord, wiping His feet with her loose hair. To anoint a guest's head with common oil was a way to honor him; to anoint his feet as well was a sign of special regard; but anointing both head and feet with spikenard, and in such abundance, was a gesture of reverential respect rarely bestowed even upon kings. Mary's act was an expression of adoration; it was the fragrant overflow of a heart filled with worship and love.
But this splendid tribute of a devout woman's love was made the cause of disagreeable protest. Judas Iscariot, treasurer of the Twelve, but dishonest, avaricious, and small-souled in character, vented his grumbling complaint, saying: "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?"[1064] His seeming solicitude for the poor was all hypocrisy. He was a thief and lamented that he had not been given the precious ointment to sell, or that[Pg 513] the price had not been turned into the bag of which he was the self-interested custodian. Mary's use of the costly unguent had been so lavish that others beside Judas had let their surprize grow into murmuring; but to him is attributed the distinction of being the chief complainer. Mary's sensitive nature was pained by the ungracious words of disapproval; but Jesus interposed, saying: "Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me." Then in further rebuke and by way of solemn instruction He continued; "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her."
But this beautiful gesture of a devoted woman's love sparked some unpleasant complaints. Judas Iscariot, the dishonest and greedy treasurer of the Twelve, voiced his criticism, saying, "Why wasn't this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?" His supposed concern for the poor was just an act. He was a thief and wished he had been given the expensive ointment to sell, or that the money had gone into the bag he selfishly managed. Mary's extravagant use of the costly oil surprised others as well, but Judas is noted as the main critic. Mary's sensitive nature was hurt by the unkind words of disapproval; but Jesus stepped in, saying, "Why are you bothering the woman? She's done a good deed for me." Then, in a more serious rebuke and as a lesson, He added, "You will always have the poor with you, but you won't always have me. By pouring this ointment on my body, she prepared me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what this woman has done will be told as a memorial for her."
We are left without certain information as to whether Mary knew that within a few days her beloved Lord would be in the tomb. She may have been so informed in view of the hallowed intimacy between Jesus and the family; or she may have gathered from the remarks of Christ to the apostles that the sacrifice of His life was impending; or perhaps by inspired intuition she was impelled to render the loving tribute by which her memory has been enshrined in the hearts of all who know and love the Christ. John has preserved to us this remark of Jesus in the rebuke called forth by the grumbling Iscariot: "Let her alone; against the day of my burying hath she kept this"; and Mark's version is likewise suggestive of definite and solemn purpose on Mary's part: "She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying."
We don’t have clear information about whether Mary knew that her beloved Lord would be in the tomb in just a few days. She might have been informed, considering the close relationship between Jesus and the family; or she may have picked up on Jesus’ comments to the apostles suggesting that His death was near; or perhaps she felt a deep inspiration that led her to give the loving tribute by which her memory has been honored by everyone who knows and loves Christ. John has recorded this statement from Jesus in response to the complaints of Judas: "Leave her alone; she has kept this for the day of my burial"; and Mark’s version also hints at a clear and serious intention on Mary’s part: "She has come beforehand to anoint my body for burial."
CHRIST'S TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM.[1065]
While still in Bethany or in the neighboring village of Bethphage, and according to John's account on the next day[Pg 514] after the supper at Simon's house, Jesus directed two of His disciples to go to a certain place, where, He told them, they would find an ass tied, and with her a colt on which no man had ever sat. These they were to bring to Him. If stopped or questioned they were to say the Lord had need of the animals. Matthew alone mentions both ass and colt; the other writers specify the latter only; most likely the mother followed as the foal was led away, and the presence of the dam probably served to keep the colt tractable. The disciples found all to be as the Lord had said. They brought the colt to Jesus, spread their coats on the gentle creature's back, and set the Master thereon. The company started toward Jerusalem, Jesus riding in their midst.
While still in Bethany or the nearby village of Bethphage, and according to John's account, the day after the dinner at Simon's house, Jesus instructed two of His disciples to go to a certain place where, He told them, they would find a donkey tied up, along with her colt that no one had ever ridden. They were to bring these to Him. If stopped or questioned, they were to say that the Lord needed the animals. Only Matthew mentions both the donkey and the colt; the other writers only mention the colt. It's likely that the mother followed as the foal was led away, and having her around probably helped keep the colt calm. The disciples found everything just as the Lord had said. They brought the colt to Jesus, laid their coats on its back, and set the Master on it. The group then headed toward Jerusalem, with Jesus riding in their midst.
Now, as was usual, great numbers of people had come up to the city many days before the beginning of the Passover rites, in order that they might attend to matters of personal purification, and make good their arrears in the offering of prescribed sacrifices. Though the great day, on which the festival was to be inaugurated, was yet four days ahead, the city was thronged with pilgrim crowds; and among these much questioning had arisen as to whether Jesus would venture to appear publicly in Jerusalem during the feast, in view of the well-known plans of the hierarchy to take Him into custody. The common people were interested in every act and movement of the Master; and word of His departure from Bethany sped ahead of Him; so that by the time He began the descent from the highest part of the road on the flank of the Mount of Olives, great crowds had gathered about Him. The people were jubilant over the spectacle of Jesus riding toward the holy city; they spread out their garments, and cast palm fronds and other foliage in His path, thus carpeting the way as for the passing of a king. For the time being He was their king, and they His adoring subjects. The voices of the multitude sounded in reverberating harmony: "Blessed be the King that cometh[Pg 515] in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest"; and again: "Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest."[1066]
Now, as was typical, a large number of people had arrived in the city many days before the start of the Passover celebrations, so they could take care of personal purification and catch up on their required sacrifices. Although the major day of the festival was still four days away, the city was crowded with pilgrims; and among them, much speculation had arisen about whether Jesus would dare to appear publicly in Jerusalem during the feast, given the well-known intentions of the religious authorities to arrest Him. The common people were interested in every action and movement of the Master; news of His departure from Bethany spread quickly ahead of Him, so that by the time He began descending from the highest point of the road on the side of the Mount of Olives, large crowds had gathered around Him. The people were excited by the sight of Jesus riding toward the holy city; they spread their garments on the ground and laid down palm branches and other greenery along His path, creating a carpet for His arrival, as if for a king. For now, He was their king, and they were His devoted subjects. The voices of the crowd echoed in joyful unison: "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest"; and again: "Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest."
But amidst all this jubilation, Jesus was sad as He came in sight of the great city wherein stood the House of the Lord; and He wept, because of the wickedness of His people, and of their refusal to accept Him as the Son of God; moreover He foresaw the awful scenes of destruction before which both city and temple were soon to fall. In anguish and tears, He thus apostrophized the doomed city: "If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." The multitude was increased by tributary crowds who fell in with the imposing procession at every crossway; and the shouts of praise and homage were heard inside the city while the advancing company was yet far from the walls. When the Lord rode through the massive portal and actually entered the capital of the Great King, the whole city was thrilled. To the inquiry of the uninformed, "Who is this?" the multitude shouted: "This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." It may be that the Galilean pilgrims were first to answer and loudest in the gladsome proclamation; for the proud Judeans held Galilee in low esteem, and on this day, Jesus of Galilee was the most prominent personage in Jerusalem. The Pharisees, resentful of the honors thus shown to One whom they had long plotted to destroy, impotently condoled with one another over the failure of all their nefarious[Pg 516] schemes, saying: "Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." Unable to check the surging enthusiasm of the multitudes, or to silence the joyous acclamations, some of the Pharisees made their way through the throngs until they reached Jesus, and to Him they appealed, saying: "Master, rebuke thy disciples." But the Lord "answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out"[1067]
But in the middle of all this celebration, Jesus felt sad as He saw the great city where the House of the Lord stood; and He cried, troubled by the wickedness of His people and their refusal to accept Him as the Son of God. He also foresaw the terrible destruction that was about to come to both the city and the temple. In His anguish and tears, He addressed the doomed city: "If you had only known, especially on this day, the things that would bring you peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Days will come when your enemies will surround you, and they will lay you flat along with your children inside you; and they won’t leave a single stone on another within you, because you didn’t recognize the time of your visitation." The crowd grew as more people joined the impressive procession at every turn; the shouts of praise and honor echoed inside the city even while the group was still far from the walls. When the Lord rode through the grand entrance and entered the capital, the entire city was electrified. When asked by those who didn’t know, "Who is this?" the crowd shouted back: "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee." It’s likely that the Galilean pilgrims were the first to answer and were the loudest in their joyful proclamation, because the proud Judeans looked down on Galilee, and on this day, Jesus of Galilee was the most important person in Jerusalem. The Pharisees, unhappy about the honors shown to someone they had long sought to destroy, helplessly lamented to each other about their failed schemes, saying: "Do you see how we are accomplishing nothing? Look, the world is following him." Unable to stop the excitement of the crowds or quiet the joyful cheers, some of the Pharisees pushed through the throngs until they reached Jesus and said to Him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." But He replied, "I tell you that if these were silent, the stones would immediately cry out."
Dismounting, He entered afoot the temple enclosure; shouts of adulation greeted Him there. Chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, the official representatives of the theocracy, the hierarchy of Judaism, were incensed; there was no denying the fact that the people were rendering Messianic honors to this troublesome Nazarene; and that too within the very purlieus of the temple of Jehovah.
Dismounting, He walked into the temple area; shouts of praise welcomed Him there. Chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, the official representatives of the theocracy, the hierarchy of Judaism, were furious; there was no denying that the people were giving Messianic honors to this troublesome Nazarene, and that too right in the vicinity of the temple of Jehovah.
The purpose of Christ in thus yielding Himself for the day to the desires of the people and accepting their homage with kingly grace may not be fully comprehended by us of finite mind. That the occasion was no accidental or fortuitous happening, of which He took advantage without preconceived intention, is evident. He knew beforehand what would be, and what He would do. It was no meaningless pageantry; but the actual advent of the King into His royal city, and His entry into the temple, the house of the King of kings. He came riding on an ass, in token of peace, acclaimed by the Hosanna shouts of multitudes; not on a caparisoned steed with the panoply of combat and the accompaniment of bugle blasts and fanfare of trumpets. That the joyous occasion was in no sense suggestive of physical hostility or of seditious disturbance is sufficiently demonstrated by the indulgent unconcern with which it was viewed by the Roman officials, who were usually prompt to send their legionaries swooping down from the fortress of Antonia at[Pg 517] the first evidence of an outbreak; and they were particularly vigilant in suppressing all Messianic pretenders, for false Messiahs had arisen already, and much blood had been shed in the forcible dispelling of their delusive claims. But the Romans saw nothing to fear, perhaps much to smile at, in the spectacle of a King mounted upon an ass, and attended by subjects, who, though numerous, brandished no weapons but waved instead palm branches and myrtle sprigs. The ass has been designated in literature as "the ancient symbol of Jewish royalty," and one riding upon an ass as the type of peaceful progress.
The purpose of Christ in willingly giving Himself to the desires of the people for the day and accepting their praise with regal grace might be hard for us to fully understand. It's clear that this event wasn’t just a random occurrence that He seized without any plans; He knew exactly what would happen and what His actions would be. It wasn’t just a show; it was the real arrival of the King into His royal city and His entry into the temple, the house of the King of kings. He came riding a donkey, symbolizing peace, and was celebrated by the crowds shouting "Hosanna!" rather than arriving on a war horse with armor and the sounds of bugles and trumpets. The joyful event did not suggest any kind of physical threat or rebellion, as shown by the relaxed indifference of the Roman officials, who usually acted quickly to quell any signs of unrest, especially against anyone claiming to be a Messiah. False Messiahs had already appeared, resulting in much bloodshed to end their deceptive claims. However, the Romans saw nothing to worry about—perhaps even found it amusing—watching a King on a donkey surrounded by subjects who waved palm branches and myrtle sprigs instead of brandishing weapons. The donkey has been described in literature as "the ancient symbol of Jewish royalty," with someone riding it representing peaceful progress.
Such triumphal entry of Jesus into the chief city of the Jews would have been strikingly inconsistent with the general tenor of His ministry in its early stages. Even the intimation that He was the Christ had been made with guarded care, if at all; and every manifestation of popular regard in which He might have figured as a national leader had been suppressed. Now, however, the hour of the great consummation was near at hand; the public acceptance of the nation's homage, and the acknowledgment of both kingly and Messianic titles, constituted an open and official proclamation of His divine investiture. He had entered city and temple in such royal state as befitted the Prince of Peace. By the rulers of the nation He had been rejected and His claims derided. The manner of His entry should have appealed to the learned teachers of the law and the prophets; for Zechariah's impressive forecast, the fulfilment of which the evangelist, John, finds in the events of this memorable Sunday,[1068] was frequently cited among them: "Rejoice greatly, O, daughter of Zion; shout, O, daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass."[1069]
Such a triumphant entry of Jesus into the main city of the Jews would have been strikingly inconsistent with the overall tone of His early ministry. Even the suggestion that He was the Messiah had been made with cautious discretion, if it was made at all; and every opportunity for public recognition, where He might have presented as a national leader, had been downplayed. Now, however, the moment of the great fulfillment was almost here; the public acceptance of the nation’s respect, along with the acknowledgment of both kingly and Messianic titles, served as a clear and official declaration of His divine appointment. He entered the city and the temple in a manner fitting for the Prince of Peace. He had been rejected by the nation's leaders, and His claims had been mocked. The way He entered should have resonated with the knowledgeable teachers of the law and the prophets; for Zechariah's powerful prophecy, the fulfillment of which the evangelist John connects to the events of this significant Sunday, was often quoted among them: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your King comes to you; He is righteous and has salvation; He is humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
CERTAIN GREEKS VISIT CHRIST.[1070]
Among the multitudes who came to Jerusalem at the time of the annual Passover were people of many nations. Some of these, though not of Jewish descent, had been converted to Judaism; they were admitted to the temple precincts, but were not allowed to pass beyond the court of the Gentiles.[1071] Sometime during our Lord's last week of mortal life, possibly on the day of His royal entry into the city,[1072] certain Greeks, who were evidently numbered among the proselytes since they had come "to worship at the feast," sought an interview with Jesus. Imbued with a becoming sense of decorum they hesitated to directly approach the Master, and applied instead to Philip, one of the apostles, saying: "Sir, we would see Jesus." Philip consulted with Andrew, and the two then informed Jesus, who, as we may reasonably infer from the context though the fact is not explicitly stated, graciously received the foreign visitors and imparted to them precepts of the utmost worth. It is evident that the desire of these Greeks to meet the Master was not grounded on curiosity or other unworthy impulse; they earnestly wished to see and hear the Teacher whose fame had reached their country, and whose doctrines had impressed them.
Among the many people who came to Jerusalem for the annual Passover were individuals from various nations. Some of them, although not of Jewish descent, had converted to Judaism; they were allowed into the temple area but could not go beyond the court of the Gentiles.[1071] At some point during our Lord's final week of life, possibly on the day He made His royal entry into the city,[1072] certain Greeks, who were clearly among the converts because they had come "to worship at the feast," asked to meet Jesus. With an appropriate sense of respect, they hesitated to approach Him directly and instead went to Philip, one of the apostles, saying: "Sir, we want to see Jesus." Philip talked it over with Andrew, and together they told Jesus, who, as we can reasonably infer even if it’s not explicitly mentioned, kindly welcomed the foreign visitors and shared with them teachings of great importance. It’s clear that the Greeks' desire to meet the Master came from genuine interest rather than curiosity or any unworthy motive; they earnestly wanted to see and hear the Teacher whose reputation had reached their homeland, and whose teachings had made a significant impression on them.
To them Jesus testified that the hour of His death was near at hand, the hour in which "the Son of man should be glorified." They were surprized and pained by the Lord's words, and possibly they inquired as to the necessity of such a sacrifice. Jesus explained by citing a striking illustration drawn from nature: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit;"[1073] The simile is an[Pg 519] apt one,—and at once impressively simple and beautiful. A farmer who neglects or refuses to cast his wheat into the earth, because he wants to keep it, can have no increase; but if he sow the wheat in good rich soil, each living grain may multiply itself many fold, though of necessity the seed must be sacrificed in the process. So, said the Lord, "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." The Master's meaning is clear; he that loves his life so well that he will not imperil it, or, if need be, give it up, in the service of God, shall forfeit his opportunity to win the bounteous increase of eternal life; while he who esteems the call of God as so greatly superior to life that his love of life is as hatred in comparison, shall find the life he freely yields or is willing to yield, though for the time being it disappear like the grain buried in the soil; and he shall rejoice in the bounty of eternal development. If such be true of every man's existence, how transcendently so was it of the life of Him who came to die that men may live? Therefore was it necessary that He die, as He had said He was about to do; but His death, far from being life lost, was to be life glorified.
To them, Jesus testified that His death was approaching, the moment when "the Son of man will be glorified." They were surprised and hurt by His words, and perhaps they questioned the need for such a sacrifice. Jesus clarified by using a powerful example from nature: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much fruit;"[1073] The analogy is fitting—both impressively simple and beautiful. A farmer who neglects or refuses to plant his wheat because he wants to keep it will see no increase; but if he sows the wheat in good, rich soil, each living grain can multiply many times over, though the seed must be sacrificed for this to happen. So, the Lord said, "Whoever loves his life will lose it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." The Master's meaning is clear: anyone who loves their life so much that they won't risk it, or give it up if necessary, in the service of God, will miss the chance to gain the abundant reward of eternal life. Conversely, the one who values God's calling so highly that their love for life pales in comparison will find that the life they freely give or are willing to give up, though it may seem to vanish like the grain buried in the ground, will lead to the joy of eternal growth. If this holds true for everyone's life, how much more so for the life of Him who came to die so that others may live? Thus, it was necessary for Him to die, as He had stated; but His death, far from being a loss of life, was to be a glorification of life.
VOICE FROM HEAVEN.[1074]
The realization of the harrowing experiences upon which He was about to enter, and particularly the contemplation of the state of sin, which made His sacrifice imperative, so weighed upon the Savior's mind that He sorrowed deeply. "Now is my soul troubled," He groaned; "and what shall I say?" He exclaimed in anguish. Should He say, "Father, save me from this hour" when as He knew "for this cause" had He come "unto this hour?" To His Father alone could He turn for comforting support, not to ask relief from, but strength to endure, what was to come; and He prayed:[Pg 520] "Father, glorify thy name." It was the rising of a mighty Soul to meet a supreme issue, which for the moment had seemed to be overwhelming. To that prayer of renewed surrender to the Father's will, "Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again."
The realization of the intense experiences He was about to face, especially the thought of the state of sin that made His sacrifice necessary, weighed heavily on the Savior's mind, and He felt deep sorrow. "Now my soul is troubled," He groaned; "and what should I say?" He cried out in anguish. Should He say, "Father, rescue me from this hour" when He knew that "this is why" He had come "to this hour?" He could turn only to His Father for comforting support—not to seek relief, but for strength to endure what was ahead; and He prayed:[Pg 520] "Father, glorify Your name." It was the rise of a powerful Soul to confront a significant challenge, which for a moment felt overwhelming. In response to that prayer of renewed surrender to the Father’s will, "Then a voice came from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again."
The voice was real; it was no subjective whisper of comfort to the inner consciousness of Jesus, but an external, objective reality. People who were standing by heard the sound, and interpreted it variously; some said it was thunder; others, of better spiritual discernment, said: "An angel spake to him"; and some may have understood the words as had Jesus. Now fully emerged from the passing cloud of enveloping anguish, the Lord turned to the people, saying: "This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes." And then, with the consciousness of assured triumph over sin and death, He exclaimed in accents of divine jubilation, as though the cross and the sepulchre were already of the past: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Satan, the prince of the world was doomed.[1075] "And I," the Lord continued, "if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." John assures us that this last utterance signified the manner of the Lord's death; the people so understood, and they asked an explanation of what seemed to them an inconsistency, in that the scriptures, as they had been taught to interpret the same, declared that the Christ was to abide forever,[1076] and now He who claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of Man, averred that He must be lifted up. "Who is this Son of man?" they asked. Mindful as ever not to cast pearls where they would not be appreciated, the Lord refrained from a direct avowal, but admonished them to walk in the light while the light was with them, for darkness would surely follow; and as He[Pg 521] reminded them, "he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth." In conclusion the Lord admonished them thus: "While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light."[1077]
The voice was real; it wasn’t just a comforting whisper to Jesus’s inner self, but a clear, external reality. People around heard the sound and interpreted it in different ways; some thought it was thunder; others, with better spiritual insight, said, “An angel spoke to him”; and some may have understood the words as Jesus did. Fully emerging from the overwhelming pain, the Lord turned to the crowd, saying: “This voice wasn’t for me, but for your benefit.” Then, filled with a sense of victory over sin and death, He declared with divine joy, as if the cross and the tomb were already behind Him: “Now is the judgment of this world: now the ruler of this world will be cast out.” Satan, the ruler of the world, was doomed.[1075] “And I,” the Lord continued, “if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw everyone to me.” John makes it clear that this final statement referred to the way the Lord would die; the people understood this, and they sought clarification on what seemed inconsistent to them, as the scriptures they had learned said that the Christ was meant to live forever,[1076] and now He, who claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of Man, said He must be lifted up. “Who is this Son of Man?” they asked. Being mindful not to share valuable truths where they wouldn't be understood, the Lord avoided a direct answer but urged them to walk in the light while they had it, as darkness would surely follow; and as He[Pg 521] reminded them, “whoever walks in darkness does not know where they are going.” In conclusion, the Lord advised them: “While you have light, believe in the light, so that you may become children of light.”[1077]
At the close of this discourse Jesus departed from the people "and did hide himself from them." The record of the first day of what has come to be known as the week of our Lord's passion[1078] is thus concluded by Mark: "And when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve."[1079]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 29.
1. The Mother of James and John.—The mother of these two sons of Zebedee (Matt. 20:20; compare 4:21) is generally understood to have been the Salome mentioned as one of the women present at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40; compare Matt. 27:56 in which "the mother of Zebedee's children" is mentioned, and the name "Salome" is omitted), and one of those who arrived first at the tomb on the morning of the resurrection (Mark 16:1). From the fact that John mentions the mother of Jesus and "his mother's sister" (19:25) and omits mention of Salome by name, some expositors hold that Salome was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus; and therefore the Savior's aunt. This relationship would make James and John cousins to Jesus. While the scriptural record does not disprove this alleged kinship, it certainly does not affirm the same.
1. The Mother of James and John.—The mother of these two sons of Zebedee (Matt. 20:20; compare 4:21) is generally believed to be Salome, who is mentioned as one of the women at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40; compare Matt. 27:56, where "the mother of Zebedee's children" is mentioned without naming "Salome"), and also one of the first to arrive at the tomb on resurrection morning (Mark 16:1). Since John mentions the mother of Jesus and "his mother's sister" (19:25) while not naming Salome, some scholars suggest that Salome was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, making her the Savior's aunt. This connection would mean that James and John were cousins of Jesus. While the biblical record doesn't contradict this supposed kinship, it also doesn't confirm it.
2. Jericho.—This was an ancient city, lying north-easterly from Jerusalem, a little less than fifteen miles in a straight line. In the course of the exodus it was captured by the people of Israel through a miraculous interposition of divine power. (Josh. 6). The productiveness of the region is indicated by the descriptive appellation "city of palm trees" (Deut. 34:3; Judg. 1:16; 3:13; 2 Chron. 28:15). The name Jericho means "place of fragrance." Its climate was semi-tropical, a consequence of its low altitude. It lay in a valley several hundred feet below the level of the Mediterranean; this explains Luke's statement (19:28) that after Jesus had spoken the Parable of the Pounds when on the way from Jericho, "he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem." In the time of Christ, Jericho was an important city; and the abundance of its commercial products, particularly balsam and spices, led to the maintenance of a customs office there, over which Zaccheus seems to have presided.[Pg 522]
2. Jericho.—This was an ancient city located northeast of Jerusalem, just under fifteen miles in a straight line. During the exodus, it was taken by the Israelites through a miraculous act of divine intervention. (Josh. 6). The area’s fertility is suggested by the nickname "city of palm trees" (Deut. 34:3; Judg. 1:16; 3:13; 2 Chron. 28:15). The name Jericho means "place of fragrance." Its climate was semi-tropical due to its low altitude. It was situated in a valley several hundred feet below sea level, which explains Luke's remark (19:28) that after Jesus shared the Parable of the Pounds while traveling from Jericho, "he went ahead, ascending to Jerusalem." During Christ's time, Jericho was a significant city; the wealth of its goods, especially balsam and spices, necessitated a customs office there, which Zacchaeus seemed to oversee.[Pg 522]
3. The Nobleman and the Kingdom.—The local setting of the part of the Parable of the Pounds that relates to a certain nobleman going into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, had its parallel in history. Archelaus, who by the will of his father, Herod the Great, had been named king of the Jews, set out for Rome to ask of the emperor the confirmation of his royal status. He was opposed by a protest from the people. On the utilization of this circumstance in the parable, Farrar (p. 493, note) says: "A nobleman going into a far country to receive a kingdom would be utterly unintelligible, had we not fortunately known that this was done both by Archelaus and by Antipas (Jos. Ant. xvii, 9:4). And in the case of Archelaus the Jews had actually sent to Augustus a deputation of fifty, to recount his cruelties and oppose his claims, which, though it failed at the time, was subsequently successful (Josephus, Ant. xvii, 13:2). Philipus defended the property of Archelaus, during his absence, from the encroachments of the Proconsul Sabinus. The magnificent palace which Archelaus had built at Jericho (Jos. Ant. xvii, 13:1) would naturally recall these circumstances to the mind of Jesus, and the parable is another striking example of the manner in which He utilized the most ordinary circumstances around Him, and made them the bases of His highest teachings. It is also another unsuspected indication of the authenticity and truthfulness of the Gospels."
3. The Nobleman and the Kingdom.—The local context of the part of the Parable of the Pounds that describes a nobleman going to a distant country to claim a kingdom has historical parallels. Archelaus, who had been appointed king of the Jews by the will of his father, Herod the Great, traveled to Rome to seek the emperor's approval of his royal title. He faced opposition from the people. On how this situation is used in the parable, Farrar (p. 493, note) states: "A nobleman going into a far country to receive a kingdom would be completely confusing, unless we were fortunate enough to know that this was done by both Archelaus and Antipas (Jos. Ant. xvii, 9:4). In Archelaus's case, the Jews actually sent a delegation of fifty to Augustus to report his cruelty and fight his claims, which, although unsuccessful at the time, eventually succeeded (Josephus, Ant. xvii, 13:2). Philipus defended Archelaus's property during his absence against the Proconsul Sabinus's encroachments. The impressive palace that Archelaus built at Jericho (Jos. Ant. xvii, 13:1) would naturally remind Jesus of these events, and the parable is yet another compelling example of how He took the most ordinary circumstances around Him and used them as the foundation for His greatest teachings. It also serves as another unexpected indication of the authenticity and truthfulness of the Gospels."
4. "We Will Not Have this Man to Reign Over Us."—On this phase of the parable, Trench (Miracles, p. 390) very aptly remarks: "Twice before He had gone to receive His kingdom, this very declaration found formal utterance from their lips,—once when they cried to Pilate, 'We have no king but Cæsar'; and again when they remonstrated with him, 'Write not, The King of the Jews' (John 19:15, 21; compare Acts 17:7). But the stricter fulfilment of these words is to be found in the demeanor of the Jews after His ascension, their fierce hostility to Christ in His infant Church (Acts 12:3; 13:45; 14:18; 17:5; 18:6; 22:22; 23:12; 1 Thes. 2:15)."
4. "We Will Not Have this Man to Reign Over Us."—Regarding this part of the parable, Trench (Miracles, p. 390) insightfully notes: "Twice before He went to receive His kingdom, this exact statement was formally expressed by them—first when they shouted to Pilate, 'We have no king but Cæsar'; and again when they protested, 'Do not write, The King of the Jews' (John 19:15, 21; see also Acts 17:7). However, the truest fulfillment of these words is seen in the behavior of the Jews after His ascension, their intense hostility toward Christ in His early Church (Acts 12:3; 13:45; 14:18; 17:5; 18:6; 22:22; 23:12; 1 Thes. 2:15)."
5. The Day of the Supper at Bethany.—John places this event as having occurred on the day following Christ's arrival in Bethany, for as we see from 12:12, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem took place on the next day after the supper, and, as stated in the text, Jesus most probably reached Bethany on Friday. The joyous processional into Jerusalem did not occur on the day following Friday, for that was the Jewish Sabbath. Matthew (26:2-13) and Mark (14:1-9) give place to the incident of the supper after the record of the triumphal entry and other events, from which some have drawn the inference that these two writers place the supper two days before the Passover. This inference lacks confirmation. In this matter the chronological order given by John appears to be the true one.
5. The Day of the Supper at Bethany.—John records this event as happening the day after Christ arrived in Bethany, since we can see from 12:12 that the triumphal entry into Jerusalem happened the day after the supper. As mentioned in the text, Jesus likely reached Bethany on Friday. The joyful procession into Jerusalem didn't happen the day after Friday, as that was the Jewish Sabbath. Matthew (26:2-13) and Mark (14:1-9) place the supper incident after the account of the triumphal entry and other events, leading some to suggest that these two writers indicate the supper took place two days before Passover. However, this suggestion is not supported by evidence. In this situation, the chronological order provided by John seems to be the accurate one.
6. The Family Home at Bethany.—The home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus appears to have been the usual abiding place of Jesus when He was in Bethany. Undoubtedly He was on terms of very close and affectionate acquaintanceship with all[Pg 523] members of the family, even before the miraculous raising of Lazarus from the dead, and, this supremely blessed occurrence must have intensified into worshipful reverence the esteem in which our Lord had been held in that household. As to whether this home was identical with the house of Simon the leper, the scriptural record does not state. John, who gives a fairly detailed account of the supper served by Martha, makes no mention of Simon or his house. It is noticeable that the synoptic writers say very little about this home in Bethany. Farrar has aptly remarked (p. 483): "We seem to trace in the Synoptists a special reticence about the family at Bethany. The house in which they take a prominent position is called 'the house of Simon the leper'; Mary is called simply 'a woman' by St. Matthew and St. Mark (Matt. 26:6, 7; Mark 14:3); and St. Luke contents himself with calling Bethany 'a certain village' (Luke 10:38), although he was perfectly aware of the name (Luke 19:29)."
6. The Family Home at Bethany.—The home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus seems to have been where Jesus regularly stayed when He was in Bethany. He definitely had a close and affectionate relationship with all the family members, even before the miraculous raising of Lazarus from the dead, and this incredible event must have deepened the respect and reverence in which they held Him. It's unclear if this home was the same as the house of Simon the leper, as the biblical record doesn't specify. John, who provides a fairly detailed account of the dinner hosted by Martha, doesn't mention Simon or his house. It's notable that the synoptic writers say very little about this home in Bethany. Farrar has rightly pointed out (p. 483): "We seem to notice a particular silence from the Synoptists regarding the family at Bethany. The house where they play a key role is referred to as 'the house of Simon the leper'; Mary is simply referred to as 'a woman' by St. Matthew and St. Mark (Matt. 26:6, 7; Mark 14:3); and St. Luke refers to Bethany as 'a certain village' (Luke 10:38), even though he clearly knew the name (Luke 19:29)."
7. Spikenard Ointment.—This was among the most highly prized of oriental unguents. That with which Mary anointed Jesus is described by Matthew and Mark as "very precious," and by John as "very costly." In the original the adjective "pistic" appears; this is translated by some as meaning "liquid," but by others as signifying "genuine." There were many inferior imitations of the real spikenard, or nard; and we are left without a doubt that Mary's precious gift was of the best. The plant from which the fragrant extract is obtained is a species of bearded grass indigenous in India. Spikenard is mentioned in Song of Solomon 1:12; 4:13, 14.
7. Spikenard Ointment.—This was one of the most valued eastern ointments. The ointment that Mary used to anoint Jesus is described by Matthew and Mark as "very precious," and by John as "very costly." In the original text, the adjective "pistic" appears; some translate it as "liquid," while others interpret it as "genuine." There were many inferior imitations of the real spikenard, or nard; it’s clear that Mary’s valuable gift was of the highest quality. The plant from which the fragrant extract is derived is a type of bearded grass native to India. Spikenard is referenced in Song of Solomon 1:12; 4:13, 14.
8. Hosanna!—"Hosanna" is a Greek form of the Hebrew expression for "Save us now," or "Save, we pray," which occurs in the original of Psalm 118:25. It occurs nowhere in the English Bible except in the acclamations of the people at Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and in the joyous shouts of children in the temple (Matt. 21:9, 15). Note the rendering of the "Hosanna Shout" in the restored Church of Christ in the current dispensation on occasions of particular rejoicing before the Lord (see the House of the Lord, pp. 120, 150, 210). "Hallelujah," literally rendered, means "Praise ye Jehovah." It occurs in the Greek form "Alleluia" in Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6.
8. Hosanna!—"Hosanna" is the Greek version of the Hebrew phrase for "Save us now," or "Save, we ask," which appears in the original text of Psalm 118:25. It only appears in the English Bible in the cheers of the people during Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem and in the joyful shouts of children in the temple (Matt. 21:9, 15). Note how the "Hosanna Shout" is expressed in the restored Church of Christ during special moments of joy before the Lord (see the House of the Lord, pp. 120, 150, 210). "Hallelujah," when translated literally, means "Praise ye Jehovah." It appears in the Greek form "Alleluia" in Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6.
9. The First Day in Passion Week.—A comparison of the accounts of the Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and of certain events following, as recorded by the three synoptists, shows at least a possibility of discrepancy as to sequence. It appears certain that Jesus visited the temple grounds on the day of the royal advent into the city. From Matthew 21:12 and Luke 19:45 and the context preceding these passages, the inference has been drawn that the second clearing of the temple occurred on the day of the processional entry; while others interpret Mark 11:11 and 15 as meaning that the event took place on a later day. The question is admittedly an open one; and the order of presentation followed in the text is one of convenience of treatment based on rational probability.[Pg 524]
9. The First Day in Passion Week.—A comparison of the accounts of the Lord's triumphant entry into Jerusalem and the events that followed, as documented by the three synoptic Gospels, shows there's at least a possibility of a discrepancy in the sequence. It's clear that Jesus visited the temple grounds on the day he made his royal entrance into the city. From Matthew 21:12 and Luke 19:45, along with their preceding context, it's suggested that the second clearing of the temple happened on the same day as the processional entry; while others interpret Mark 11:11 and 15 to mean that this event occurred on a later day. This question is certainly still open for discussion, and the order presented in the text is based on convenience and rational likelihood.[Pg 524]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1040] The earlier predictions were: (1) that spoken shortly before the Transfiguration (Matt. 16:21; Mark 8:31), and (2) that which followed, in Galilee, (Matt. 17:22, 23; Mark 9:31; compare Luke 9:44).
[1040] The earlier predictions were: (1) that which was spoken shortly before the Transfiguration (Matt. 16:21; Mark 8:31), and (2) that which came after, in Galilee (Matt. 17:22, 23; Mark 9:31; compare Luke 9:44).
[1041] Matt. 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45.
[1047] Luke 19:1-10.
[1049] Exo. 22:1-9.
[1051] Luke 19:11-27.
[1053] Compare Mark 13:34.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Compare Mark 13:34.
[1067] Compare Hab. 2:11.
[1068] The Sunday before Easter is annually celebrated by many Christian sects as Palm Sunday, in commemoration of our Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem.
[1068] The Sunday before Easter is celebrated each year by many Christian denominations as Palm Sunday, to remember our Lord's triumphant entry into Jerusalem.
[1069] Zech. 9:9.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Zech. 9:9.
[1070] John 12:20-26.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 12:20-26.
[1073] Compare 1 Cor. 15:36.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Compare 1 Cor. 15:36.
[1074] John 12:27-36.
John 12:27-36.
[1075] Compare John 14:30; 16:11.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Compare John 14:30; 16:11.
[1078] Acts 1:3.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 1:3.
CHAPTER 30.
JESUS RETURNS TO THE TEMPLE DAILY.
AN INSTRUCTIVE INCIDENT ON THE WAY.[1080]
On the morrow, which, as we reckon, was Monday, the second day of Passion week, Jesus and the Twelve returned to Jerusalem and spent the greater part of the day at the temple. The start from Bethany was an early one, and Jesus hungered by the way. Looking ahead He saw a fig tree that differed from the rest of the many fig trees of the region in that it was in full leaf though the season of fruit had not yet come.[1081] It is well known that the fruit-buds of a fig-tree appear earlier than do the leaves, and that by the time the tree is in full foliage the figs are well advanced toward maturity. Moreover, certain species of figs are edible while yet green; indeed the unripe fruit is relished in the Orient at the present time. It would be reasonable, therefore, for one to expect to find edible figs even in early April on a tree that was already covered with leaves. When Jesus and His party reached this particular tree, which had rightly been regarded as rich in promise of fruit, they found on it nothing but leaves; it was a showy, fruitless, barren tree. It was destitute even of old figs, those of the preceding season, some of which are often found in spring on fruitful trees. Jesus pronounced upon that tree the sentence of perpetual barrenness. "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever" He said according to Mark's account; or, as Matthew records the judgment, "Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever." The latter writer tells us in immediate[Pg 525] sequence that "presently the fig tree withered away"; but the former makes it appear that the effect of the curse was not observed until the following morning, when, as Jesus and the apostles were once again on the way between Bethany and Jerusalem, they saw that the fig tree had withered and dried from the roots up. Peter called attention to the blasted tree, and, addressing Jesus, exclaimed: "Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away."
The next day, which we count as Monday, the second day of Passion week, Jesus and the Twelve went back to Jerusalem and spent most of the day at the temple. They left Bethany early, and Jesus was hungry along the way. He spotted a fig tree that stood out from the other fig trees in the area because it was fully leafed out, even though it wasn't the season for fruit yet. It's known that the fruit buds on a fig tree appear before the leaves do, so by the time the tree is fully leafed, the figs are usually well on their way to ripening. Additionally, some types of figs can be eaten while still green; in fact, unripe figs are enjoyed in the East even today. So, it would make sense to expect edible figs on a tree already full of leaves, even in early April. However, when Jesus and His group reached this particular tree, which was expected to bear fruit, they found nothing but leaves— it was a flashy, fruitless, barren tree. It had no old figs from the previous season, which can often be found on fruitful trees in spring. Jesus declared that tree would forever be barren. "No one will eat fruit from you ever again," He said according to Mark's account; or as Matthew records, "Let no fruit grow on you from now on forever." The latter writer tells us immediately afterwards that "the fig tree withered away"; but the former suggests that the effects of the curse weren't noticed until the next morning, when Jesus and the apostles were again traveling between Bethany and Jerusalem and saw that the fig tree had withered and dried up from the roots. Peter pointed out the dead tree and said to Jesus, "Master, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered away."
Applying the lesson of the occasion, Jesus said, "Have faith in God"; and then He repeated some of His former assurances as to the power of faith, by which even mountains may be removed, should there be need of such miraculous accomplishment, and through which, indeed, any necessary thing may be done. The blighting of a tree was shown to be small in comparison with the greater possibilities of achievement through faith and prayer. But to so achieve one must work and pray without reservation or doubt, as the Lord thus made plain: "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." Prayer must be acceptable unto God to be effective; and it follows that he who desires to accomplish any work through prayer and faith must be fit to present himself before the Lord in supplication; therefore Jesus again instructed the apostles saying: "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."[1082]
Applying the lesson of the occasion, Jesus said, "Have faith in God"; and then He repeated some of His earlier assurances about the power of faith, stating that even mountains could be moved if such miraculous feats were needed, and through this power, anything necessary could be accomplished. The withering of a tree was shown to be minor compared to the greater achievements possible through faith and prayer. However, to achieve such things, one must work and pray without hesitation or doubt, as the Lord made clear: "Therefore I say to you, whatever you desire when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them." Prayer must be pleasing to God to be effective; therefore, anyone wishing to achieve their goals through prayer and faith must be deserving enough to come before the Lord in prayer. Jesus further instructed the apostles, saying: "And when you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses."[1082]
The blighting of the barren fig tree is regarded by many as unique among the recorded miracles of Christ, from the fact that while all the others were wrought for relief, blessing, and beneficent purposes generally, this one appears as an act of judgment and destructive execution, Nevertheless[Pg 526] in this miracle the Lord's purpose is not hidden; and the result, while fatal to a tree, is of lasting blessing to all who would learn and profit, by the works of God. If no more has been accomplished by the miracle than the presenting of so impressive an object lesson for the instructions that followed, that smitten tree has proved of greater service to humanity than have all the fig orchards of Bethphage.[1083] To the apostles the act was another and an indisputable proof of the Lord's power over nature, His control of natural forces and all material things, His jurisdiction over life and death. He had healed multitudes; the wind and the waves had obeyed His words; on three occasions He had restored the dead to life; it was fitting that He should demonstrate His power to smite and to destroy. In manifesting His command over death, He had mercifully raised a maiden from the couch on which she had died, a young man from the bier on which he was being carried to the grave, another from the sepulchre in which he had been laid away a corpse; but in proof of His power to destroy by a word He chose a barren and worthless tree for His subject. Could any of the Twelve doubt, when, a few days later they saw Him in the hands of vindictive priests and heartless pagans, that did He so will He could smite His enemies by a word, even unto death? Yet not until after His glorious resurrection did even the apostles realize how truly voluntary His sacrifice had been.
The withering of the barren fig tree is considered by many to be unique among the miracles of Christ because, while all the others were performed for relief, blessing, and generally positive purposes, this one seems to be an act of judgment and destruction. Nonetheless, in this miracle, the Lord's intention is clear; and while it resulted in the death of a tree, it offers lasting benefits to all who wish to learn and grow from God's works. Even if the miracle accomplished nothing more than providing a powerful object lesson for the teachings that followed, that withered tree has served humanity better than all the fig orchards in Bethphage.[Pg 526][1083] For the apostles, this act was another undeniable demonstration of the Lord's power over nature, his command of natural forces, and his authority over life and death. He had healed countless people; the wind and waves had obeyed him; on three occasions, he had brought the dead back to life; it was appropriate for him to showcase his power to strike down and destroy. In showing his command over death, he had compassionately raised a girl from the bed where she had died, a young man from the bier as he was being taken to the grave, and another from the tomb where he had been laid to rest; but to prove his ability to destroy with just a word, he chose a barren and useless tree as his target. Could any of the Twelve doubt, when a few days later they saw him at the mercy of vengeful priests and cruel pagans, that he could strike down his enemies with just a word, even to the point of death? Yet, it wasn't until after his glorious resurrection that even the apostles understood how truly voluntary his sacrifice had been.
But the fate that befell the barren fig tree is instructive from another point of view. The incident is as much parable as miracle. That leafy tree was distinguished among fig trees; the others offered no invitation, gave no promise; "the time of figs was not yet"; they, in due season would bring forth fruit and leaves; but this precocious and leafy[Pg 527] pretender waved its umbrageous limbs as in boastful assertion of superiority. For those who responded to its ostentatious invitation, for the hungering Christ who came seeking fruit, it had naught but leaves. Even for the purposes of the lesson involved, we cannot conceive of the tree being blighted primarily because it was fruitless, for at that season the other fig trees were bare of fruit also; it was made the object of the curse and the subject of the Lord's instructive discourse, because, having leaves, it was deceptively barren. Were it reasonable to regard the tree as possessed of moral agency, we would have to pronounce it a hypocrite; its utter barrenness coupled with its abundance of foliage made of it a type of human hypocrisy.
But the fate of the barren fig tree teaches us something important from another perspective. The incident is as much a parable as it is a miracle. That leafy tree stood out among the other fig trees; the others offered no invitation and showed no promise; "the time of figs was not yet"; they would, in due time, bear fruit and leaves, but this premature and leafy[Pg 527] impostor waved its shady branches as if to arrogantly claim superiority. For those who responded to its flashy invitation, including the hungry Christ who came looking for fruit, it had nothing but leaves. Even considering the lesson involved, we can't think of the tree being cursed primarily because it was fruitless, since at that season the other fig trees were also bare of fruit; it became the target of the curse and the subject of the Lord's instructive message because, despite having leaves, it was deceptively barren. If it were reasonable to see the tree as having moral agency, we would have to call it a hypocrite; its complete barrenness along with its abundance of foliage made it a representation of human hypocrisy.
The leafy, fruitless tree was a symbol of Judaism, which loudly proclaimed itself as the only true religion of the age, and condescendingly invited all the world to come and partake of its rich ripe fruit; when in truth it was but an unnatural growth of leaves, with no fruit of the season, nor even an edible bulb held over from earlier years, for such as it had of former fruitage was dried to worthlessness and made repulsive in its worm-eaten decay. The religion of Israel had degenerated into an artificial religionism, which in pretentious show and empty profession outclassed the abominations of heathendom. As already pointed out in these pages, the fig tree was a favorite type in rabbinical representation of the Jewish race, and the Lord had before adopted the symbolism in the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree, that worthless growth which did but cumber the ground.[1084]
The leafy, fruitless tree was a symbol of Judaism, which boldly declared itself as the only true religion of the time, and condescendingly invited everyone to come and enjoy its rich, ripe fruit; when in reality, it was just an unnatural growth of leaves, with no seasonal fruit, nor even an edible bulb saved from previous years, for whatever past fruit it had was dried out to worthlessness and made unappealing in its worm-eaten decay. The religion of Israel had turned into an artificial form of religion, which, in its pretentious display and empty claims, surpassed the abominations of paganism. As already noted in this text, the fig tree was a favored symbol in rabbinical depictions of the Jewish people, and the Lord had previously used this symbolism in the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree, that worthless growth that simply cluttered the ground.[1084]
SECOND CLEARING OF THE TEMPLE.[1085]
Within the temple grounds Jesus was filled with indignation at the scene of tumult and desecration which the place presented. Three years before, at Passover time, He had[Pg 528] been wrought up to a high state of righteous anger by a similar exhibition of sordid chaffering within the sacred precincts, and had driven out the sheep and oxen and forcibly expelled the traders and the money-changers and all who were using His Father's house as a house of merchandize.[1086] That was near the beginning of His public labor, and the vigorous action was among the first of His works to attract general attention; now, within four days of the cross, He cleared the courts again by casting out all "them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves"; nor would He suffer any to carry their buckets and baskets through the enclosure, as many were in the habit of doing, and so making the way a common thoroughfare. "Is it not written," He demanded of them in wrath, "My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves." On the former occasion, before He had declared or even confessed His Messiahship, He had designated the temple as "My Father's house"; now that He had openly avowed Himself to be the Christ, He called it "My house." The expressions are in a sense synonymous; He and the Father were and are one in possession and dominion. The means by which the later expulsion was accomplished are not stated; but it is plain that none could withstand His authoritative command; He acted in the strength of righteousness, before which the forces of evil had to give way.
Within the temple grounds, Jesus was filled with anger at the chaotic and disrespectful scene around Him. Three years earlier, during Passover, He had been similarly outraged by the disgraceful trading that took place in the sacred area. He had driven out the sheep and oxen and forcefully expelled the sellers and money-changers who were using His Father’s house as a marketplace.[Pg 528] That incident, early in His public ministry, was one of His first actions that drew significant attention. Now, just four days before His crucifixion, He cleared the temple courts again, casting out all "those who sold and bought in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold doves." He wouldn’t allow anyone to carry their buckets and baskets through the area, as many regularly did, treating it like a common thoroughfare. "Is it not written," He asked them angrily, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations? Yet you have made it a den of thieves." On the previous occasion, before He had acknowledged or even revealed His identity as the Messiah, He referred to the temple as "My Father's house." Now that He had openly declared Himself as Christ, He called it "My house." These phrases are essentially synonymous; He and the Father share ownership and authority over it. The exact methods He used for this later expulsion aren’t detailed, but it’s clear that no one could resist His commanding presence; He acted with the strength of righteousness, forcing the evil forces to retreat.
His wrath of indignation was followed by the calmness of gentle ministry; there in the cleared courts of His house, blind and lame folk came limping and groping about Him, and He healed them. The anger of the chief priests and scribes was raging against Him; but it was impotent. They had decreed His death, and had made repeated efforts to take Him, and there He sat within the very area over which[Pg 529] they claimed supreme jurisdiction, and they were afraid to touch Him because of the common people, whom they professed to despize yet heartily feared—"for all the people were very attentive to hear him."
His furious anger was followed by a calm and gentle touch; in the open courts of His house, blind and disabled people came stumbling and reaching out to Him, and He healed them. The chief priests and scribes were furious with Him, but their anger was powerless. They had decided He must die and had tried multiple times to capture Him, yet there He was in the very place they claimed full control over, and they were too scared to lay a hand on Him because of the crowd, whom they claimed to look down on but actually feared—"for all the people were very attentive to hear him."
The rage of the officials was further aggravated by a touching incident, which seems to have accompanied or to have immediately followed His merciful healing of the afflicted folk at the temple. Children saw what He did; with their innocent minds yet unsullied by the prejudice of tradition and their sight yet undarkened by sin, they perceived in Him the Christ, and burst forth into praise and worship in a hymn that was heard by the angels: "Hosanna to the son of David." With ill-concealed anger the temple officials demanded of Him: "Hearest thou what these say?" They probably expected Him to disclaim the title, or possibly hoped that He would reassert His claim in a manner that would afford excuse for legal action against Him, for to most of them the Son of David was the Messiah, the promised King. Would He clear Himself of the blasphemy that attached to the unjustified acknowledgment of so awful a dignity? Jesus answered, with an implied rebuke for their ignorance of the scriptures: "Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?"[1087]
The anger of the officials was further fueled by a touching incident that seems to have occurred right after His compassionate healing of the suffering people at the temple. Children witnessed what He did; with their innocent minds still untainted by the biases of tradition and their vision still clear of sin, they recognized Him as the Christ and began to praise Him in a hymn that was heard by the angels: "Hosanna to the son of David." With barely hidden anger, the temple officials asked Him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" They likely expected Him to deny the title or maybe hoped He would reaffirm His claim in a way that would give them a reason to take legal action against Him, since to most of them, the Son of David was the Messiah, the promised King. Would He distance Himself from the blasphemy that came with such a significant title? Jesus replied, with a subtle reprimand for their lack of understanding of the scriptures: "Yes; have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise?'"[1087]
It was now Monday evening; Jesus left the city and retired again to Bethany, where He lodged. This course was a prudent one, in view of the determination of the rulers to get Him into their power provided they could do so without arousing the people. This they could not accomplish by day, for wherever He appeared He was the center of a multitude; but had He remained in Jerusalem over night the vigilant emissaries of the hierarchy might have succeeded in taking Him, unless He withstood them by some miraculous action. Near as was His hour, it had not yet struck; and He would[Pg 530] be made captive only as He permitted Himself, a voluntary victim, to be taken into the hands of His enemies.
It was Monday evening; Jesus left the city and went back to Bethany, where He stayed. This was a smart move, considering the rulers were determined to seize Him if they could do it without upsetting the crowd. They couldn't accomplish this during the day, because wherever He went, a crowd gathered around Him; but if He had stayed in Jerusalem overnight, the watchful agents of the authority might have managed to capture Him, unless He resisted them with some miracle. Though His time was close, it hadn’t come yet; and He would only be captured if He allowed it, willingly putting Himself in the hands of His enemies.
CHRIST'S AUTHORITY CHALLENGED BY THE RULERS.[1088]
On the following day, that is on Tuesday, He returned to the temple with the Twelve, passing the withered fig tree on the way and impressing the moral of the combined miracle and parable as we have already seen. As He taught in the sacred place, preaching the gospel to all who would hear, the chief priests with a number of scribes and elders came upon Him in a body. They had been debating about Him over night, and had resolved on at least one step; they would challenge His authority for what He had done the day before. They were the guardians of the temple, both the material structure and the theocratic system for which the holy edifice stood; and this Galilean, who permitted Himself to be called the Christ and defended those who so acclaimed Him, had for the second time ignored their authority within the temple walls and in the presence of the common people over whom they lorded so arrogantly. So this official deputation, with plans matured, came to Him saying: "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?" This action was doubtless a preliminary step in a preconcerted attempt to suppress the activities of Jesus, both of word and deed, within the temple precincts. It will be remembered that after the first cleansing of the temple, the Jews had angrily demanded of Jesus a sign by which they might judge the question of His divine commission;[1089] and it is significant that on this latter occasion no sign was asked, but instead thereof, a specific avowal as to the authority He possessed and by whom it had been given Him. A three years' course of miracle and teaching was known to[Pg 531] them; on the yesterday blind and lame had been healed inside the temple walls; and Lazarus, the living testimony of the Lord's power over death and the grave was before them. To ask a further sign would have been to flagrantly expose themselves to the ridicule of the people.
On the next day, which was Tuesday, He went back to the temple with the Twelve, passing the shriveled fig tree along the way, emphasizing the lesson from the miracle and parable we’ve seen before. While He was teaching in the holy place, sharing the gospel with anyone willing to listen, the chief priests along with some scribes and elders approached Him as a group. They had spent the night debating about Him and had decided on at least one action; they would question His authority for what He had done the previous day. They were the keepers of the temple—both the physical building and the religious system it represented—and this Galilean, who allowed Himself to be called the Christ and supported those who praised Him, had for the second time disregarded their authority within the temple grounds and in front of the common people they looked down upon. So this official delegation, with plans in mind, came to Him and asked, "By what authority are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority?" This was likely a first step in a coordinated effort to shut down Jesus' actions and teachings within the temple area. It’s worth noting that after the first cleansing of the temple, the Jews had angrily demanded a sign from Jesus to validate His divine mission; and now, it’s significant that no sign was requested this time, but rather a direct statement about the authority He held and who had granted it. They were aware of His three years of miracles and teachings; just the day before, the blind and lame had been healed inside the temple, and Lazarus, a living testament to the Lord's power over death, was before them. Asking for another sign would have been a blatant way to invite ridicule from the people.
They knew what authority the Lord claimed; their question was of sinister purpose. Jesus did not condescend to voice an answer in which they could possibly find further excuse for antagonizing Him; but He availed Himself of a method very common among themselves—that of countering one question with another. "And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" They consulted among themselves as to what answer would best serve to extricate them from an embarrassing position; no mention is made of any attempt to ascertain the truth and reply accordingly; they were thoroughly nonplussed. Should they answer that John's baptism was of God, Jesus would probably demand of them why then they had not believed in the Baptist, and why they did not accept John's testimony concerning Himself. On the other hand, should they aver that John had no divine authority to preach and baptize, the people would turn against them, for the martyred Baptist was revered by the masses as a prophet. In spite of their boasted learning, they answered as puzzled school-boys might do when they perceive hidden difficulties in what at first seemed but a simple problem. "We cannot tell" said they. Then Jesus replied "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."
They knew what authority the Lord claimed; their question had a hidden motive. Jesus didn’t lower Himself to give them an answer that they could use to justify opposing Him, but instead, He used a common tactic among them—answering a question with another question. "And Jesus answered and said to them, I’ll also ask you one question. If you tell me the answer, I’ll tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, where did it come from? From heaven or from men?" They debated among themselves about how to respond in a way that would get them out of a tough spot; there’s no indication they tried to find the truth and answer accordingly; they were completely stumped. If they said John's baptism was from God, Jesus would likely ask them why they hadn’t believed in the Baptist and why they didn’t accept John’s testimony about Himself. On the flip side, if they said John had no divine authority to preach and baptize, the people would turn against them, because the martyred Baptist was honored by the masses as a prophet. Despite their claimed knowledge, they responded like confused students who see complexities in what seemed like an easy problem. "We cannot tell," they said. Then Jesus replied, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."
Chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people were outwitted and humiliated. The tables were completely turned upon them; Jesus, whom they had come to question, became the examiner; they a class of cowed and unwilling listeners. He the ready instructor, and the multitude interested[Pg 532] observers. With little likelihood of immediate interruption the Master proceeded in calm deliberation to relate to them a series of three splendid stories, each of which they felt applied to themselves with incisive certainty. The first of the narrations we call the Parable of the Two Sons.
The chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people were outsmarted and embarrassed. The situation completely flipped; Jesus, whom they had come to interrogate, became the one questioning them, while they sat like intimidated and unwilling listeners. He was the eager teacher, and the crowd was interested[Pg 532] in what he had to say. With little chance of being interrupted, the Master calmly began to tell them a series of three amazing stories, each of which struck them with sharp relevance. The first of these stories is called the Parable of the Two Sons.
"But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work today in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him."[1090]
"But what do you think? A certain man had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go work today in my vineyard.' He answered, 'I will not,' but later he changed his mind and went. Then he went to the second son and said the same thing. The second son answered, 'I will go, sir,' but did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted? They answered, 'The first.' Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the right way, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.'[1090]"
The opening sentence, "But what think ye?" was a call to close attention. It implied a question soon to follow; and that proved to be: Which of the two sons was the obedient one? There was but one consistent answer, and they had to give it, however loath. The application of the parable followed with convicting promptness. They, the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees and elders of the people, were typified by the second son, who, when told to labor in the vineyard answered so assuringly, but went not, though the vines were running to wild growth for want of pruning, and such poor fruit as might mature would be left to fall and rot upon the ground. The publicans and sinners upon whom they vented their contempt, whose touch was defilement, were like unto the first son, who in rude though frank refusal ignored the father's call, but afterward relented and set to work, repentantly hoping to make amends for the time he had lost and for the unfilial spirit he had shown.[1091] Publicans[Pg 533] and sinners, touched in their hearts by the clarion call to repentance, had flocked to the Baptist in the wilderness with the earnest inquiry: "Master, what shall we do?"[1092] John's call had been to no particular class; but while self-confessed sinners had repented and sought baptism at his hands, those very Pharisees and elders of the people had rejected his testimony and had hypocritically sought to ensnare him.[1093] Through the parable Jesus answered His own question as to whether the baptism of John was of God or of man. The Lord's affirmation, "Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you," was condemnatory of the corrupt though sanctimonious polity of the hierarchy throughout. It was not wholly without intimation of possible reformation, however. He did not say that the repentant sinners should enter, and the priestly hypocrites stand forever excluded; for the latter there was hope if they would but repent, though they would have to follow, not lead, in the glorious procession of the redeemed. In a continuation of the same discourse the Lord presented the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, as follows:
The opening sentence, "But what do you think?" was a call to pay close attention. It implied a question that was coming next, which was: Which of the two sons was the obedient one? There was only one clear answer, and they had to provide it, even though they were reluctant. The application of the parable came quickly and convictingly. The chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and elders of the people were represented by the second son, who said he would work in the vineyard but didn’t go, while the vines were overgrowing because they weren’t pruned, and any fruit that might grow would just fall and rot on the ground. The tax collectors and sinners, whom they looked down upon and considered unclean, were like the first son, who initially bluntly refused his father’s request, but later changed his mind and got to work, hoping to make up for lost time and the unfilial attitude he had shown. Publicans and sinners, moved in their hearts by the clear call to repent, had come to the Baptist in the wilderness, asking earnestly, "Teacher, what should we do?" John's call wasn’t aimed at any specific group; however, while self-admitted sinners repented and sought baptism from him, those very Pharisees and elders had rejected his message and hypocritically tried to trap him. Through the parable, Jesus answered his own question about whether John's baptism was from God or from man. The Lord’s statement, "Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you," condemned the corrupt yet self-righteous system of the established religious leaders. But it wasn’t entirely without a hint of possible reform. He didn’t say that the repentant sinners would enter while the hypocritical priests would be excluded forever; there was hope for the latter if they would only repent, even though they would have to follow, not lead, in the glorious march of the redeemed. Continuing the same discussion, the Lord presented the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, as follows:
"Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do[Pg 534] unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons."[1094]
"Hear another story: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, surrounded it with a fence, dug a winepress in it, built a tower, then rented it out to farmers and went to another country. When it was time to harvest the grapes, he sent his servants to the farmers to collect the fruit. The farmers took his servants, beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Again, he sent more servants than the first time, and they treated them the same way. Finally, he sent his son, thinking, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the farmers saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir; come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ So they caught him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. When the owner of the vineyard comes back, what will he do to those farmers?” They said to him, “He will totally destroy those wicked men and lease his vineyard to other farmers who will give him the fruit at harvest time."
Again the Jews were compelled to make answer to the great question with which the parable dealt, and again by their answer they pronounced judgment upon themselves. The vineyard, broadly speaking, was the human family, but more specifically the covenant people, Israel; the soil was good and capable of yielding in rich abundance; the vines were choice and had been set out with care; and the whole vineyard was amply protected with a hedge, and suitably furnished with winepress and tower.[1095] The husbandmen could be none other than the priests and teachers of Israel, including the ecclesiastical leaders who were then and there present in an official capacity. The Lord of the vineyard had sent among the people prophets authorized to speak in His name; and these the wicked tenants had rejected, maltreated, and, in many instances, cruelly slain.[1096] In the more detailed reports of the parable we read that when the first servant came, the cruel husbandmen "beat him and sent him away empty"; the next they wounded "in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled"; another they murdered and all who came later were brutally mistreated, and some of them were killed. Those wicked men had used the vineyard of their Lord for personal gain, and had rendered no part of the vintage to the lawful Owner. When the Lord sent other messengers, "more than the first," or in other words, greater than the earlier ones, the most recent example being John the Baptist, the husbandmen rejected them with evil determination more pronounced than ever. At last the Son had come in person; His authority they feared as that of the lawful heir, and with malignity almost beyond belief, they[Pg 535] determined to kill Him that they might perpetuate their unworthy possession of the vineyard and thenceforward hold it as their own.
Once again, the Jews were forced to respond to the big question posed by the parable, and once again, their answer implicated themselves. The vineyard represented, in general, the human race, but more specifically the people of the covenant, Israel; the soil was good and capable of producing abundant crops; the vines were excellent and had been carefully planted; and the entire vineyard was well protected by a hedge, along with being equipped with a winepress and a tower.[1095] The tenants could only be the priests and teachers of Israel, including the religious leaders who were present in an official role at that time. The Lord of the vineyard had sent prophets to the people, authorized to speak on His behalf; however, the wicked tenants had rejected, mistreated, and, in many cases, brutally killed them.[1096] In the more detailed versions of the parable, we read that when the first servant arrived, the cruel tenants "beat him and sent him away empty"; the next one they injured "in the head and sent away badly treated"; another they killed, and all who came after were viciously mistreated, with some being killed. Those wicked men had exploited the vineyard of their Lord for their own benefit and had given nothing from the harvest to the rightful Owner. When the Lord sent more messengers, "more than the first," meaning greater than the earlier ones—with John the Baptist being the most recent example—the tenants rejected them with an even stronger determination to do harm. Finally, the Son had come in person; they feared His authority as that of the rightful heir, and with a malice that was almost unbelievable, they decided to kill Him to maintain their unworthy claim over the vineyard, hoping to keep it for themselves.
Jesus carried the story without break from the criminal past to the yet more tragic and awful future, then but three days distant; and calmly related in prophetic imagery, as though already fulfilled, how those evil men cast the well beloved Son out of the vineyard and slew Him. Unable to evade the searching question as to what the Lord of the vineyard would naturally and righteously do to the wicked husbandmen, the Jewish rulers gave the only pertinent answer possible—that He would surely destroy those wretched sinners, and let out His vineyard to tenants who were more honest and worthy.
Jesus told the story continuously, moving from the criminals' past to a future that was even more tragic and terrible, just three days away. He calmly described it in prophetic terms, as if it had already happened, explaining how those wicked men rejected the beloved Son and killed Him. When confronted with the inevitable question about what the Lord of the vineyard would justly do to the evil tenants, the Jewish leaders could only give the obvious answer—that He would definitely destroy those miserable sinners and lease His vineyard to more honest and deserving tenants.
Suddenly changing the figure, "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."[1097] There could be no misapprehension as to the Lord's meaning; the rejected Stone which was eventually to have chief place, "the head of the corner," in the edifice of salvation, was Himself, the Messiah. To some that Stone would be a cause of stumbling; wo unto them, for thereby would they be broken, and only through repentance and works of righteousness could they even in part recover; but upon others, those who would persist in their opposition, the Stone would fall in judgment; and wo, wo to them, for beneath it they would be destroyed as though ground to powder.[1098] From them, the leaders, and from the people who followed their[Pg 536] unholy precepts and foul example, the kingdom of God was about to be taken, and would in time be given to the Gentiles, who, the Lord affirmed, would prove more worthy than Israel had been. We gather from Luke's account that in contemplation of this awful penalty, "they," whether priestly rulers or common people we are not told, exclaimed in despair, "God forbid!"
Suddenly changing the subject, Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures, ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this is the Lord's doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’? So I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation that produces its fruits. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whoever it falls, it will grind him to dust." There was no misunderstanding of the Lord's meaning; the rejected stone that would ultimately take the prime position, "the cornerstone" in the structure of salvation, was Himself, the Messiah. For some, that stone would be a stumbling block; woe to them, for they would be broken, and only through repentance and good deeds could they partially recover. But for others, those who persist in their opposition, the stone would fall in judgment; and woe, woe to them, for beneath it they would be destroyed as if ground to dust. From them, the leaders, and from the people who followed their corrupt teachings and wicked examples, the kingdom of God was about to be taken and eventually given to the Gentiles, who the Lord said would prove to be more deserving than Israel had been. From Luke's account, we understand that faced with this terrible consequence, "they," whether priestly rulers or common people is not clear, exclaimed in despair, "God forbid!"
As the chief priests and Pharisees realized the completeness of their discomfiture and the extent of the humiliation to which they had been subjected in the eyes of the people, they were incensed beyond measure, and even attempted to lay hold on Jesus there in the temple; but the sympathies of the multitude were so unmistakably in His favor that the angry ecclesiasts desisted. The people in general, while not prepared to openly proclaim Him as the Christ, knew that He was a prophet of God, and their dread of official displeasure and possible penalty did not deter them from friendly demonstrations.
As the chief priests and Pharisees recognized how completely they had been embarrassed and humiliated in front of the people, they were furious and even tried to seize Jesus in the temple. However, the crowd clearly supported Him, so the angry leaders backed off. While most people weren't ready to openly declare Him as the Messiah, they acknowledged that He was a prophet of God, and their fear of disapproval from authorities and potential consequences didn't stop them from showing their support.
Jesus resumed His teaching by relating the Parable of the Royal Marriage Feast.
Jesus continued His teaching by sharing the Parable of the Royal Marriage Feast.
"And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the[Pg 537] highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests."[1099]
"And Jesus answered and spoke to them again using parables, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who prepared a wedding for his son. He sent his servants to invite those who were invited to the wedding, but they refused to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "Look, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatted calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the wedding." However, they ignored it and went their own ways, one to his farm and another to his business. The rest seized his servants, treated them badly, and killed them. When the king heard this, he was furious. He sent his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, "The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the streets, and invite as many as you find to the wedding." The servants went out into the streets and gathered everyone they could find, both bad and good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.'"
The invitation of a king to his subjects is equivalent to a command. The marriage feast was no surprize event, for the selected guests had been bidden long aforetime; and, in accordance with oriental custom were notified again on the opening day of the festivities,[1100] which, according to Hebrew customs, would be understood as extending over a period of seven or fourteen days; in this case of a marriage in the royal family the greater duration would be assumed. Many of the bidden guests refused to come when formally summoned; and of the tolerant king's later and more pressing message they made light and went their ways, while the most wicked turned upon the servants who brought the royal summons, mistreated them cruelly, and some of them they killed. It is plainly evident that the refusal to attend the king's feast was a deliberate rebellion against the royal authority and a personal indignity against both the reigning sovereign and his son. It was as much a duty as an honor for loyal subjects to attend the marriage festival of the prince, whom we cannot err in regarding as the lawful heir to the throne, and therefore the one who might some day reign over them. The turning away by one man to his farm and by another to his merchandize is in part an evidence of their engrossment in material pursuits to the utter disregard of their sovereign's will; but it signifies further an effort to deaden their troubled consciences by some absorbing occupation; and possibly also a premeditated demonstration of the fact that they placed their personal affairs above the call of their king. The monarch executed a terrible retribution upon his rebellious subjects. If the parable was intended to be an allegorical presentation of actual events, it[Pg 538] passes at this point from the story of the past to that of the future, for the destruction of Jerusalem postdates by several decades the death of Christ. Finding the guests who had some claim on the royal invitation to be utterly unworthy, the king sent out his servants again, and these gathered in from the highways and cross-roads, from the byways and the lanes, all they could find, irrespective of rank or station, whether rich or poor, good or bad; "and the wedding was furnished with guests."
The king's invitation to his subjects is as good as a command. The wedding feast wasn’t a surprise since the chosen guests had been invited long before; in line with Eastern custom, they were reminded again on the first day of the celebrations,[1100] which, following Hebrew traditions, was understood to last seven or fourteen days; in the case of a royal wedding, it would likely be the longer duration. Many of the invited guests refused to attend when formally called; even when the tolerant king sent a later and more urgent message, they dismissed it and went about their business, while the most wicked even turned on the servants who delivered the royal summons, mistreating them severely, and some were killed. It's clear that refusing to attend the king’s feast was a deliberate act of rebellion against royal authority and an insult to both the reigning monarch and his son. It was both a duty and an honor for loyal subjects to attend the prince's wedding celebration, as he is rightfully seen as the legal heir to the throne, and potentially their future ruler. The fact that one man returned to his farm and another to his trade shows their obsession with material pursuits, completely ignoring their sovereign's wishes. It also suggests an attempt to numb their uneasy consciences through busy work, and possibly a calculated statement that they valued their personal matters over their king's call. The king took severe action against his rebellious subjects. If this parable was meant to symbolize real events, at this point it shifts from past to future events, as the destruction of Jerusalem happened decades after Christ's death. Finding the guests who should have honored the royal invitation to be entirely unworthy, the king sent out his servants again, and they gathered everyone they could find from the highways and back streets, regardless of their status, rich or poor, good or bad; "and the wedding was furnished with guests."
The great feast by which the Messianic reign was to be ushered in was a favorite theme of jubilant exposition in both synagog and school; and exultation ran high in the rabbinical dictum that none but the children of Abraham would be among the blessed partakers. The king in the parable is God; the son whose marriage was the occasion of the feast is Jesus, the Son of God; the guests who were bidden early, yet who refused to come when the feast was ready, are the covenant people who rejected their Lord, the Christ; the later guests, who were brought in from the streets and the roads, are the Gentile nations, to whom the gospel has been carried since its rejection by the Jews; the marriage feast is symbolical of the glorious consummation of the Messiah's mission.[1101]
The grand feast that was meant to signal the start of the Messianic reign was a popular topic of joyful discussion in both synagogues and schools; excitement ran high with the rabbinical saying that only the children of Abraham would be among the blessed participants. In the parable, the king represents God; the son whose wedding prompted the feast is Jesus, the Son of God; the guests who were invited initially but refused to come when the feast was ready represent the covenant people who rejected their Lord, the Christ; the later guests, who were brought in from the streets and roads, symbolize the Gentile nations that received the gospel after it was rejected by the Jews; the wedding feast symbolizes the glorious fulfillment of the Messiah's mission.[1101]
All students of the subject must have noted the points of resemblance by which this parable is related to that of the great supper;[1102] fewer perhaps have considered the differences between the two. The earlier story was told in the house of one of the chief Pharisees, probably in some town in Perea; the later one was related within the temple, after Pharisaic opposition to Christ had reached its height. The first is of simpler plot and of gentler climax. The neglect of the invited guests in the first story was accompanied by excuses in which some approach to polite apology appears; the[Pg 539] refusal of those bidden in the second parable was markedly offensive, and was coupled with outrageous abuse and murder. The host in one instance was a wealthy though private citizen, in the other the giver of the feast was a king. In the first, the occasion was one of ordinary though abundant entertainment; in the second, the determining time was that of the appointed marriage of the royal heir. Retribution in the first instance was limited to exclusion from the banquet; in the latter the individual punishment was death, which was followed by the punitive example of the city's destruction.
All students of the subject should have noticed the similarities between this parable and the one about the great supper;[1102] but probably fewer have thought about the differences between the two. The first story was told in the home of a prominent Pharisee, likely in some town in Perea; the later one was told within the temple, after the Pharisees' opposition to Christ had peaked. The first parable has a simpler plot and a gentler climax. The excuses given by the invited guests in the first story had some semblance of polite apology; in contrast, the refusal of those invited in the second parable was blatantly rude and was accompanied by outrageous insults and murder. The host in the first case was a wealthy but private citizen, while in the second, the host was a king. In the first parable, the occasion was a generous yet ordinary gathering; in the second, the context was the royal wedding of the heir. In the first instance, the punishment was limited to being excluded from the feast; in the second, the punishment was death, followed by the destructive example of the city's devastation.
Our account of the royal marriage feast is not yet complete; the story already considered is supplemented by the following:
Our account of the royal wedding feast isn’t finished yet; the story we just mentioned is added to by the following:
"And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 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."
"And when the king entered to greet the guests, he noticed a man who wasn’t wearing a wedding garment. He said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And the man was silent. Then the king told the servants, 'Tie him up hand and foot, take him away, and throw him into the outer darkness; there will be weeping and grinding of teeth. For many are invited, but few are chosen.'"
The lessons embodied in this section of the parable may be advantageously considered apart from those of the first division. As was befitting his dignity, the king came into the banquet hall after the guests had taken their places in orderly array. His immediate detection of one who was without the prescribed garment implies a personal scrutiny of the guests. One may be led to inquire, how, under the circumstances of hurried summoning, the several guests could have suitably attired themselves for the feast. The unity of the narrative requires that some provision had been made whereby each one who properly applied was given the garment prescribed by the king's command, and in keeping with the established custom at court. That the unrobed guest was guilty of neglect, intentional disrespect, or some more grievous offense, is plain from the context. The king[Pg 540] at first was graciously considerate, inquiring only as to how the man had entered without a wedding garment. Had the guest been able to explain his exceptional appearance, or had he any reasonable excuse to offer, he surely would have spoken; but we are told that he remained speechless. The king's summons had been freely extended to all whom his servants had found; but each of them had to enter the royal palace by the door; and before reaching the banquet room, in which the king would appear in person, each would be properly attired; but the deficient one, by some means had entered by another way; and not having passed the attendant sentinels at the portal, he was an intruder, of a kind with the man to whom the Lord had before referred as a thief and a robber because, not entering by the door, he had climbed up some other way.[1103] The king gave a command, and his ministers[1104] bound the offender and cast him forth from the palace into outer darkness, where the anguish of remorse caused weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The lessons in this section of the parable can be considered separately from those in the first part. As befits his status, the king entered the banquet hall after the guests had taken their seats in an orderly fashion. His quick identification of someone lacking the proper attire suggests he personally checked the guests. One might wonder how, given the rushed invitation, the guests could have dressed appropriately for the feast. The continuity of the story implies that arrangements were made so that each person who showed up properly was given the garment specified by the king's orders, following the established court customs. It’s clear from the context that the guest without the wedding garment was guilty of neglect, willful disrespect, or even a more serious offense. The king was initially polite, only asking how the man had entered without the appropriate attire. If the guest had a valid reason for his unusual appearance, he surely would have explained; however, he remained silent. The king's invitation was open to all whom his servants found, but each guest had to enter the royal palace through the main entrance; before arriving in the banquet room, where the king would be present, everyone would be properly dressed. The one without the attire must have entered through a different way, bypassing the guards at the entrance; therefore, he was an intruder, similar to the one the Lord had previously described as a thief and a robber for not entering through the door but climbing in some other way. The king ordered that his ministers bind the offender and throw him out of the palace into the outer darkness, where the pain of regret caused weeping and gnashing of teeth.
As summary and epilogue of the three great parables constituting this series, the Lord spake these words of solemn import: "For many are called, but few are chosen."[1105] Each of the parables has its own wealth of wisdom; and the three are as one in declaring the great truth that even the children of the covenant will be rejected except they make good their title by godly works; while to the heathen and the sinners the portals of heaven shall open, if by repentance and compliance with the laws and ordinances of the gospel they shall merit salvation.
As a summary and conclusion of the three great parables in this series, the Lord said these significant words: "For many are called, but few are chosen."[1105] Each parable holds its own wisdom, and together they emphasize the important truth that even the children of the covenant will be rejected unless they prove themselves through righteous deeds. Meanwhile, for the non-believers and sinners, the gates of heaven will open if they earn salvation through repentance and following the gospel's laws and ordinances.
The story of the royal marriage feast was the last of our Lord's parables delivered publicly to a mixed audience. Two others were spoken to the apostles, as they sat in solemn converse with the Lord on the Mount of Olives after the public ministry of Christ had been brought to a close.[Pg 541]
The story of the royal wedding feast was the final parable Jesus told in public to a diverse audience. He spoke two others to the apostles as they sat in serious discussion with Him on the Mount of Olives after His public ministry had ended.[Pg 541]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 30.
1. Fig Tree.—"The fig tree is very common in Palestine (Deut. 8:8). Its fruit is a well known and highly esteemed article of food. In the East this is of three kinds; (1) the early fig, ripening about the end of June; (2) the summer fig, ripening in August; (3) the winter fig, larger and darker than No. 2, hanging and ripening late on the tree, even after the leaves were shed, and sometimes gathered in the spring. The blossoms of the fig tree are within the receptacle or so-called fruit, and not visible outwardly; and this fruit begins to develop before the leaves. Hence the fig tree which had leaves before the usual time might naturally have been expected to have also some figs on it (Mark 11:13); but it was not true to its pretensions." (Smith's Comp. Bible Dict.)
1. Fig Tree.—"The fig tree is very common in Palestine (Deut. 8:8). Its fruit is a well-known and highly valued food. In the East, there are three types: (1) the early fig, which ripens around the end of June; (2) the summer fig, which ripens in August; (3) the winter fig, which is larger and darker than the summer fig, remains on the tree and ripens late, even after the leaves have fallen, and is sometimes harvested in the spring. The blossoms of the fig tree are inside the receptacle or the so-called fruit and aren’t visible from the outside; this fruit starts to develop before the leaves do. Therefore, a fig tree that had leaves before it typically would might naturally have been expected to also have some figs on it (Mark 11:13); but it did not live up to those expectations." (Smith's Comp. Bible Dict.)
2. The Two Sons in the Parable.—Although this excellent parable was addressed to the chief priests, scribes, and elders, who had come in hostile spirit to demand of Christ the credentials of His authority, its lesson is of universal application. The two sons are yet alive in every human community—the one openly boastful of his sin, the other a hypocritical pretender. Jesus did not commend the rough refusal of the first son of whom the father made a righteous demand for service; it was his subsequent repentance attended by works that made him superior to his brother who had made fair promise but had kept it not. There are many today who boast that they make no profession of religion, nor pretense of godly life. Their frankness will not mitigate their sins; it simply shows that a certain species of hypocrisy is not prominent among their numerous offenses; but that a man is innocent of one vice, say that of drunkenness, in no wise diminishes his measure of guilt if he be a liar, a thief, an adulterer, or a murderer. Both the sons in the parable were grievous sinners; but the one turned from his evil ways, which theretofore he had followed with flagrant openness, while the other continued in dark deeds of sin, which he sought to cover by a cloak of hypocrisy. Let no man think that because he becomes intoxicated at the public bar he is any the less a drunkard than is he who swallows the "beverage of hell" in comparative privacy, though the latter be both drunkard and hypocrite. For these sins, as for all others, genuine repentance is the only saving antidote.
2. The Two Sons in the Parable.—Although this impactful parable was directed at the chief priests, scribes, and elders, who came with a hostile attitude to question Christ's authority, its message applies to everyone. The two sons exist in every community—the one openly admitting his wrongdoing, the other pretending to be righteous. Jesus didn't endorse the first son's harsh refusal when the father asked him to work; it was the son's later change of heart, shown through his actions, that made him better than his brother, who made promises but failed to follow through. Many today proudly claim they don’t pretend to be religious or live a godly life. Their honesty doesn’t lessen their sins; it merely indicates that a certain kind of hypocrisy isn’t evident among their many wrongdoings. However, just because someone is free from one vice, like drunkenness, it doesn’t lessen their guilt if they are also a liar, thief, adulterer, or murderer. Both sons in the parable were serious sinners; one turned away from his blatant wrongdoing, while the other continued in secret sins, which he tried to hide behind a facade of righteousness. No one should think that because he gets drunk in public, he's any less of a drunkard than someone who drinks in private, even if the latter is both intoxicated and hypocritical. For these sins, as with all others, true repentance is the only real solution.
3. Israel Symbolized by Vineyard and Vines.—The aptness of our Lord's representation of Israel as a vineyard could not have escaped the perception of the Jews, to whom Old Testament similes of analogous form were familiar figures. Notable among others is the striking picture presented by Isaiah (5:1-7), in which the well provided vineyard is shown as producing wild grapes only, for which grievous disappointment of his expectations the owner determined to break down the wall, remove the hedge, and leave the vineyard to its fate of abandonment. The explication of the parable voiced by Isaiah is thus given:[Pg 542] "For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry." The worthlessness of a vine save only for its fruit was set forth by the Lord through His prophet Ezekiel (15:2-5); and truly it is so, that the wood of the grape plant is fit for nothing but burning; the whole vine as wood is inferior to a branch from a forest tree (verse 3). And Israel is represented as such a vine, precious if but fruitful, otherwise nothing but fuel and that of poor quality. The psalmist sang of the vine that Jehovah had brought out of Egypt and which, planted with care and hedged about, had flourished even with goodly boughs; but the favor of the Lord had been turned from the vine, and it had been left desolate (Psalm 80:8-16). For further allusions see Isa. 27:2-6; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 19:10-14; Hosea 10:1.
3. Israel Symbolized by Vineyard and Vines.—The appropriateness of our Lord's depiction of Israel as a vineyard would have been clear to the Jews, who were familiar with similar images from the Old Testament. One striking example is in Isaiah (5:1-7), where a well-tended vineyard is shown producing only sour grapes. The owner, disappointed by this outcome, decides to demolish the wall, remove the hedge, and let the vineyard be abandoned. Isaiah explains the parable as follows:[Pg 542] "For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for justice, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry." The worthlessness of a vine except for its fruit is emphasized by the Lord through His prophet Ezekiel (15:2-5); indeed, the wood of the grapevine is only good for burning, and the entire vine is less valuable than a branch from a forest tree (verse 3). Israel is depicted as such a vine, precious if fruitful, but otherwise just low-quality fuel. The psalmist sang of the vine that Jehovah brought out of Egypt, which, carefully planted and protected, thrived with beautiful branches. However, the Lord's favor turned away from the vine, leaving it desolate (Psalm 80:8-16). For further references, see Isa. 27:2-6; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 19:10-14; Hosea 10:1.
4. The Call to the Marriage Feast.—The calling of the guests who had been bidden aforetime is thus commented upon by Trench (Parables, pp. 175-6): "This summoning of those already bidden, was, and, as modern travellers attest, is still, quite in accordance with Eastern manners. Thus Esther invites Haman to a banquet on the morrow (Esth. 5:8), and when the time has actually arrived, the chamberlain comes to usher him to the banquet (6:14). There is, therefore, no slightest reason why we should make 'them that were bidden' to mean them that were now to be bidden; such an interpretation not merely violating all laws of grammar, but the higher purpose with which the parable was spoken; for our Lord, assuming that the guests had been invited long ago, does thus remind His hearers that what He brought, if in one sense new, was in another a fulfilment of the old; that He claimed to be heard, not as one suddenly starting up, unconnected with aught which had gone before but as Himself 'the end of the law,' to which it had been ever tending, the birth with which the whole Jewish dispensation had been pregnant, and which alone should give a meaning to it all. In His words, 'them that were bidden,' is involved the fact that there was nothing abrupt in the coming of His kingdom, that its rudiments had a long while before been laid, that all to which His adversaries clung as precious in their past history was prophetic of blessings now actually present to them in Him. The original invitation, which had now come to maturity, reached back to the foundation of the Jewish commonwealth, was taken up and repeated by each succeeding prophet, as he prophesied of the crowning grace that should one day be brought to Israel (Luke 10:24; 1 Pet. 1:12), and summoned the people to hold themselves in a spiritual readiness to welcome their Lord and their King."
4. The Call to the Marriage Feast.—The invitation of the guests who had been invited earlier is commented on by Trench (Parables, pp. 175-6): "This summoning of those already invited was, and, as modern travelers confirm, still is, typical of Eastern customs. For example, Esther invites Haman to a banquet for the next day (Esth. 5:8), and when the time comes, the chamberlain arrives to guide him to the feast (6:14). Therefore, there is no reason to interpret 'them that were bidden' as referring to those who were now to be bidden; such an interpretation not only goes against all rules of grammar but also overlooks the deeper purpose of the parable. Our Lord, assuming that the guests had been invited long ago, reminds His audience that what He brings, while new in one sense, is also a fulfillment of the old; He claims to be heard, not as someone who suddenly appears, disconnected from everything that came before, but as Himself 'the end of the law,' towards which it has always been directed, the culmination of everything the Jewish faith has anticipated, which alone gives meaning to it all. In His words, 'them that were bidden,' lies the fact that there was nothing sudden about His kingdom's arrival; its foundational elements had been established long before, and everything that His opponents cherished from their history was prophetic of the blessings now fully present in Him. The original invitation, which has now reached its fruition, traces back to the founding of the Jewish commonwealth, and was taken up and reiterated by each successive prophet as they foretold the ultimate grace that would one day be revealed to Israel (Luke 10:24; 1 Pet. 1:12), urging the people to be spiritually prepared to welcome their Lord and King."
5. Servants and Ministers.—According to good philological authority, "ministers" or "ministering attendants" is a more literal rendering of the original than "servants" in Matt. 22:13. In the earlier verses 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, of the same chapter, "servants" or "servitors" best expresses the meaning of the original. The distinction is significant, as it implies an important difference of[Pg 543] station between the servants who were sent out to bid the people to the feast, and the ministers in immediate attendance upon the king. The first are typical of God's servants who proclaim His word in the world; the latter symbolize the angels who shall execute His judgments on the wicked by gathering out from His kingdom all things that offend. Compare Matt. 13:30, 39, 41; Doc. and Cov. 86:5.
5. Servants and Ministers.—According to reputable linguistic sources, "ministers" or "ministering attendants" is a more accurate translation of the original text than "servants" in Matt. 22:13. In the earlier verses 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 of the same chapter, "servants" or "servitors" conveys the intended meaning of the original. This distinction is important, as it highlights a significant difference in[Pg 543] status between the servants sent out to invite people to the feast and the ministers who are directly attending the king. The former represent God's servants who share His message in the world; the latter represent the angels who will carry out His judgments on the wicked by removing everything that causes offense from His kingdom. See Matt. 13:30, 39, 41; Doc. and Cov. 86:5.
6. The Called and the Chosen.—Edersheim's reflections upon this subject follow in part (vol. ii, pp. 429, 430): "The King entered to see His guests, and among them he descried one who had not on a wedding garment.... As the guests had been travelers, and as the feast was in the King's palace, we cannot be mistaken in supposing that such garments were supplied in the palace to all who sought them. And with this agrees the circumstance, that the man so addressed 'was speechless.' His conduct argued utter insensibility as regarded that to which he had been called—ignorance of what was due the King, and what became such a feast. For, although no previous state of preparedness was required of the invited guests, all being bidden, whether good or bad, yet the fact remained that, if they were to take part in the feast they must put on a garment suited to the occasion. All are invited to the gospel feast; but they who will partake of it must put on the King's wedding garment of evangelical holiness. And whereas it is said in the parable that only one was descried without this garment, this is intended to teach, that the King will not only generally view His guests, but that each will be separately examined, and that no one—no, not a single individual—will be able to escape discovery amidst the mass of guests, if he has not the wedding garment. In short, in that day of trial, it is not a scrutiny of churches, but of individuals in the Church.... The call comes to all; but it may be outwardly accepted, and a man may sit down to the feast, and yet he may not be chosen to partake of the feast, because he has not the wedding garment of converting, sanctifying grace. And so, one may be thrust even from the marriage board into the darkness without, with its sorrow and anguish. Thus, side by side, yet wide apart, are these two—God's call and God's choice. The connecting link between them is the wedding garment, freely given in the Palace. Yet, we must seek it, ask it, put it on. And as here also, we have, side by side, God's gift and man's activity. And still, to all time, and to all men, alike in its warning, teaching, and blessing, is it true: 'Many are called, but few chosen!' Many words of related meaning, both Hebrew and Greek, are translated 'garment' in our English Bible. The Greek original in the mention of the wedding garment is enduma; this does not occur in other Bible passages as the original of 'garment.' The noun is related to the Greek verb enduein, 'to put on, as a garment.' Compare Luke 24:49, 'until ye be endued with power from on high.'"[Pg 544]
6. The Called and the Chosen.—Edersheim's thoughts on this topic are noted in part (vol. ii, pp. 429, 430): "The King came to see His guests, and among them he spotted one who wasn't wearing a wedding garment.... Since the guests were travelers and the feast was in the King's palace, it's reasonable to assume that such garments were provided in the palace for anyone who needed them. This aligns with the fact that the man in question 'was speechless.' His behavior showed complete insensitivity to what he had been invited to—unawareness of what was appropriate for the King and the significance of such a feast. While no prior preparation was necessary for the invited guests, who were bidden regardless of being good or bad, the reality remained that to attend the feast, they needed to wear a garment suitable for the occasion. Everyone is invited to the gospel feast; however, those who wish to partake must put on the King's wedding garment of evangelical holiness. The parable mentions only one person without this garment, signaling that the King will not only look at His guests as a group, but each will be examined individually, and no one—not a single person—will go unnoticed in the crowd if they lack the wedding garment. In essence, during the day of judgment, it is not about assessing churches, but individuals within the Church.... The call is for everyone; yet someone can outwardly accept it and sit down at the feast without being chosen to enjoy it because they lack the wedding garment of transforming, sanctifying grace. Consequently, one could be thrown out from the marriage feast into the darkness outside, filled with sorrow and anguish. Thus, side by side, but distinctly separate, are these two—God's call and God's choice. The link between them is the wedding garment, freely provided in the Palace. Still, we must seek it, ask for it, and put it on. Here, too, we find God's gift alongside human effort. And still, in all times and to all people, the warning, lesson, and blessing remains true: 'Many are called, but few are chosen!' Many words with related meanings in both Hebrew and Greek are translated as 'garment' in our English Bible. The Greek term for the wedding garment is enduma; it doesn’t appear elsewhere in the Bible as the original for 'garment.' The noun relates to the Greek verb enduein, meaning 'to put on, like a garment.' Compare Luke 24:49, 'until you are endued with power from on high.'"[Pg 544]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1080] Matt. 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-26.
[1083] "Bethphage," the name of a village close to Bethany, and therefore near to the Mount of Olives, means "house of figs." See mention, Matt. 21:1; Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29. "Bethany" signifies "house of dates." For "house" in the literal translation we may read "place."
[1083] "Bethphage," the name of a village near Bethany and close to the Mount of Olives, means "house of figs." See Matt. 21:1; Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29 for reference. "Bethany" means "house of dates." We can interpret "house" in the literal translation as "place."
[1090] Matt. 21:28-32.
[1093] Matt. 3:7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 3:7.
[1099] Matt. 22:1-10.
CHAPTER 31.
THE CLOSE OF OUR LORD'S PUBLIC MINISTRY.
A CONSPIRACY OF PHARISEES AND HERODIANS.[1106]
The Jewish authorities continued unceasingly active in their determined efforts to tempt or beguile Jesus into some act or utterance on which they could base a charge of offense, under either their own or Roman law. The Pharisees counseled together as to "how they might entangle him in his talk"; and then, laying aside their partisan prejudices, they conspired to this end with the Herodians, a political faction whose chief characteristic was the purpose of maintaining in power the family of the Herods,[1107] which policy of necessity entailed the upholding of the Roman power, upon which the Herods depended for their delegated authority. The same incongruous association had been entered into before in an attempt to provoke Jesus to overt speech or action in Galilee; and the Lord had coupled the parties together in His warning to the disciples to beware of the leaven of both.[1108] So, on the last day of our Lord's teaching in public, Pharisees and Herodians joined forces against Him; the one watchful for the smallest technical infringement of the Mosaic law, the other alert to seize upon the slightest excuse for charging Him with disloyalty to the secular powers. Their plans were conceived in treachery, and put into operation as the living embodiment of a lie. Choosing some of their number who had not before appeared in personal antagonism to Jesus, and who were supposed to be unknown to Him, the chief conspirators sent these with instructions to "feign[Pg 545] themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor."
The Jewish leaders kept actively trying to lure or trick Jesus into doing or saying something that they could use to accuse Him of wrongdoing, either under their own laws or Roman law. The Pharisees got together to discuss "how they might trap him with his words"; and then, putting aside their usual biases, they teamed up with the Herodians, a political group whose main goal was to keep the Herod family in power, which required supporting Roman authority, as that was what the Herods relied on for their power. This strange alliance had been formed before in an effort to provoke Jesus into making a blatant statement or action in Galilee; and Jesus had warned the disciples to be cautious of the influence of both groups. So, on the last day our Lord taught in public, the Pharisees and Herodians united against Him; one was looking for the smallest violation of the Mosaic law, while the other was ready to jump at any chance to accuse Him of being disloyal to the ruling powers. Their plans were born from deceit and put into action as a living lie. They selected some members who had not previously confronted Jesus personally and who were believed to be unknown to Him; these main conspirators sent them with the instructions to "pretend to be just men, so they could trap Him in His words and hand Him over to the governor’s power and authority."
This delegation of hypocritical spies came asking a question, in pretended sincerity, as though they were troubled in conscience and desired counsel of the eminent Teacher. "Master," said they with fawning duplicity, "we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men." This studied tribute to our Lord's courage and independence of thought and action was truthful in every word; but as uttered by those fulsome dissemblers and in their nefarious intent, it was egregiously false. The honeyed address, however, by which the conspirators attempted to cajole the Lord into unwariness, indicated that the question they were about to submit was one requiring for its proper answer just such qualities of mind as they pretendingly attributed to Him.
This group of hypocritical spies came asking a question, pretending to be sincere, as if they were genuinely troubled and seeking advice from the respected Teacher. "Master," they said with flattering deceit, "we know that you are truthful, and you teach the way of God honestly, and you don’t care about what people think: you don’t show favoritism." This flattery about our Lord's courage and independence of thought and action was true in every word; but coming from these insincere schemers and with their malicious intent, it was utterly false. The overly sweet approach the conspirators used to try to catch the Lord off guard showed that the question they were about to ask required the very qualities of mind they pretended He possessed.
"Tell us therefore," they continued, "What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?" The question had been chosen with diabolic craft; for of all acts attesting compulsory allegiance to Rome that of having to pay the poll-tax was most offensive to the Jews. Had Jesus answered "Yes," the guileful Pharisees might have inflamed the multitude against Him as a disloyal son of Abraham; had His answer been "No," the scheming Herodians could have denounced Him as a promoter of sedition against the Roman government. Moreover the question was unnecessary; the nation, both rulers and people had settled it, however grudgingly, for they accepted and circulated among themselves the Roman coinage as a common medium of exchange; and it was a criterion of recognition among the Jews that to make current the coins of any sovereign was to acknowledge his royal authority. "But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?" All their artful[Pg 546] expressions of false adulation were countered by the withering epithet "hypocrites." "Shew me the tribute money," He commanded, and they produced a penny—a Roman denarius bearing the effigy and name of Tiberius Cæsar, emperor of Rome. "Whose is this image and superscription?" He asked. They answered "Cæsar's." "Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's."[1109]
"Tell us, then," they continued, "What do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" The question was chosen with malicious intent; paying the poll tax was the most offensive way for Jews to show their allegiance to Rome. If Jesus had answered "Yes," the devious Pharisees could have turned the public against Him as a traitor; if He had said "No," the scheming Herodians could have branded Him as someone inciting rebellion against the Roman government. Moreover, the question was unnecessary; both the rulers and the people had already settled it, even if reluctantly, by accepting and using Roman coins as a common form of exchange. Among the Jews, using currency from any ruler was a way of acknowledging that ruler's authority. "But Jesus saw their malice and said, 'Why do you test me, hypocrites?'" All their clever flattery was met with the stinging label "hypocrites." "Show me the tax money," He commanded, and they handed over a penny—a Roman denarius featuring the likeness and name of Tiberius Caesar, emperor of Rome. "Whose image and inscription is this?" He asked. They replied, "Caesar's." "Then He told them, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.'"
The reply was a masterly one by whatever standard we gage it; it has become an aphorism in literature and life. It swept away any lingering thought or expectation that in the mind of Him who had so recently ridden into Jerusalem as King of Israel and Prince of Peace, there was even the semblance of aspiration for earthly power or dominion. It established for all time the one righteous basis of relationship between spiritual and secular duties, between church and state. The apostles in later years builded upon this foundation and enjoined obedience to the laws of established governments.[1110]
The response was impressive by any measure; it’s become a saying in both literature and life. It eliminated any lingering thoughts or expectations that the one who had just entered Jerusalem as King of Israel and Prince of Peace had any desire for earthly power or control. It established forever the right way to understand the relationship between spiritual and secular responsibilities, between church and state. In later years, the apostles built on this foundation and urged obedience to the laws of established governments.[1110]
One may draw a lesson if he will, from the association of our Lord's words with the occurrence of Cæsar's image on the coin. It was that effigy with its accompanying superscription that gave special point to His memorable instruction, "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's." This was followed by the further injunction: "and unto God the things that are God's." Every human soul is stamped with the image and superscription of God, however blurred and indistinct the lines may have become through the corrosion or attrition of sin;[1111] and as unto Cæsar should be rendered the coins upon which his effigy appeared, so unto God should be given the souls that bear His image. Render unto the world the stamped pieces that are made legally current by the insignia of worldly powers, and give[Pg 547] unto God and His service, yourselves—the divine mintage of His eternal realm.
One can take a lesson, if they choose, from the connection between our Lord's words and the image of Caesar on the coin. It was that likeness, along with its inscription, that highlighted His important teaching, "So give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar." This was followed by the further command, "and give to God what belongs to God." Every human soul carries the image and inscription of God, no matter how faded or blurred those lines may have become due to the wear of sin; and just as the coins bearing Caesar's image should be given to him, so too should the souls that bear God's image be offered to Him. Give the world the stamped currency made valid by the authority of worldly powers, and dedicate yourselves—the divine creation of His eternal kingdom—to God and His service.
Pharisees and Herodians were silenced by the unanswerable wisdom of the Lord's reply to their crafty question. Try as they would, they could not "take hold of his words," and they were put to shame before the people who were witnesses to their humiliation. Marveling at His answer, and unwilling to take the chance of further and possibly greater embarrassment, they "left him, and went their way." Nevertheless these perverted Jews persisted in their base and treacherous purpose, as appears nowhere more glaringly evident than in their utterly false accusation before Pilate—that Jesus was guilty of "forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that he himself is Christ a King."[1112]
Pharisees and Herodians were left speechless by the Lord's wise response to their tricky question. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn't trap Him in His words, and they ended up embarrassed in front of the people who witnessed their humiliation. Amazed by His answer and not wanting to risk further embarrassment, they "left him, and went their way." However, these corrupt Jews continued with their deceitful intentions, as seen most clearly in their completely false accusation before Pilate—that Jesus was guilty of "forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that he himself is Christ a King."[1112]
SADDUCEES QUESTION ABOUT THE RESURRECTION.[1113]
Next, the Sadducees tried to discomfit Jesus by propounding what they regarded as an involved if not indeed a very difficult question. The Sadducees held that there could be no bodily resurrection, on which point of doctrine as on many others, they were the avowed opponents of the Pharisees.[1114] The question submitted by the Sadducees on this occasion related directly to the resurrection, and was framed to discredit the doctrine by a most unfavorable and grossly exaggerated application thereof. "Master," said the spokesman of the party, "Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her." It was[Pg 548] beyond question that the Mosaic law authorized and required that the living brother of a deceased and childless husband should marry the widow with the purpose of rearing children to the name of the dead, whose family lineage would thus be legally continued.[1115] Such a state of affairs as that presented by the casuistical Sadducees, in which seven brothers in succession had as wife and left as childless widow the same woman, was possible under the Mosaic code relating to levirate marriages; but it was a most improbable instance.
Next, the Sadducees attempted to embarrass Jesus by asking what they thought was a complicated if not very tough question. The Sadducees believed that there was no bodily resurrection, and on this point, as on many others, they were open opponents of the Pharisees.[1114] The question posed by the Sadducees this time was directly about the resurrection and was designed to undermine the doctrine through a very unfavorable and grossly exaggerated example. "Teacher," said the spokesperson for the group, "Moses said that if a man dies without children, his brother must marry his wife and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us: the first married a woman, died, and left his wife to his brother since he had no children. The same happened to the second and the third, all the way to the seventh. Finally, the woman died too. So, in the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven? Because they all had her." It is[Pg 548] clear that the Mosaic law allowed and required that the surviving brother of a deceased and childless husband marry the widow with the intention of having children to continue the name of the dead, thus preserving his family lineage.[1115] While the scenario presented by the tricky Sadducees, where seven brothers successively married and left the same woman childless, could happen under the Mosaic laws about levirate marriages, it was an extremely unlikely situation.
Jesus stopped not, however, to question the elements of the problem as presented to Him; whether the case was assumed or real mattered not, since the question "Whose wife shall she be?" was based on an utterly erroneous conception. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." The Lord's meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only, and primarily for the purpose of perpetuating in mortality the name and family of the brother who first died. Luke records the Lord's words as follows in part: "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.[1116]
Jesus didn't stop to question the details of the problem presented to Him; whether the situation was hypothetical or real didn't matter, since the question "Whose wife will she be?" was based on a completely mistaken understanding. "Jesus answered them, 'You are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God. In the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven.'" The Lord's message was clear: in the resurrected state, there won't be any debate among the seven brothers about whose wife the woman will be for eternity, since all but the first man married her for the duration of mortal life only, primarily to carry on the name and family line of the brother who first died. Luke partly records the Lord's words: "But those who are deemed worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." In the resurrection, there will be no marriage or giving in marriage; all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which has the power to seal marriages for both time and eternity.[1116]
From the case presented by His treacherous questioners, Jesus turned to the actuality of the resurrection, which was involved in and implied by the inquiry. "But as touching the resurrection of the dead," said He, "have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." This was a direct assault upon the Sadducean doctrine of negation concerning the literal resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees were distinctively the zealous upholders of the law, wherein Jehovah affirms Himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;[1117] yet they denied the possible resurrection of these patriarchs, and made the exalted title, under which the Lord had revealed Himself to Moses, valid only during the brief mortal existence of the progenitors of the Israelitish nation. The declaration that Jehovah is not the God of the dead but of the living was an unanswerable denunciation of the Sadducean perversion of scripture; and with solemn finality the Lord added: "Ye therefore do greatly err." Certain of the scribes present were impressed by the incontrovertible demonstration of the truth, and exclaimed with approbation: "Master, thou hast well said." The proud Sadducees were confuted and silenced; "and after that they durst not ask him any question at all."
From the case presented by His treacherous questioners, Jesus focused on the reality of the resurrection, which was central to their inquiry. "But regarding the resurrection of the dead," He said, "haven't you read what God said to you: 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." This was a direct challenge to the Sadduceean belief denying the literal resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees were particularly devoted supporters of the law, where Jehovah asserts Himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;[1117] yet they denied the possibility of these patriarchs' resurrection, claiming that the exalted title under which the Lord revealed Himself to Moses applied only during the brief mortal lives of the ancestors of the Israelite nation. The statement that Jehovah is not the God of the dead but of the living was an undeniable condemnation of the Sadducean distortion of scripture; and with solemn finality, the Lord added: "You are therefore greatly mistaken." Some of the scribes present were struck by the undeniable truth and exclaimed in approval: "Master, you have spoken well." The proud Sadducees were confounded and silenced; "and after that, they didn’t dare to ask Him any more questions."
THE GREAT COMMANDMENT.[1118]
The Pharisees, covertly rejoicing over the discomfiture of their rivals, now summoned courage enough to plan another attack of their own. One of their number, a lawyer, by which title we may understand one of the scribes who was distinctively also a professor of ecclesiastical law, asked: "Which is the first commandment of all?" or, as Matthew states the question: "Master, which is the great commandment[Pg 550] in the law?" The reply was prompt, incisive, and so comprehensive as to cover the requirements of the law in their entirety. With the imperative call to attention with which Moses had summoned Israel to hear and heed,[1119] the very words of which were written on the phylacteries[1120] which the Pharisees wore as frontlets between their eyes, Jesus answered: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Matthew's wording of the concluding declaration is: "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
The Pharisees, secretly pleased about the mishaps of their opponents, finally gathered the courage to plan their own attack. One of them, a lawyer—meaning he was a scribe who specialized in church law—asked, "What is the most important commandment?" or, as Matthew puts it: "Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the law?" The answer was immediate, sharp, and so thorough that it encompassed all the legal requirements. With the strong call to listen that Moses used to urge Israel to hear and obey, the very words of which were inscribed on the phylacteries that the Pharisees wore on their foreheads, Jesus said: "Listen, Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength: this is the first commandment. The second is similar: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these." According to Matthew, the summary statement is: "All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
The philosophic soundness of the Lord's profound generalization and comprehensive summarizing of the "law and the prophets"[1121] will appeal to all students of human nature. It is a common tendency of man to reach after, or at least to inquire after and marvel about, the superlative. Who is the greatest poet, philosopher, scientist, preacher or statesman? Who stands first and foremost in the community, the nation, or even, as the apostles in their aspiring ignorance asked, in the kingdom of heaven? Which mountain overtops all the rest? Which river is the longest or the largest? Such queries are ever current. The Jews had divided and subdivided the commandments of the law, and had supplemented even the minutest subdivision with rules of their own contriving. Now came the Pharisee asking which of all these requirements was the greatest.[1122] To love God with all one's heart and soul and mind is to serve Him and keep all His commandments. To love one's neighbor as one's self is to be a brother in the broadest and, at the same time, the most exacting sense of the term. Therefore the commandment[Pg 551] to love God and man is the greatest, on the basis of the simple and mathematical truth that the whole is greater than any part. What need of the decalog could there be if mankind would obey this first and great and all-embracing commandment? The Lord's reply to the question was convincing even to the learned scribe who had acted as spokesman for his Pharisaic colleagues. The man was honest enough to admit the righteousness and wisdom on which the reply was grounded, and impulsively he voiced acceptance, saying, "Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." Jesus was no whit less prompt than the well-intending scribe in acknowledging merit in the words of an opponent; and to the man He gave the encouraging assurance: "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." As to whether the scribe remained firm in purpose and eventually gained entrance into that blessed abode, the scriptural record is silent.
The philosophical soundness of the Lord's deep generalization and thorough summary of the "law and the prophets"[1121] will resonate with all students of human nature. People often have a tendency to pursue or at least question and marvel at the superlative. Who is the greatest poet, philosopher, scientist, preacher, or statesman? Who stands out most in the community, the nation, or even, as the apostles eagerly asked, in the kingdom of heaven? Which mountain is the highest? Which river is the longest or largest? These types of questions are always relevant. The Jews had divided and subdivided the commandments of the law and had even supplemented the tiniest detail with rules of their own creation. Then a Pharisee came to ask which of all these requirements was the greatest.[1122] To love God with all your heart, soul, and mind means to serve Him and follow all His commandments. To love your neighbor as yourself means to be a brother in the broadest and most demanding sense of the term. Therefore, the commandment to love God and humanity is the greatest, based on the simple and mathematical truth that the whole is greater than any part. What need would there be for the decalog if mankind obeyed this first, greatest, and all-encompassing commandment? The Lord's response to the question was compelling even to the educated scribe who spoke for his Pharisaic peers. The man was honest enough to recognize the righteousness and wisdom behind the reply and impulsively accepted it, saying, "Well, Master, you have spoken the truth: for there is one God; and there is no other but Him: And to love Him with all the heart, and with all understanding, and with all the soul, and with all strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, is more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." Jesus was just as quick as the well-intentioned scribe in acknowledging the merit in the words of an opponent; and to the man, He offered the encouraging assurance: "You are not far from the kingdom of God." As for whether the scribe remained steadfast in his purpose and eventually entered that blessed place, the scriptural record does not say.
JESUS TURNS QUESTIONER.[1123]
Sadducees, Herodians, Pharisees, lawyers, and scribes, all had in turn met discomfiture and defeat in their efforts to entangle Jesus on questions of doctrine or practise, and had utterly failed to incite Him to any act or utterance on which they could lawfully charge Him with offense. Having so effectually silenced all who had ventured to challenge Him to debate, either covertly or with open intent, that "no man after that durst ask him any question," Jesus in turn became the aggressive interrogator. Turning to the Pharisees, who had clustered together for greater facility in consultation, Jesus began a colloquy which proceeded as follows:[Pg 552]
Sadducees, Herodians, Pharisees, lawyers, and scribes all faced embarrassment and defeat in their attempts to trap Jesus with questions about doctrine or practice, and they completely failed to provoke Him into any action or words that they could legally accuse Him of wrongdoing. Having effectively silenced anyone who dared to challenge Him in debate, either secretly or openly, "no one dared ask Him any questions" after that. Jesus then became the one asking the questions. He turned to the Pharisees, who had grouped together for easier consultation, and started a conversation that went like this:[Pg 552]
"What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" The Lord's citation of David's jubilant and worshipful song of praise, which, as Mark avers, Jesus said was inspired by the Holy Ghost, had reference to the Messianic psalm[1124] in which the royal singer affirmed his own reverent allegiance, and extolled the glorious reign of the promised King of kings, who is specifically called therein "a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."[1125] Puzzling as was the unexpected question to the erudite Jews, we fail to perceive in it any inexplicable difficulty, since to us, less prejudiced than they who lived in expectation of a Messiah who would be David's son only in the sense of family descent and royal succession in the splendor of temporal rule, the eternal Godship of the Messiah is a fact demonstrated and undeniable. Jesus the Christ is the Son of David in the physical way of lineage by which both Jesus and David are sons of Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, and Adam. But while Jesus was born in the flesh as late in the centuries as the "meridian of time"[1126] He was Jehovah, Lord and God, before David, Abraham, or Adam was known on earth.[1127]
"What do you think about Christ? Whose son is he? They said to him, 'The son of David.' He replied, 'How then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool?"' If David calls him Lord, how can he be his son?" The Lord's reference to David's joyful and worshipful song of praise, which, as Mark notes, Jesus said was inspired by the Holy Spirit, pointed to the Messianic psalm[1124] where the royal singer expressed his own reverent loyalty and praised the glorious reign of the promised King of kings, who is specifically called there "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek."[1125] As puzzling as this unexpected question was to the learned Jews, we don't see it as an unexplainable difficulty, since we are less biased than those who lived expecting a Messiah to be David's son only in the sense of family descent and royal succession in the splendor of earthly rule; the eternal Godship of the Messiah is a fact that is clear and undeniable. Jesus Christ is the Son of David in the physical sense of lineage, as both Jesus and David are sons of Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, and Adam. But while Jesus was born in the flesh at the "meridian of time"[1126], He was Jehovah, Lord, and God long before David, Abraham, or Adam existed on earth.[1127]
WICKED SCRIBES AND PHARISEES DENOUNCED.[1128]
The humiliating defeat of the Pharisaic party was made all the more memorable and bitter by the Lord's final denunciation of the system, and His condemnation of its unworthy representatives. Addressing Himself primarily to the disciples, yet speaking in the hearing of the multitude, He directed[Pg 553] the attention of all to the scribes and Pharisees, who, He pointed out, occupied the seat of Moses as doctrinal expounders and official administrators of the law, and who were therefore to be obeyed in their authoritative rule; but against their pernicious example the disciples were forcefully warned. "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do," said the Lord, "but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not." Distinction between due observance of official precept and the personal responsibility of following evil example, though it be that of men high in authority, could not have been made plainer. Disobedience to law was not to be excused because of corruption among the law's representatives, nor was wickedness in any individual to be condoned or palliated because of another's villainy.
The humiliating defeat of the Pharisaic party became even more memorable and bitter because of the Lord's final criticism of the system and His condemnation of its unworthy leaders. Speaking mainly to His disciples, but loud enough for the crowd to hear, He pointed everyone to the scribes and Pharisees, who He noted held the position of Moses as teachers of doctrine and official enforcers of the law, and thus should be obeyed in their authoritative role; however, the disciples were strongly warned against following their harmful example. "So, whatever they tell you to observe, do that," said the Lord, "but don’t follow their actions; for they say one thing and do another." The distinction between properly following official teachings and the personal responsibility of not following a bad example, even if it comes from those in power, couldn’t have been clearer. Disobeying the law couldn't be justified because of corruption among its representatives, nor could wrongdoings of any individual be excused because of someone else's wrongdoing.
In explanation of the caution He so openly blazoned against the vices of the rulers, the Lord continued: "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Rabbinism had practically superseded the law in the substitution of multitudinous rules and exactions, with conditional penalties; the day was filled with traditional observances by which even the trivial affairs of life were encumbered; yet from bearing these and other grievous burdens hypocritical officials could find excuse for personal exemption.
In explaining the caution He boldly declared about the flaws of the rulers, the Lord said: "They impose heavy burdens that are hard to bear and place them on people's shoulders; but they won’t lift a finger to help." Rabbinic traditions had basically replaced the law with countless rules and demands, complete with conditional penalties; the day was filled with traditional practices that complicated even the simplest aspects of life. Yet, while regular people had to deal with these and other heavy burdens, hypocritical officials found ways to exempt themselves.
Their inordinate vanity and their irreverent assumption of excessive piety were thus stigmatized: "But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries,[1129] and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi." The high-sounding title, Rabbi, signifying Master, Teacher, or Doctor, had eclipsed[Pg 554] the divinely recognized sanctity of priesthood; to be a rabbi of the Jews was regarded as vastly superior to being a priest of the Most High God.[1130] "But be not ye called Rabbi," said Jesus to the apostles and the other disciples present, "for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."[1131]
Their excessive vanity and disrespectful display of false piety were called out: "But all their actions are meant to be seen by others: they make their phylacteries wide, and expand the edges of their robes, and love the best seats at banquets, and the most prominent places in the synagogues, and greetings in the streets, and to be addressed as Rabbi, Rabbi." The lofty title Rabbi, meaning Master, Teacher, or Doctor, overshadowed the divinely acknowledged sanctity of the priesthood; being a rabbi among the Jews was considered much more prestigious than being a priest of the Most High God. "But do not call yourselves Rabbi," Jesus said to the apostles and other disciples present, "for you have one Master, even Christ; and all of you are siblings. And do not call anyone on earth your father: for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Nor should you be called teachers: for you have one Teacher, even Christ."
Those upon whom would rest the responsibility of building the Church He had founded were not to aspire to worldly titles nor the honors of men; for those chosen ones were brethren, and their sole purpose should be the rendering of the greatest possible service to their one and only Master. As had been so strongly impressed on earlier occasions, excellence or supremacy in the apostolic calling, and similarly in the duties of discipleship or membership in the Church of Christ, was and is to be achieved through humble and devoted service alone; therefore said the Master again, "he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."
Those who were given the responsibility of building the Church He founded should not seek worldly titles or the praises of people; those chosen were all brothers, and their main aim should be to serve their one and only Master as best as they could. As was emphasized on earlier occasions, true excellence or greatness in the apostolic calling, and similarly in the roles of discipleship or membership in the Church of Christ, is to be achieved through humble and dedicated service alone; therefore the Master said again, "whoever is greatest among you will be your servant. And whoever lifts themselves up will be brought down; but whoever humbles themselves will be lifted up."
From the mixed multitude of disciples and unbelievers, comprizing many of the common people who listened in glad eagerness to learn,[1132] Jesus turned to the already abashed yet angry rulers, and deluged them with a veritable torrent of righteous indignation, through which flashed the lightning of scorching invective, accompanied by thunder peals of divine anathema.
From the diverse crowd of followers and skeptics, which included many everyday people eager to learn, Jesus turned to the already embarrassed yet furious leaders and unleashed a wave of righteous anger, filled with piercing criticism and booming condemnation.
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." The Pharisaic standard of piety was the learning of the schools; one unversed in the technicalities[Pg 555] of the law was accounted as unacceptable to God and veritably accursed.[1133] By their casuistry and perverted explications of scripture they confused and misled the "common people," and so stood as obstacles at the entrance to the kingdom of God, refusing to go in themselves and barring the way to others.
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You don't enter yourselves, and you prevent those who are trying to enter." The Pharisaic standard of piety was all about the knowledge from the schools; anyone not familiar with the technical details[Pg 555] of the law was seen as unacceptable to God and practically cursed.[1133] Through their clever reasoning and twisted interpretations of scripture, they confused and misled the "common people," acting as barriers at the entrance to the kingdom of God, refusing to enter themselves and blocking the path for others.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."[1134] The avarice of the Jewish hierarchy in our Lord's lifetime was an open scandal. By extortion and unlawful exaction under cover of religious duty the priestly rulers had amassed an enormous treasure,[1135] of which the contributions of the poor, and the confiscation of property, including even the houses of dependent widows, formed a considerable proportion; and the perfidy of the practise was made the blacker by the outward pretense of sanctity and the sacrilegious accompaniment of wordy prayer.
"Shame on you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You take advantage of widows, and pretend to pray long prayers: because of this, you will face the greater punishment."[1134] The greed of the Jewish leaders during our Lord's time was a well-known scandal. Through extortion and illegal demands disguised as religious obligations, the priestly leaders had accumulated a vast wealth,[1135] a significant part of which came from the contributions of the poor and the seizure of property, including even the homes of vulnerable widows. The treachery of their actions was worsened by their outward show of holiness and the shameless practice of lengthy prayers.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." It is possible that this woe was directed more against the effort to secure proselytes to Pharisaism than that of converting aliens to Judaism; but as the latter was thoroughly degraded and the former disgustingly corrupt, the application of our Lord's denunciation to either or both is warranted. Of the Jews who strove to make proselytes it has been said that "out of a bad heathen they made a worse Jew." Many of their converts soon became perverts.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You go all over land and sea to make one convert, and when you do, you make him twice as much a child of hell as you are." This warning might have been aimed more at the effort to gain followers of Pharisaism than at converting outsiders to Judaism; however, since the latter was deeply corrupted and the former shockingly corrupt, it’s fair to apply our Lord’s condemnation to either or both. It's been said of the Jews who sought to make converts that "out of a bad pagan, they made a worse Jew." Many of their converts quickly turned away from the faith.
"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple[Pg 556] that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon." Thus did the Lord condemn the infamous enactments of the schools and the Sanhedrin concerning oaths and vows; for they had established or endorsed a code of rules, inconsistent and unjust, as to technical trifles by which a vow could be enforced or invalidated. If a man swore by the temple, the House of Jehovah, he could obtain an indulgence for breaking his oath; but if he vowed by the gold and treasure of the Holy House, he was bound by the unbreakable bonds of priestly dictum. Though one should swear by the altar of God, his oath could be annulled; but if he vowed by the corban gift or by the gold upon the altar,[1136] his obligation was imperative. To what depths of unreason and hopeless depravity had men fallen, how sinfully foolish and how wilfully blind were they, who saw not that the temple was greater than its gold, and the altar than the gift that lay upon it! In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord had said "Swear not at all";[1137] but upon such as would not live according to that higher law, upon those who persisted in the use of oaths and vows, the lesser and evidently just requirement of strict fidelity to the terms of self-assumed obligations was to be enforced, without unrighteous quibble or inequitable discrimination.
"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated!' You fools and blind: which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And, whoever swears by the altar is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift on it is guilty. You fools and blind: which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Therefore, whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by the one who sits on it." Thus, the Lord condemned the infamous rules of the schools and the Sanhedrin regarding oaths and vows; they had created or supported a set of inconsistent and unjust rules about trivial matters that dictated how a vow could be enforced or invalidated. If a person swore by the temple, the House of God, they could get away with breaking their oath; but if they vowed by the gold and treasures of the Holy House, they were bound by the unbreakable obligations of the priestly decree. Even if one swore by the altar of God, their oath could be canceled; but if they vowed by the corban gift or by the gold on the altar, their obligation was absolute. To what depths of foolishness and hopeless depravity had people sunk! How sinfully foolish and willfully blind were they who failed to see that the temple was greater than its gold, and the altar was greater than the gift that lay upon it! In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord had said, "Swear not at all"; but for those who would not follow that higher principle, for those who insisted on using oaths and vows, the simpler and clearly just requirement of strict loyalty to the terms of self-imposed obligations was to be enforced, without unfair quibbling or inequitable discrimination.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have[Pg 557] omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The law of the tithe had been a characteristic feature of the theocratic requirements in Israel from the days of Moses; and the practise really long antedated the exodus. As literally construed, the law required the tithing of flocks and herds, fruit and grain,[1138] but by traditional extension all products of the soil had been included. The conscientious tithing of all one's possessions, even pot-herbs and other garden produce, was approved by the Lord; but He denounced as rank hypocrisy the observance of such requirements as an excuse for neglecting the other duties of true religion. The reference to "the weightier matters of the law" may have been an allusion to the rabbinical classification of "light" and "heavy" requirements under the law; though it is certain the Lord approved no such arbitrary distinctions. To omit the tithing of small things, such as mint leaves, and sprigs of anise and cummin, was to fall short in dutiful observance; but to ignore the claims of judgment, mercy, and faith, was to forfeit one's claim to blessing as a covenant child of God. By a strong simile, the Lord stigmatized such inconsistency as comparable to one's scrupulous straining at a gnat while figuratively willing to gulp down a camel.[1139]
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You pay tithes of mint, dill, and cumin, but you’ve neglected the more important matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." The law of tithing has been a key requirement in Israel since the days of Moses and even predates the Exodus. Literally, the law required tithing from flocks and herds, fruits, and grains, but by traditional extension, it included all agricultural products. The sincere tithing of all one’s possessions, even herbs from the garden, was endorsed by the Lord; however, He condemned the hypocrisy of following these rules while neglecting the essential duties of true faith. The mention of "the more important matters of the law" likely refers to the rabbinic distinction between "light" and "heavy" commandments, though it is clear that the Lord did not recognize such arbitrary classifications. Not tithing small items like mint leaves and sprigs of dill or cumin represents a failure to fulfill one’s duties; but ignoring justice, mercy, and faith means losing the blessing as a covenant child of God. Through a powerful metaphor, the Lord criticized such inconsistency as being like carefully straining out a gnat while being willing to swallow a camel.
"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."[1140] Pharisaic scrupulosity in the ceremonial cleansing of platters and cups, pots and brazen vessels, has been already alluded to.[Pg 558] Cleanliness the Lord in no wise depreciated; His shafts of disapprobation were aimed at the hypocrisy of maintaining at once outward spotlessness and inward corruption. Cups and platters though cleansed to perfection were filthy before the Lord if their contents had been bought by the gold of extortion, or were to be used in pandering to gluttony, drunkenness or other excess.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and excess. You blind Pharisee, first clean what’s inside the cup and plate, so that the outside may also be clean." [1140] The strict rules of the Pharisees regarding the ceremonial washing of cups, plates, pots, and metal vessels have already been mentioned.[Pg 558] The Lord certainly did not undervalue cleanliness; His criticism was directed at the hypocrisy of maintaining outward cleanliness while being corrupt inside. Cups and plates, even if perfectly clean, are filthy before the Lord if what they contain was acquired through extortion or is used to satisfy gluttony, drunkenness, or other indulgences.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." It was an awful figure, that of likening them to whitewashed tombs, full of dead bones and rotting flesh. As the dogmas of the rabbis made even the slightest contact with a corpse or its cerements, or with the bier upon which it was borne, or the grave in which it had been lain, a cause of personal defilement, which only ceremonial washing and the offering of sacrifices could remove, care was taken to make tombs conspicuously white, so that no person need be defiled through ignorance of proximity to such unclean places; and, moreover, the periodical whitening of sepulchres was regarded as a memorial act of honor to the dead. But even as no amount of care or degree of diligence in keeping bright the outside of a tomb could stay the putrescence going on within, so no externals of pretended righteousness could mitigate the revolting corruption of a heart reeking with iniquity. Jesus had before compared Pharisees with unmarked graves, over which men inadvertently walked and so became defiled though they knew it not;[1141] on the occasion now under consideration He denounced them as whitened tombs, flauntingly prominent, but sepulchres nevertheless.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but are filled with dead bones and all kinds of corruption on the inside. You also appear righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and wrongdoing." It was a harsh comparison, likening them to tombs that are painted white, hiding the decay inside. Since the strict rules of the rabbis deemed any contact with a corpse or its wrappings, the bier it was carried on, or the grave it was buried in as defilement, which could only be cleansed through ceremonial washing and sacrifices, great care was taken to make tombs very white so that no one would unknowingly become impure by being near these unclean places. Additionally, regularly whitening graves was seen as a way to honor the dead. But just like no amount of effort to keep a tomb looking clean can stop the rotting inside, no outward display of false righteousness can cover the ugly corruption of a heart full of evil. Jesus had previously compared the Pharisees to unmarked graves that people unknowingly walked over and became defiled; now, He called them whitewashed tombs, ostentatiously displayed, but still sepulchers at their core.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because[Pg 559] ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets." National pride, not wholly unlike patriotism, had for centuries expressed itself in formal regard for the burial crypts of the ancient prophets, many of whom had been slain because of their righteous and fearless zeal. Those modern Jews were voluble to disavow all sympathy with the murderous deeds of their progenitors, who had martyred the prophets, and ostentatiously averred that if they had lived in the times of those martyrdoms they would have been no participators therein, yet by such avouchment they proclaimed themselves the offspring of those who had shed innocent blood.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because[Pg 559] you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, if we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part in the bloodshed of the prophets. Therefore, you are witnesses against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who killed the prophets." National pride, somewhat similar to patriotism, had for centuries shown itself in a formal respect for the burial sites of the ancient prophets, many of whom had been killed because of their righteous and fearless zeal. Those modern Jews were quick to deny any sympathy with the murderous actions of their ancestors, who had martyred the prophets, and boldly claimed that if they had lived during those times of martyrdom, they would not have participated in it. Yet by making such claims, they revealed themselves as the children of those who had shed innocent blood.
With scorching maledictions the Lord thus consigned them to their fate: "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." To their sanctimonious asseverations of superiority over their fathers who had slain Jehovah's envoys, Jehovah Himself replied by predicting that they would dye their hands in the blood of prophets, wise men, and righteous scribes, whom He would send amongst them; and thus would they prove themselves literal sons of murderers, and murderers themselves, so that upon them should rest the burden of all the righteous blood[Pg 560] that had been shed for a testimony of God, from righteous Abel to the martyred Zacharias.[1142] That dread fate, outlined with such awful realism, was to be no eventuality of the distant future; every one of the frightful woes the Lord had uttered was to be realized in that generation.
With fiery curses, the Lord condemned them to their fate: "Fill up the measure of your ancestors. You snakes, you brood of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell? Therefore, look, I am sending you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will whip in your synagogues, and chase from city to city: So that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." In response to their self-righteous claims of superiority over their ancestors who killed God's messengers, God Himself predicted that they would spill the blood of the prophets, wise men, and righteous scribes that He would send among them; and they would thus prove themselves true sons of murderers, and murderers themselves, so that the burden of all the righteous blood that had been shed in testimony to God would rest upon them, from righteous Abel to the martyred Zacharias. That dreadful fate, described with such harsh realism, was not something far off; every frightening woe the Lord had spoken was to be experienced in that generation.
THE LORD'S LAMENTATION OVER JERUSALEM.[1143]
Concerning scribes, Pharisees, and Pharisaism, Jesus had uttered His last word. Looking from the temple heights out over the city of the great King, soon to be abandoned to destruction, the Lord was obsessed by emotions of profound sorrow. With the undying eloquence of anguish He broke forth in such a lamentation as no mortal father ever voiced over the most unfilial and recreant of sons.
Regarding scribes, Pharisees, and Pharisaism, Jesus had spoken His final thoughts. From the heights of the temple, He looked out over the city of the great King, which was soon to be left to destruction, and was overwhelmed by deep sorrow. With a powerful expression of anguish, He erupted in a lamentation unlike anything a mortal father has ever expressed over the most disobedient and ungrateful of sons.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Had Israel but received her King, the world's history of post-meridian time would never have been what it is. The children of Israel had spurned the proffered safety of a protecting paternal wing; soon the Roman eagle would swoop down upon them and slay. The stupendous temple, which but a day before the Lord had called "My house," was now no longer specifically His; "Your house," said He, "is left unto you desolate." He was about to withdraw from both temple and nation; and by the Jews His face was not again to be seen, until, through the discipline of centuries of suffering they shall be prepared to acclaim in accents of abiding faith,[Pg 561] as some of them had shouted but the Sunday before under the impulse of an erroneous conception, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I wished to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! Look, your house is left desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” If Israel had only accepted her King, the course of history would have been completely different. The children of Israel turned away from the safety offered by a caring father figure; soon the Roman eagle would come down upon them and destroy them. The magnificent temple, which just a day before the Lord had called “My house,” was no longer specifically His; “Your house,” He said, “is left desolate.” He was about to withdraw from both the temple and the nation; the Jews would not see His face again until, through centuries of suffering, they would be ready to proclaim in lasting faith, as some had shouted just the previous Sunday in a misunderstanding, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”
A WIDOW'S GIFT.[1144]
From the open courts Jesus moved over toward the colonnaded treasury of the temple, and there He sat, seemingly absorbed in a revery of sorrow. Within that space were thirteen chests, each provided with a trumpet-shaped receptacle; and into these the people dropped their contributions for the several purposes indicated by inscriptions on the boxes. Looking up, Jesus observed the lines of donors, of all ranks and degrees of affluence and poverty, some depositing their gifts with evident devoutness and sincerity of purpose, others ostentatiously casting in great sums of silver and gold, primarily to be seen of men. Among the many was a poor widow, who with probable effort to escape observation dropped into one of the treasure-chests two small bronze coins known as mites; her contribution amounted to less than half a cent in American money. The Lord called His disciples about Him, directed their attention to the poverty-stricken widow and her deed, and said: "Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."
From the open courts, Jesus moved over to the colonnaded treasury of the temple and sat there, seemingly lost in thought and sadness. Inside that area were thirteen boxes, each with a trumpet-shaped opening, where people dropped their contributions for various purposes as marked by the inscriptions on the boxes. Looking up, Jesus saw the lines of donors from all walks of life, some giving their gifts with clear devotion and sincerity, while others were showing off as they dropped in large amounts of silver and gold, mainly to be noticed by others. Among them was a poor widow who, likely trying to avoid attention, quietly dropped two small bronze coins known as mites into one of the boxes; her contribution was less than half a cent in American money. The Lord called His disciples over, pointed out the impoverished widow and her act, and said: "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all the others who have given to the treasury. They all gave out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in everything she had, all she had to live on."
In the accounts kept by the recording angels, figured out according to the arithmetic of heaven, entries are made in terms of quality rather than of quantity, and values are determined termined on the basis of capability and intent. The rich gave much yet kept back more; the widow's gift was her all. It was not the smallness of her offering that made it especially acceptable, but the spirit of sacrifice and devout intent with[Pg 562] which she gave. On the books of the heavenly accountants that widow's contribution was entered as a munificent gift, surpassing in worth the largess of kings. "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not."[1145]
In the records kept by the recording angels, logged according to the math of heaven, notes are made based on quality rather than quantity, and values are determined by ability and intention. The wealthy gave a lot but held back even more; the widow's contribution was everything she had. It wasn't the size of her offering that made it especially valuable, but the spirit of sacrifice and sincere intent with which she gave. In the books of the heavenly accountants, that widow's contribution was listed as a generous gift, exceeding in value the donations of kings. "For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what a person has, and not according to what he does not have."[1145]
CHRIST'S FINAL WITHDRAWAL FROM THE TEMPLE.
Our Lord's public discourses and the open colloquies in which He had participated with professionals and priestly officials, in the course of His daily visits to the temple during the first half of Passion week, had caused many of the chief rulers, beside others, to believe on Him as the veritable Son of God; but the fear of Pharisaic persecution and the dread of excommunication from the synagog[1146] deterred them from confessing the allegiance they felt, and from accepting the means of salvation so freely offered. "They loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."[1147]
Our Lord's public talks and the open discussions He had with experts and religious leaders during His daily visits to the temple in the first half of Passion Week led many of the top officials, along with others, to believe in Him as the true Son of God. However, the fear of persecution from the Pharisees and the worry about being expelled from the synagogue held them back from openly expressing their loyalty and from accepting the salvation that was offered so freely. "They loved the praise of people more than the praise of God."
It may have been while Jesus directed His course for the last time toward the exit portal of the one-time holy place that He uttered the solemn testimony of His divinity recorded by John.[1148] Crying with a loud voice to priestly rulers and the multitude generally, He said: "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me." Allegiance to Himself was allegiance to God; the people were plainly told that to accept Him was in no degree a weakening of their adherence to Jehovah, but on the contrary a confirmation thereof. Repeating precepts of earlier utterance, He again proclaimed Himself the light of the world, by whose rays alone mankind might be delivered from the enveloping darkness of spiritual unbelief. The testimony He left with[Pg 563] the people would be the means of judgment and condemnation to all who wilfully rejected it. "For," said He in solemn finality, "I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting; whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak."
It might have been while Jesus was making His final journey toward the exit of the once-holy place that He expressed His divine nature as recorded by John.[1148] Shouting loudly to the religious leaders and the crowd, He said, "Whoever believes in me doesn't just believe in me, but in the one who sent me. And whoever sees me sees the one who sent me." His allegiance was allegiance to God; the people were clearly informed that accepting Him did not weaken their loyalty to Jehovah, but rather confirmed it. Echoing earlier teachings, He once again declared Himself the light of the world, through which alone humanity could be freed from the surrounding darkness of spiritual doubt. The message He left with[Pg 563] the people would serve as the basis for judgment and condemnation for anyone who willfully rejected it. "For," He stated with solemn emphasis, "I haven't spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command about what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command leads to eternal life; therefore, whatever I say, I say just as the Father told me."
DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE PREDICTED.[1149]
As Jesus was departing from the enclosure wherein stood what once had been the House of the Lord, one or more of the disciples called His attention to the magnificent structures, the massive stones, the colossal columns, and the lavish and costly adornment of the several buildings. The Lord's answering comment was an unqualified prophecy of the utter destruction of the temple and everything pertaining to it. "Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Such was the definite and dire prediction. Those who heard were dumbfounded; neither by question nor other response did they attempt to elicit more. The literal fulfilment of that awful portent was but an incident in the annihilation of the city less than forty years later.
As Jesus was leaving the area where the former House of the Lord stood, one or more of the disciples pointed out the impressive buildings, the huge stones, the massive columns, and the extravagant decorations of the various structures. Jesus responded with a clear prophecy about the complete destruction of the temple and everything connected to it. "I truly tell you, not one stone will be left here on another; they will all be thrown down." This was a definite and serious prediction. Those who heard it were shocked; they didn’t ask any questions or respond in any way to seek more information. The literal fulfillment of that terrible prediction was just a part of the city’s destruction less than forty years later.
With the Lord's final departure from the temple, which probably occurred in the afternoon of the Tuesday of that last week, His public ministry was brought to its solemn ending. Whatever of discourse, parable, or ordinance was to follow, would be directed only to the further instruction and investiture of the apostles.
With the Lord's final departure from the temple, which likely took place in the afternoon of Tuesday during that last week, His public ministry came to a solemn conclusion. Any discussions, parables, or instructions that followed would be aimed solely at further teaching and empowering the apostles.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 31.
1. The Image on the Coin.—The Jews had an aversion for images or effigies in general, the use of which they professed to hold as a violation of the second commandment. Their scruples,[Pg 564] however, did not deter them from accepting coins bearing the effigies of kings, even though these monarchs were pagans. Their own coins bore other devices, such as plants, fruits, etc., in place of a human head; and the Romans had condescendingly permitted the issue of a special coinage for Jewish use, each piece bearing the name but not the effigy of the monarch. The ordinary coinage of Rome was current in Palestine, however.
1. The Image on the Coin.—The Jews generally disliked images or representations, which they believed went against the second commandment. However, this belief didn’t stop them from using coins that had the images of kings on them, even if those kings were pagans. Instead of a human face, their own coins featured other symbols like plants, fruits, and so on; and the Romans had graciously allowed the creation of special coins for Jewish use, with each one displaying the name of the king but not his image. Nonetheless, the regular Roman coins were still in circulation in Palestine.
2. Submission to Secular Authority.—Governments are instituted of God, sometimes by His direct interposition, sometimes by His permission. When the Jews had been brought into subjection by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the Lord commanded through the prophet Jeremiah (27:4-8) that the people render obedience to their conqueror, whom He called His servant; for verily the Lord had used the pagan king to chastize the recreant and unfaithful children of the covenant. The obedience so enjoined included the payment of taxes and extended to complete submission. After the death of Christ the apostles taught obedience to the powers that be, which powers, Paul declared "are ordained of God." See Rom. 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Tim. 2:1-3; see also 1 Peter 2:13, 14. Through the medium of modern revelation, the Lord has required of His people in the present dispensation, obedience to and loyal support of the duly established and existing governments in all lands. See Doc. and Cov. 58:21-22; 98:4-6; and section 134 throughout. The restored Church proclaims as an essential part of its belief and practise: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." See Articles of Faith, xxiii.
2. Submission to Secular Authority.—Governments are established by God, sometimes through His direct action and sometimes by His permission. When the Jews were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, the Lord instructed through the prophet Jeremiah (27:4-8) that the people should obey their conqueror, whom He referred to as His servant; indeed, the Lord had used the pagan king to discipline the wayward and unfaithful children of the covenant. The obedience required included paying taxes and complete submission. After Christ's death, the apostles taught compliance with the governing authorities, which Paul stated "are ordained of God." See Rom. 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Tim. 2:1-3; see also 1 Peter 2:13, 14. Through modern revelation, the Lord has asked His people in this dispensation to obey and actively support the duly established and existing governments in every nation. See Doc. and Cov. 58:21-22; 98:4-6; and section 134 throughout. The restored Church declares as a fundamental part of its beliefs and practices: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." See Articles of Faith, xxiii.
3. Marriage for Eternity.—Divine revelation in the dispensation of the fulness of times has made plain the fact, that contracts of marriage, as indeed all other agreements between parties in mortality, are of no validity beyond the grave, except such contracts be ratified and validated by the duly established ordinances of the Holy Priesthood. Sealing in the marriage covenant for time and eternity, which has come to be known as celestial marriage, is an ordinance established by divine authority in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. See the author's treatment of this subject in Articles of Faith, xxiv, 18-24; and House of the Lord, under "Sealing in Marriage," pp. 101-109.
3. Marriage for Eternity.—Divine revelation in the final days has made it clear that marriage contracts, like all agreements made during life, have no validity after death unless they are confirmed and sanctioned by the proper ordinances of the Holy Priesthood. Sealing in the marriage covenant for time and eternity, known as celestial marriage, is an ordinance established by divine authority in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. See the author's discussion on this topic in Articles of Faith, xxiv, 18-24; and House of the Lord, under "Sealing in Marriage," pp. 101-109.
4. Divisions and Subdivisions of the Law.—"The Rabbinical schools, in their meddling, carnal, superficial spirit of word-weaving and letter-worship, had spun large accumulations of worthless subtlety all over the Mosaic law. Among other things they had wasted their idleness in fantastic attempts to count, and classify, and weigh, and measure all the separate commandments of the ceremonial and moral law. They had come to the sapient conclusion that there were 248 affirmative precepts, being as many as the members in the human body, and 365 negative precepts, being as many as the arteries and veins, or the days of the year: the total being 613, which was also the number of letters in the decalog. They arrived at the same result from the fact that the Jews were commanded (Numb. 15:38) to wear[Pg 565] fringes (tsitsith) on the corners of their tallith, bound with a thread of blue; and as each fringe had eight threads and five knots, and the letters of the word tsitsith make 600, the total number of commandments was, as before 613. Now surely, out of such a large number of precepts and prohibitions, all could not be of quite the same value; some were 'light' (kal), and some were 'heavy' (kobhed). But which? and what was the greatest commandment of all? According to some Rabbis, the most important of all is that about the tephillin and the tsitsith, the fringes and phylacteries; and 'he who diligently observes it is regarded in the same light as if he had kept the whole Law.'
4. Divisions and Subdivisions of the Law.—"The rabbinical schools, in their meddling, superficial approach to interpreting the law, created a huge collection of pointless complexities around the Mosaic law. Among other things, they wasted their time trying to count, classify, weigh, and measure all the individual commandments of the ceremonial and moral law. They came up with the conclusion that there were 248 affirmative commands, the same number as the parts of the human body, and 365 negative commands, the same number as the days of the year, which added up to 613—also the total number of letters in the Decalogue. They reached this number from the command (Numb. 15:38) for Jews to wear fringes (tsitsith) on the corners of their tallith, tied with a blue thread; since each fringe had eight threads and five knots, plus the 600 letters in the word tsitsith, the total commandments were, as stated, 613. Surely, with so many precepts and prohibitions, not all could hold the same significance; some were 'light' (kal), and some were 'heavy' (kobhed). But which ones? And what was the greatest commandment? According to some Rabbis, the most important is the one about the tephillin and the tsitsith, the fringes and phylacteries; and 'whoever diligently observes it is seen as if they had followed the whole Law.'
"Some thought the omission of ablutions as bad as homicide; some that the precepts of the Mishna were all 'heavy'; those of the Law were some 'heavy' and some 'light.' Others considered the third to be the greatest commandment. None of them had realized the great principle, that the wilful violation of one commandment is the transgression of all (James 2:10), because the object of the entire Law is the spirit of obedience to God. On the question proposed by the lawyer the Shammaites and Hillelites were in disaccord, and, as usual, both schools were wrong: the Shammaites, in thinking that mere trivial external observances were valuable, apart from the spirit in which they were performed, and the principle which they exemplified; the Hillelites, in thinking that any positive command could in itself be unimportant, and in not seeing that great principles are essential to the due performance of even the slightest duties."—Farrar, Life of Christ, chap. 52.
"Some thought skipping rituals was as bad as murder; some believed that all the teachings of the Mishna were 'heavy'; others thought some laws were 'heavy' and some were 'light.' Others considered the third commandment to be the greatest. None of them understood the important principle that deliberately breaking one commandment is like breaking them all (James 2:10) because the whole purpose of the Law is to embody the spirit of obedience to God. Regarding the question posed by the lawyer, the Shammaites and Hillelites disagreed, and, as usual, both groups were mistaken: the Shammaites believed that mere trivial external actions were valuable, regardless of the spirit in which they were performed and the principle they represented; the Hillelites thought that any positive command could be unimportant by itself and failed to see that great principles are essential for properly carrying out even the smallest duties."—Farrar, Life of Christ, chap. 52.
5. Phylacteries and Borders.—Through a traditional interpretation of Exo. 13:9 and Deut. 6:8, the Hebrews adopted the custom of wearing phylacteries, which consisted essentially of strips of parchment on which were inscribed in whole or in part the following texts: Exo. 13:2-10 and 11-17; Deut. 6:4-9, and 11:13-21. Phylacteries were worn on the head and arm. The parchment strips for the head were four, on each of which one of the texts cited above was written. These were placed in a cubical box of leather measuring from 1/2 inch to 1-1/2 inches along the edge; the box was divided into four compartments and one of the little parchment rolls was placed in each. Thongs held the box in place on the forehead between the eyes of the wearer. The arm phylactery comprized but a single roll of parchment on which the four prescribed texts were written; this was placed in a little box which was bound by thongs to the inside of the left arm so as to be brought close to the heart when the hands were placed together in the attitude of devotion. The Pharisees wore the arm phylactery above the elbow, while their rivals, the Sadducees, fastened it to the palm of the hand (see Exo. 13:9). The common people wore phylacteries only at prayer time; but the Pharisees were said to display them throughout the day. Our Lord's reference to the Pharisees' custom of making broad their phylacteries had reference to the enlarging of the containing box, particularly the frontlet. The size of the parchment strips was fixed by rigid rule.[Pg 566]
5. Phylacteries and Borders.—According to traditional interpretations of Exo. 13:9 and Deut. 6:8, the Hebrews adopted the practice of wearing phylacteries, which essentially consisted of strips of parchment inscribed with the following texts: Exo. 13:2-10 and 11-17; Deut. 6:4-9, and 11:13-21. Phylacteries were worn on the head and the arm. The head phylacteries included four strips, each with one of the texts written on it. These were placed in a small leather box measuring between 1/2 inch and 1-1/2 inches on each side; the box was divided into four compartments and contained one parchment roll in each. Straps held the box in place on the forehead between the wearer’s eyes. The arm phylactery consisted of a single roll of parchment with all four prescribed texts written on it; this was placed in a little box tied with straps to the inside of the left arm so that it would be close to the heart when the hands were held together in a position of prayer. The Pharisees wore the arm phylactery above the elbow, while the Sadducees attached it to the palm of the hand (see Exo. 13:9). The common people wore phylacteries only during prayer, but the Pharisees were known to display them throughout the day. Our Lord’s mention of the Pharisees’ practice of making their phylacteries broad referred to enlarging the containing box, especially the frontlet. The size of the parchment strips was strictly regulated.[Pg 566]
The Lord had required of Israel through Moses (Numb. 15:38) that the people attach to the border of their garment a fringe with a ribbon of blue. In ostentatious display of assumed piety, the scribes and Pharisees delighted to wear enlarged borders to attract public attention. It was another manifestation of hypocritical sanctimoniousness.
The Lord had instructed Israel through Moses (Numb. 15:38) that the people should attach a fringe with a blue ribbon to the edges of their garments. In a showy display of false piety, the scribes and Pharisees loved to wear oversized borders to draw public attention. It was yet another example of hypocritical sanctimony.
6. Ecclesiastical Titles.—Our Lord severely condemned the seeking after titles as insignia of rank in His service. Nevertheless He named the Twelve whom He chose, Apostles; and in the Church founded by Himself the offices of Evangelist, High Priest, Pastor, Elder, Bishop, Priest, Teacher, and Deacon were established (see Articles of Faith, xi:1-4). It was the empty man-made title that attached to the individual, not the authorized title of office to which men were called through authoritative ordination, to which the Lord affixed the seal of His disapproval. Titles of office in the Holy Priesthood are of too sacred a character to be used as marks of distinction among men. In the restored Church in the current dispensation, men are ordained to the Priesthood and to the several offices comprized within both the Lesser or Aaronic, and the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood; but though one be thus made an Elder, a Seventy, a High Priest, a Patriarch or an Apostle, he should not court the usage of the title as a mere embellishment of his name. (See "The Honor and Dignity of Priesthood" by the author in Improvement Era, Salt Lake City, March, 1914.)
6. Ecclesiastical Titles.—Our Lord strongly condemned the pursuit of titles as symbols of status in His service. However, He identified the twelve men He chose as Apostles, and in the Church He established, roles like Evangelist, High Priest, Pastor, Elder, Bishop, Priest, Teacher, and Deacon were created (see Articles of Faith, xi:1-4). It was the empty, man-made title that was attached to individuals, not the legitimate title of office to which people were called through official ordination, that the Lord criticized. Titles of office in the Holy Priesthood are too sacred to be used as marks of distinction among people. In the restored Church today, men are ordained to the Priesthood and to various roles within both the Lesser or Aaronic and the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood; yet, even if someone is made an Elder, a Seventy, a High Priest, a Patriarch, or an Apostle, they should not seek to use the title merely to enhance their name. (See "The Honor and Dignity of Priesthood" by the author in Improvement Era, Salt Lake City, March, 1914.)
Chas. F. Deems, in The Light of the Nations, pp. 583-4, says in speaking of the irreverent use of ecclesiastical titles: "The Pharisees loved also the highest places in the synagogs, and it gratified their vanity to be called Teacher, Doctor, Rabbi. Against these Jesus warned His disciples. They were not to love to be called Rabbi, a title which occurs in three forms, Rab, Teacher, Doctor; Rabbi, My Doctor or Teacher; Rabboni, My great Doctor. Nor were they to call any man 'Father,' in the sense of granting him any infallibility of judgment or power over their consciences.... 'Papa,' as the simple Moravians call their great man, Count Zinzendorf: 'Founder,' as Methodists denominate good John Wesley; 'Holy Father in God,' as bishops are sometimes called; 'Pope,' which is the same as 'Papa'; 'Doctor of Divinity,' the Christian equivalent of the Jewish 'Rabbi,' are all dangerous titles. But it is not the employment of a name which Jesus denounces, it is the spirit of vanity which animated the Pharisees, and the servile spirit which the employment of titles is apt to engender. Paul and Peter spoke of themselves as spiritual fathers. Jesus teaches that positions in the societies of his followers, such as should afterward be formed, were not to be regarded as dignities, but rather as services; that no man should seek them for the honor they might confer, but for the field of usefulness they might afford; and that no man should lead off a sect, there being but one leader; and that the whole body of believers are brethren, of whom God is the Father."
Chas. F. Deems, in The Light of the Nations, pp. 583-4, says when discussing the disrespectful use of religious titles: "The Pharisees also loved the best seats in the synagogues, and it pleased their egos to be called Teacher, Doctor, Rabbi. Jesus warned His disciples against this. They should not seek to be called Rabbi, a title that comes in three forms: Rab, Teacher, Doctor; Rabbi, My Teacher or Doctor; Rabboni, My great Teacher. Nor should they call anyone 'Father' in a way that gives him any infallibility of judgement or control over their consciences.... 'Papa,' as the simple Moravians refer to their leader, Count Zinzendorf; 'Founder,' as the Methodists call the good John Wesley; 'Holy Father in God,' as bishops are sometimes addressed; 'Pope,' which is the same as 'Papa'; 'Doctor of Divinity,' the Christian equivalent of the Jewish 'Rabbi,' are all risky titles. However, it’s not the use of a name that Jesus criticizes, but the vanity that motivated the Pharisees, and the submissive attitudes that titles can create. Paul and Peter referred to themselves as spiritual fathers. Jesus teaches that roles in the communities of His followers, which would later be established, should not be seen as prestigious positions, but as opportunities to serve; that no one should pursue them for the honor they may bring, but for the chance to be useful; and that no one should lead a sect, as there is only one leader, and that all believers are brothers, with God as the Father."
The writer last quoted very properly disparages aspirations,[Pg 567] stimulated by vanity and self-righteous assumption, to the use of the title "Reverend" as applied to men.
The writer lastly quotes disapprovingly about ambitions, [Pg 567] fueled by vanity and self-righteousness, regarding the use of the title "Reverend" for men.
7. Seven or Eight Woes?—Some of the early Mss. of the Gospels omit verse 14 from Matt. 23. Such omission reduces the number of specific utterances beginning "Woe unto you" from eight to seven. There is no question as to the appearance in the original of the passages in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47, which are one in meaning with Matt. 23:14.
7. Seven or Eight Woes?—Some early manuscripts of the Gospels leave out verse 14 from Matt. 23. This omission reduces the number of specific statements starting with "Woe to you" from eight to seven. There is no doubt that the passages in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47, which mean the same as Matt. 23:14, were part of the original text.
8. The Temple Treasure.—In connection with the incident of the widow's mites, Edersheim (vol. ii, pp. 387-8) writes: "Some might come with appearance of self-righteousness, some even with ostentation, some as cheerfully performing a happy duty. 'Many that were rich cast in much'—yes, very much, for such was the tendency that a law had to be enacted forbidding the gift to the Temple of more than a certain proportion of one's possessions. And the amount of such contributions may be inferred by recalling the circumstance, that at the time of Pompey and Crassus, the Temple treasury, after having lavishly defrayed every possible expenditure, contained in money nearly half a million, and precious vessels to the value of nearly two millions sterling." See also Josephus, Antiquities xiv, 4:4; 7:1, 2.
8. The Temple Treasure.—In relation to the story of the widow's mites, Edersheim (vol. ii, pp. 387-8) writes: "Some might come across as self-righteous, some even showy, and some cheerfully fulfilling a joyful duty. 'Many that were rich cast in much'—yes, a lot, because the excessive contributions led to a law being passed that restricted the amount one could donate to the Temple to a certain percentage of their possessions. The level of these contributions can be understood by recalling that during the time of Pompey and Crassus, the Temple treasury, after covering every possible expense, held nearly half a million in cash and precious vessels worth almost two million sterling." See also Josephus, Antiquities xiv, 4:4; 7:1, 2.
9. Zacharias the Martyr.—In referring to the martyrs of ante-meridian time the Lord is recorded as having used the expression "from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar" (Matt. 23:35). The Old Testament as at present compiled, contains no mention of a martyr named Zacharias son of Barachias, but does chronicle the martyrdom of Zechariah son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22). "Zechariah" and "Zacharias" are equivalent names. It is the opinion of most Bible scholars that the Zacharias referred to in Matthew's record is Zechariah son of Jehoiada. In the Jewish compilation of Old Testament scriptures, the murder of Zechariah appears as the last recorded martyrdom; and the Lord's reference to the righteous men who had been slain, from Abel to Zechariah or Zacharias, may have been a sweeping inclusion of all the martyrs down to that time, from first to last. However, we have a record of Zechariah son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1, 7), and this Berechiah was the son of Iddo. Then again, Zechariah son of Iddo is mentioned (Ezra 5:1); but, as is elsewhere found in the older scriptures, the grandson is called the son. The Old Testament does not number this Zechariah among the martyrs, but traditional accounts (Whitby's citation of the Targum) say that he was killed "in the day of propitiation." That the Lord referred to a late and probably the latest of the recorded martyrdoms is probable; and it is equally evident that the case was well known among the Jews. It is likely that a fuller account appeared in scriptures current among the Jews at the time of Christ but since lost. See Note 4, page 119.
9. Zacharias the Martyr.—When talking about the martyrs from the past, the Lord is recorded as saying, "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar" (Matt. 23:35). The Old Testament as we have it today doesn’t mention a martyr named Zacharias, son of Barachias, but does record the martyrdom of Zechariah, son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22). "Zechariah" and "Zacharias" are equivalent names. Most Bible scholars believe the Zacharias mentioned in Matthew is actually Zechariah, son of Jehoiada. In the Jewish version of the Old Testament, the murder of Zechariah is noted as the last martyrdom recorded; thus, when the Lord referred to the righteous men who had been killed, from Abel to Zechariah or Zacharias, it may have included all martyrs up to that time. However, we also have a record of Zechariah, son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1, 7), whose father was Iddo. Moreover, Zechariah, son of Iddo, is mentioned (Ezra 5:1); but, as often seen in older texts, the grandson is referred to as the son. The Old Testament does not list this Zechariah among the martyrs, but traditional accounts (Whitby's citation of the Targum) mention that he was killed "on the day of propitiation." It is likely that the Lord referenced a relatively recent martyrdom and that this event was well known among the Jews. It's also probable that a more detailed account existed in scriptures used by the Jews during Christ's time but has since been lost. See Note 4, page 119.
10. Destruction of the Temple.—"For thirty or more years after the death of Christ, the Jews continued the work of adding to and embellishing the temple buildings. The elaborate design[Pg 568] conceived and projected by Herod had been practically completed; the Temple was well-nigh finished, and, as soon afterward appeared, was ready for destruction. Its fate had been definitely foretold by the Savior Himself. Commenting on a remark by one of the disciples concerning the great stones and the splendid buildings on the Temple hill, Jesus had said, 'Seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.' (Mark 13:1, 2; see also Matt. 24:1, 2; Luke 21:5, 6.) This dire prediction soon found its literal fulfilment. In the great conflict with the Roman legions under Titus, many of the Jews had taken refuge within the Temple courts, seemingly hoping that there the Lord would again fight the battles of His people and give them victory. But the protecting presence of Jehovah had long since departed therefrom and Israel was left a prey to the foe. Though Titus would have spared the Temple, his legionaries, maddened by the lust of conflict, started the conflagration and everything that could be burned was burned. The slaughter of the Jews was appalling; thousands of men, women and children were ruthlessly butchered within the walls, and the temple courts were literally flooded with human blood. This event occurred in the year 70 A.D.; and according to Josephus, in the same month and on the same day of the month as that on which the once glorious Temple of Solomon had fallen a prey to the flames kindled by the king of Babylon. (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi, 4:5, 8. For a detailed and graphic account of the destruction of the Temple see chapters 4 and 5 in their entirety.) Of the Temple furniture the golden candlestick and the table of shewbread from the Holy Place were carried by Titus to Rome as trophies of war; and representations of these sacred pieces are to be seen on the arch erected to the name of the victorious general. Since the destruction of the splendid Temple of Herod no other structure of the kind, no Temple, no House of the Lord as the terms are used distinctively, has been reared on the eastern hemisphere."—The House of the Lord, pp. 61, 62.
10. Destruction of the Temple.—"For thirty years or more after Christ's death, the Jews kept working on the Temple, adding and enhancing the buildings. The intricate design that Herod had envisioned was nearly complete; the Temple was almost finished and, as would soon be revealed, was set for destruction. Its fate had been clearly predicted by the Savior Himself. Responding to a comment from one of the disciples about the massive stones and the beautiful buildings on the Temple hill, Jesus said, 'Do you see these large buildings? Not one stone will be left here on another; every one will be thrown down.' (Mark 13:1, 2; see also Matt. 24:1, 2; Luke 21:5, 6.) This grim prediction soon came true. During the fierce battle against the Roman legions led by Titus, many Jews sought refuge in the Temple courts, hoping that God would once again fight for His people and grant them victory. But the protective presence of the Lord had long since departed, leaving Israel vulnerable to its enemies. Although Titus wanted to spare the Temple, his soldiers, driven mad by the chaos of war, set it on fire, destroying everything that could burn. The massacre of the Jews was horrifying; thousands—men, women, and children—were brutally killed within the walls, and the temple courts were literally drenched in human blood. This tragedy occurred in 70 A.D.; according to Josephus, on the same day of the month that the once-glorious Temple of Solomon was consumed by flames set by the Babylonian king. (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi, 4:5, 8. For an in-depth and vivid account of the Temple's destruction, see chapters 4 and 5 in their entirety.) Among the Temple treasures, the golden candlestick and the table of shewbread from the Holy Place were taken by Titus to Rome as war trophies; depictions of these sacred items can be seen on the arch dedicated to the victorious general. Since the destruction of Herod's magnificent Temple, no other similar structure, no Temple, no House of the Lord as these terms are distinctly used, has been built in the eastern hemisphere."—The House of the Lord, pp. 61, 62.
Josephus ascribes the destruction of the Temple of Herod to the anger of God, and states that the devouring flames "took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them." The soldier who applied the torch to the Holy House, which had remained intact while fire raged in the courts, is regarded by the historian as an instrument of divine vengeance. We read (Wars, vi, 4:5): "One of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round the Holy House, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required."[Pg 569]
Josephus attributes the destruction of Herod's Temple to God's anger, stating that the destructive flames "originated from the Jews themselves and were caused by them." The soldier who set the Holy House ablaze, which had remained untouched while fire raged in the courtyards, is seen by the historian as an agent of divine punishment. We read (Wars, vi, 4:5): "One of the soldiers, without waiting for any orders and showing no concern or fear at such a significant act, and driven by a certain divine fury, grabbed some burning material and, being lifted up by another soldier, ignited a golden window that led to the rooms around the Holy House on its north side. As the flames rose, the Jews raised a great uproar, as such a massive tragedy warranted."[Pg 569]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1108] Mark 3:6; 8:15.
[1115] Deut. 25:5.
[1117] Gen. 28:13; Exo. 3:6, 15.
[1118] Matt. 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34.
[1119] Deut. 6:4, 5.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Deut. 6:4, 5.
[1124] Psalm 110.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Psalm 110.
[1132] Mark 12:37.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 12:37.
[1133] John 7:49; compare 9:34.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 7:49; see 9:34.
[1135] Note 8, end of chapter.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Note 8, end of chapter.
[1141] Luke 11:44.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 11:44.
[1144] Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4.
[1145] 2 Cor. 8:12.
[1147] John 12:43; compare 5:44.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 12:43; see 5:44.
[1148] John 12:44-50.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 12:44-50.
CHAPTER 32.
FURTHER INSTRUCTION TO THE APOSTLES.
PROPHECIES RELATING TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND THE LORD'S FUTURE ADVENT.[1150]
In the course of His last walk from Jerusalem back to the beloved home at Bethany, Jesus rested at a convenient spot on the Mount of Olives, from which the great city and the magnificent temple were to be seen in fullest splendor, illumined by the declining sun in the late afternoon of that eventful April day. As He sat in thoughtful revery He was approached by Peter and James, John and Andrew, of the Twelve, and to them certainly, though probably to all the apostles, He gave instruction, embodying further prophecy concerning the future of Jerusalem, Israel, and the world at large. His fateful prediction—that of the temple buildings not one stone would be left upon another—had caused the apostles to marvel and fear; so they came privately requesting explanation. "Tell us," said they, "when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" The compound character of the question indicates an understanding of the fact that the destruction of which the Lord had spoken was to be apart from and precedent to the signs that were to immediately herald His glorious advent and the yet later ushering in of the consummation commonly spoken of then and now as "the end of the world." An assumption that the events would follow in close succession is implied by the form in which the question was put.[Pg 570]
During His final walk from Jerusalem back to His beloved home in Bethany, Jesus took a break at a nice spot on the Mount of Olives, where He could see the great city and the impressive temple shining in all their glory, lit by the setting sun on that important April afternoon. While sitting in deep thought, He was approached by Peter, James, John, and Andrew—members of the Twelve. He shared teachings with them, likely addressing all the apostles, sharing further prophecies about the future of Jerusalem, Israel, and the broader world. His dramatic prediction—that not one stone of the temple would remain standing—filled the apostles with awe and fear, prompting them to seek clarification privately. "Tell us," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the world?" Their multi-part question showed they understood that the destruction Jesus had mentioned would occur separately and before the signs that would announce His glorious return and the eventual end, which was often referred to as "the end of the world." Their phrasing also implied they believed these events would happen closely together.[Pg 570]
The inquiry referred specifically to time—when were these things to be? The reply dealt not with dates, but with events; and the spirit of the subsequent discourse was that of warning against misapprehension, and admonition to ceaseless vigilance. "Take heed that no man deceive you" was the first and all-important caution; for within the lives of most of those apostles, many blaspheming imposters would arise, each claiming to be the Messiah. The return of Christ to earth as Lord and Judge was more remote than any of the Twelve realized. Before that glorious event, many wonderful and appalling developments would be witnessed, among the earliest of which would be wars and rumors of wars, caused by nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom, to the dread accompaniment of famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in many places; yet all these would be but the beginning of the sorrow or travail to follow.
The inquiry was specifically about when these things would happen. The response didn’t focus on dates but on events; the main theme of the following discussion was a warning against misunderstanding and a reminder to stay alert. "Be careful that no one deceives you" was the first and most crucial warning; for during the lives of many of those apostles, numerous blaspheming imposters would emerge, each claiming to be the Messiah. The return of Christ to earth as Lord and Judge was further away than any of the Twelve realized. Before that glorious event, many incredible and shocking developments were expected, starting with wars and rumors of wars, as nations rose against nations and kingdoms against kingdoms, alongside terrible famines, plagues, and earthquakes happening in many places; yet all these would only be the beginning of the suffering to come.
They, the apostles, were told to expect persecution, not only at the hands of irresponsible individuals, but at the instance of the officials such as they who were at that moment intent on taking the life of the Lord Himself, and who would scourge them in the synagogs, deliver them up to hostile tribunals, cite them before rulers and kings, and even put some of them to death—all because of their testimony of the Christ. As they had been promised before, so again were they assured, that when they would stand before councils, magistrates, or kings, the words they should speak would be given them in the hour of their trial, and therefore they were told to take no premeditative thought as to what they should say or how they should meet the issues confronting them; "for," said the Master, "it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost."[1151] Even though they found themselves despized and hated of men, and though they were to suffer ignominy, torture, and death, yet as to their[Pg 571] eternal welfare they were promised such security that by comparison they would lose not so much as a hair of their heads. In consoling encouragement the Lord bade them possess their souls in patience.[1152] In face of all trials and even the direst persecution, it was incumbent upon them to persevere in their ministry, for the divine plan provided and required that the gospel of the kingdom be preached amongst all nations. Their labors would be complicated and opposed by the revolutionary propaganda of many false prophets, and differences of creed would disrupt families, and engender such bitterness that brothers would betray one another, and children would rise against their parents, accusing them of heresies and delivering them up to death. Even among those who had professed discipleship to Christ many would be offended and hatred would abound; love for the gospel would wax cold, and iniquity would be rampant among men; and only those who would endure to the end of their lives could be saved.
The apostles were warned to expect persecution, not just from reckless individuals but also from officials who were at that moment determined to take the life of the Lord Himself. These officials would beat them in the synagogues, hand them over to hostile courts, summon them before rulers and kings, and even execute some of them—all because of their testimony about Christ. They had been promised before and were reassured again that when they stood before councils, judges, or kings, the words they needed to speak would be given to them during their trial. They were advised not to worry about what to say or how to handle the situations they faced; "for," said the Master, "it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit." Even though they would be despised and hated by people, and would endure shame, torture, and death, they were guaranteed such security regarding their eternal well-being that they would not lose even a single hair from their heads. To encourage them, the Lord told them to keep their souls in patience. In the face of all challenges and even the worst persecution, they were required to persist in their ministry, as the divine plan needed the gospel of the kingdom to be preached to all nations. Their efforts would be complicated and opposed by the revolutionary messages of many false prophets, and differing beliefs would tear families apart, creating such hostility that brothers would betray each other, and children would rise up against their parents, accusing them of heresies and turning them in to be killed. Even among those who claimed to follow Christ, many would become offended, and hatred would increase; love for the gospel would grow cold, and wrongdoing would be widespread among people; and only those who endured until the end of their lives would be saved.
From this circumstantial forecast of conditions then directly impending, the Lord passed to other developments that would immediately precede the destruction of Jerusalem and the total disruption of the Jewish nation. "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place," said He, according to Matthew's account, and virtually so also as stated by Mark, or "when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies" as Luke writes, "then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." This was a specific sign that none could misunderstand. Daniel the prophet had foreseen the desolation and abominations thereof, which comprized the forcible cessation of temple rites, and the desecration of Israel's shrine by pagan conquerors.[1153]
From this detailed prediction of the conditions that were about to happen, the Lord moved on to other events that would occur just before the destruction of Jerusalem and the complete breakdown of the Jewish nation. "So when you see the abomination of desolation, mentioned by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place," He said, according to Matthew's account, and similarly as noted by Mark, or "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies," as Luke writes, "then know that its desolation is near." This was a clear sign that no one could misinterpret. Daniel the prophet had predicted the desolation and the abominations associated with it, which included the forced end of temple rituals and the desecration of Israel's sacred site by pagan conquerors.[1153]
The realization of Daniel's prophetic vision was to be heralded by the encompassing of Jerusalem by armies.[Pg 572] Then all who would escape should make haste; from Judea they should flee to the mountains; he who was on the housetop would have no time to take his goods, but should hasten down by the outer steps and flee; he who was in the field would better leave without first returning to his house even for his clothes. Terrible, indeed, would that day be for women hampered by the conditions incident to approaching maternity, or the responsibility of caring for their suckling babes. All would do well to pray that their flight be not forced upon them in winter time; nor on the Sabbath, lest regard for the restrictions as to Sabbath-day travel, or the usual closing of the city gates on that day, should diminish the chances of escape. The tribulations of the time then foreshadowed would prove to be unprecedented in horror and would never be paralleled in all their awful details in Israel's history; but in mercy God had decreed that the dreadful period should be shortened for the sake of the elect believers, otherwise no flesh of Israel would be saved alive. Multitudes were to fall by the sword; other hosts were to be led away captive, and so be scattered amongst all nations; and Jerusalem, the pride and boast of degenerate Israel, should be "trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." In every frightful detail was the Lord's prediction brought to pass, as history avouches.[1154]
The fulfillment of Daniel's prophetic vision would be announced by armies surrounding Jerusalem.[Pg 572] Then, those who managed to escape should hurry; from Judea, they should flee to the mountains. Anyone on the rooftop wouldn't have time to grab their belongings but would need to rush down the outer stairs and escape. Those in the field should leave without going back for their clothes. It would be a terrible day for women burdened by the challenges of approaching childbirth or caring for their nursing babies. Everyone should pray that their escape doesn’t happen in winter or on the Sabbath, as concerns about Sabbath travel restrictions or the usual closing of the city's gates on that day could hinder their chances of fleeing. The troubles predicted for that time would be unprecedented in horror and would never be matched in all their dreadful specifics in Israel's history; however, in mercy, God had decided to shorten that terrible period for the sake of the chosen believers, or else no one in Israel would survive. Many would die by the sword; others would be taken captive and scattered among all nations; and Jerusalem, the pride of fallen Israel, would be "trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." Every terrifying detail of the Lord's prediction was fulfilled, as history confirms.[1154]
After the passing of those terrible times, and thence onward for a period of unspecified duration, Satan would deceive the world through false doctrines, spread by evil men masquerading as ministers of God, who would continue to cry "Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there"; but against all such the Twelve were put on their guard, and through them and other teachers, whom they would call and ordain, would the world be warned. Deceiving prophets, emissaries of the devil, would be active, some alluring people into the deserts, and impelling them to hermit lives of pernicious asceticism,[Pg 573] others insisting that Christ could be found in the secret chambers of monastic seclusion; and some of them showing forth through the power of Satan, such signs and wonders as "to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect"; but of all such scheming of the prince of evil, the Lord admonished His own: "Believe it not"; and added, "take ye heed; behold I have foretold you all things."[1155]
After those terrible times passed, and for an indefinite period afterward, Satan would mislead the world with false teachings, spread by wicked individuals pretending to be ministers of God, who would keep proclaiming, "Look, here is Christ; or, look, he is there." The Twelve were warned about this, and through them and other teachers they would appoint, the world would be cautioned. Deceiving prophets, agents of the devil, would be active, some luring people into the wilderness and pushing them to live in harmful isolation, while others insisted that Christ could be found in the hidden rooms of monasteries. Some of them would perform signs and wonders through the power of Satan, "to deceive, if possible, even the chosen ones." But about all these schemes of the evil one, the Lord warned His followers: "Do not believe it"; and added, "Be careful; I have warned you about everything."[Pg 573][1155]
In the day of the Lord's advent in glory and vengeance, no man shall be in doubt; there shall be no chance of conflicting claims by contending sects, "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."[1156] The gathering of Israel in the last days was pictured as the flocking of eagles to the place where the body of the Church would be established.[1157]
In the day when the Lord comes with glory and judgment, no one will be in doubt; there will be no room for conflicting claims from different groups, "For just as lightning flashes in the east and lights up the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be."[1156] The gathering of Israel in the last days was described as eagles flocking to the place where the Church would be established.[1157]
The chronological order of the predicted occurrences so far considered in this wonderful discourse on things to come, is clear; first there was to be a period of virulent persecution of the apostles and the Church of which they would be in charge; then the destruction of Jerusalem, with all the horrors of merciless warfare was to follow; and this in turn was to be succeeded by a long period of priestcraft and apostasy with bitter sectarian dissension and cruel persecution of the righteous. The brief reference to the non-localized, universal phenomena, by which His advent is to be signalized, is a parenthetical demonstration of the false claims as to where Christ would be found; later the Lord passed to distinctive and unquestionable reference to the[Pg 574] circumstances of His then and yet future advent. Following the age of man-made creeds, and unauthorized ministry characteristic of the great apostasy, marvelous occurrences are to be manifested through the forces of nature, and the sign of the Son of Man shall ultimately appear, one accompanying feature of which shall be the completion of the gathering of the elect from all parts of the earth to the places appointed.
The timeline of the predicted events discussed in this incredible talk about the future is clear; first, there was to be a time of intense persecution of the apostles and the Church they were leading; then, the destruction of Jerusalem, along with all the horrors of ruthless warfare, was to follow; and this would then be followed by a long period of religious manipulation and falling away, marked by bitter sectarian conflict and harsh persecution of the righteous. The brief mention of the non-localized, global signs that will indicate His coming serves as a clear demonstration of the false claims about where Christ would be found; later, the Lord shifted to a distinct and undeniable reference to the[Pg 574] circumstances of His current and future coming. After the age of man-made creeds and unauthorized ministry typical of the great apostasy, astonishing events will be revealed through the forces of nature, and the sign of the Son of Man will eventually appear, one aspect of which will be the completion of gathering the elect from all corners of the earth to the designated places.
The duty that Jesus enjoined upon the apostles as of first importance throughout all the coming scenes of sorrow, suffering and turmoil, was that of vigilance. They were to pray, watch, and work, diligently and with unwavering faith. The lesson was illustrated by a masterly analogy, which, under the broadest classification, may be called a parable. Directing their attention to the fig tree and other trees which flourished on the sunny slopes of Olivet, the Master said: "Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; when they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." Of the fig tree in particular the Lord remarked: "When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh." This sign of events near at hand was equally applicable to the premonitory conditions which were to herald the fall of Jerusalem and the termination of the Jewish autonomy, and to the developments by which the Lord's second advent shall be immediately preceded.
The essential task that Jesus assigned to the apostles, crucial for all the upcoming times of sorrow, suffering, and chaos, was to stay vigilant. They were to pray, watch, and work tirelessly and with steadfast faith. This lesson was demonstrated through a clever analogy, which can broadly be classified as a parable. Pointing to the fig tree and other trees flourishing on the sunny slopes of Olivet, the Master said: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees; when they begin to grow leaves, you see for yourselves that summer is near. In the same way, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near." Regarding the fig tree specifically, the Lord noted: "When its branch is still tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near." This sign of nearby events applied equally to the warning signs that would precede the fall of Jerusalem and the end of Jewish autonomy, as well as the events that will immediately lead up to the Lord's second coming.
The next declaration in the order of the evangelical record reads: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." This may be understood as applying to the generation in which the portentous happenings before described would be realized. So far as the predictions related to the overthrow of Jerusalem, they were literally fulfilled within the natural lifetime of[Pg 575] several of the apostles and of multitudes of their contemporaries; such of the Lord's prophecies as pertain to the heralding of His second coming are to brought to pass within the duration of the generation of some who witness the inauguration of their fulfilment. The certainty of fulfilment was emphasized by the Lord in the profound affirmation: "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."[1158]
The next statement in the order of the evangelical record says: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things are fulfilled." This can be understood as referring to the generation in which the significant events mentioned earlier would take place. As far as the predictions concerning the fall of Jerusalem are concerned, they were literally fulfilled within the natural lifetimes of several apostles and many of their contemporaries; the prophecies from the Lord regarding the announcement of His second coming will also be fulfilled within the lifetime of some who witness the beginning of their fulfillment. The assurance of fulfillment was highlighted by the Lord's powerful statement: "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."[1158]
All speculation concerning the time of the Lord's appearing, whether based on assumption, deduction, or calculation of dates, was forestalled by Christ's averment: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."[1159] That His advent in power and glory is to be sudden and unexpected to the unobserving and sinful world, but in immediate sequence to the signs which the vigilant and devout may read and understand, was made plain by comparison with the prevailing social conditions of Noah's time, when in spite of prophecy and warning the people had continued in their feasting and merry-making, in marrying and giving in marriage, until the very day of Noah's entrance into the ark, "And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
All speculation about when the Lord will appear, whether based on assumptions, deductions, or date calculations, was addressed by Christ's statement: "But of that day and that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father."[1159] His return in power and glory will be sudden and unexpected for the unobservant and sinful world, but will closely follow the signs that the watchful and devout can read and understand. This was made clear by comparing it to the social conditions during Noah's time, when, despite prophecies and warnings, people continued to feast and celebrate, marrying and giving in marriage, until the very day Noah entered the ark. "And they did not know until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be."
In the last stages of the gathering of the elect, the ties of companionship shall be quickly severed; of two men laboring in the field, or of two women engaged side by side in household duties, the faithful one shall be taken and the sinner left. "Watch therefore," was the solemn behest, "for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." In explication of this admonishment, the Lord condescended to compare the suddenness and secrecy of His coming to the movements of a night-prowling thief; and pointed out, that if a[Pg 576] householder had certain knowledge as to the time of a burglar's predetermined visit, he would remain on vigilant watch; but because of uncertainty he may be found off his guard, and the thief may enter and despoil the home.
In the final stages of gathering the chosen, the bonds of friendship will be quickly broken; of two men working in the field, or of two women doing chores together, the faithful one will be taken, and the sinner will be left behind. “So be alert,” was the serious command, “because you don’t know when your Lord will come.” To explain this warning, the Lord likened the suddenness and secrecy of His coming to that of a thief who prowls at night; He noted that if a homeowner knew exactly when a burglar planned to arrive, he would stay alert. But because of uncertainty, he might be caught off guard, allowing the thief to break in and steal from his home.
Again likening the apostles to duly appointed stewards in a great household,[1160] the Lord spoke of Himself as the householder, saying: "The Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." But if the steward grow negligent because of his master's long absence, and give himself up to feasting and unlicensed pleasure, or become autocratic and unjust toward his fellow-servants, his lord shall come in an hour when least expected, and shall consign that wicked servant to a place among the hypocrites, where he shall weep bitter tears of remorse, and gnash his teeth in impotent despair.[1161]
Again comparing the apostles to appointed stewards in a large household,[1160] the Lord referred to Himself as the householder, saying: "The Son of Man is like a man who goes on a long journey, who left his house, gave authority to his servants, assigned each one their tasks, and instructed the doorkeeper to stay alert. Therefore, stay awake: for you do not know when the master of the house will return, whether in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning: lest he comes suddenly and finds you asleep. And what I say to you, I say to all, stay awake." But if the steward becomes careless because of the master's extended absence, indulges in feasting and unrestrained pleasure, or acts harshly and unfairly toward his fellow servants, his master will arrive at an unexpected hour and will cast that wicked servant into a place with the hypocrites, where he will weep bitterly and grind his teeth in hopeless despair.[1161]
THE NEED OF WATCHFULNESS AND DILIGENCE ILLUSTRATED BY PARABLES.
To more indelibly impress upon the apostles, and, through their subsequent ministry, upon the world, the absolute need of unceasing watchfulness and unwavering diligence in preparation for the coming of the Lord in judgment, Jesus depicted in parables the prospective condition of mankind in the last times. The first of these illustrative portrayals is the Parable of the Ten Virgins. The only report of it we have is that given by Matthew,[1162] as follows:
To strongly emphasize to the apostles, and through their future ministry to the world, the essential need for constant vigilance and steady effort in preparing for the Lord's return in judgment, Jesus illustrated the likely state of humanity in the end times through parables. The first of these stories is the Parable of the Ten Virgins. The only account we have of it is provided by Matthew,[1162] as follows:
"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh."
"Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were wise and five were foolish. The foolish ones took their lamps but didn't bring any oil with them; the wise ones, however, took oil in their containers along with their lamps. While the bridegroom delayed, they all fell asleep. At midnight, a shout was heard: 'Look, the bridegroom is coming! Go out to meet him!' Then all the virgins woke up and got their lamps ready. The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, because our lamps have gone out.' But the wise replied, 'No, there won't be enough for both us and you. Go instead to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.' While they were out buying, the bridegroom arrived, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet, and the door was shut. Later, the other virgins came and said, 'Lord, Lord, open the door for us!' But he answered, 'Truly, I tell you, I don't know you.' Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour when the Son of Man will come."
The story itself is based on oriental marriage customs, with which the Lord's attentive listeners were familiar. It was and yet is common in those lands, particularly in connection with marriage festivities among the wealthy classes, for the bridegroom to go to the home of the bride, accompanied by his friends in processional array, and later to conduct the bride to her new home with a larger body of attendants composed of groomsmen, bridesmaids, relatives and friends. As the bridal party progressed, to the accompaniment of gladsome music, it was increased by little groups who had gathered in waiting at convenient places along the route, and particularly near the end of the course where organized companies came forth to meet the advancing procession. Wedding ceremonies were appointed for the evening and night hours; and the necessary use of torches and lamps gave brilliancy and added beauty to the scene.
The story is based on Eastern marriage customs that the Lord's attentive listeners would have been familiar with. It's still common in those regions, especially during wedding celebrations among the wealthy, for the groom to go to the bride's home with his friends in a festive procession. Later, he leads her to their new home with a larger group of groomsmen, bridesmaids, family, and friends. As the wedding party moved along, accompanied by joyful music, it grew larger with small groups that gathered to join in at key points along the route, especially near the end where organized groups came out to greet the coming procession. Wedding ceremonies were typically scheduled for the evening and night, with the use of torches and lamps adding brilliance and beauty to the occasion.
In the parable ten maidens were waiting to welcome and join in with the bridal company, the time of whose arrival[Pg 578] was uncertain. Each had her lamp attached to the end of a rod so as to be held aloft in the festal march; but of the ten virgins five had wisely carried an extra supply of oil, while the other five, probably counting on no great delay, or assuming that they would be able to borrow from others, or perchance having negligently given no thought at all to the matter, had no oil except the one filling with which their lamps had been supplied at starting. The bridegroom tarried, and the waiting maidens grew drowsy and fell asleep. At midnight, the forerunners of the marriage party loudly proclaimed the bridegroom's approach, and cried in haste: "Go ye out to meet him." The ten maidens, no longer sleepy, but eagerly active, set to work to trim their lamps; then the wise ones found use for the oil in their flasks, while the thoughtless five bewailed their destitute condition, for their lamps were empty and they had no oil for replenishment. They appealed to their wiser sisters, asking a share of their oil; but these declined; for, in a time of such exigency, to give of their store would have been to render themselves unfit, inasmuch as there was oil enough for their own lamps only. Instead of oil they could impart only advice to their unfortunate sisters, whom they directed to go to the nearest shop and buy for themselves. While the foolish virgins were away in quest of oil, the wedding party passed into the house wherein the feast was provided, and the door was shut against all tardy comers. In time the unwise maidens, too late to participate in the processional entry, called from without, pleading for admittance; but the bridegroom refused their request, and disclaimed all acquaintanceship with them, since they had not been numbered among his attendants or those of the bride.
In the parable, ten maidens were waiting to greet and join the bridal party, but the time of their arrival was uncertain. Each had a lamp attached to a rod to hold up during the celebration, but five of the maidens wisely brought extra oil, while the other five, perhaps thinking there wouldn't be a long wait, assuming they could borrow from others, or just simply not considering it at all, only had the oil that filled their lamps when they started. The bridegroom took longer than expected, and the waiting maidens became drowsy and fell asleep. At midnight, the messengers of the marriage party loudly announced the bridegroom's arrival, shouting, "Go out to meet him!" The ten maidens, now wide awake and eager, rushed to prepare their lamps; the wise ones used the oil in their flasks, while the foolish five lamented their empty state as they had no oil to refill their lamps. They asked their wiser sisters for some of their oil, but they refused, knowing that sharing would make them unprepared since there was only enough oil for their own lamps. Instead of oil, they could only offer advice to their unfortunate sisters, telling them to go to the nearest store to buy some for themselves. While the foolish maidens were out looking for oil, the wedding party entered the house where the feast was ready, and the door was shut against any latecomers. Eventually, the unwise maidens returned too late to join the celebration, calling from outside and pleading for entry. However, the bridegroom denied their request and claimed not to know them, since they hadn't been part of his group or that of the bride.
The Bridegroom is the Lord Jesus; the marriage feast symbolizes His coming in glory, to receive unto Himself the Church on earth as His bride.[1163] The virgins typify those[Pg 579] who profess a belief in Christ, and who, therefore, confidently expect to be included among the blessed participants at the feast. The lighted lamp, which each of the maidens carried, is the outward profession of Christian belief and practise; and in the oil reserves of the wiser ones we may see the spiritual strength and abundance which diligence and devotion in God's service alone can insure. The lack of sufficient oil on the part of the unwise virgins is analogous to the dearth of soil in the stony field, wherein the seed readily sprouted but soon withered away.[1164] The Bridegroom's coming was sudden; yet the waiting virgins were not held blamable for their surprize at the abrupt announcement, but the unwise five suffered the natural results of their unpreparedness. The refusal of the wise virgins to give of their oil at such a critical time must not be regarded as uncharitable; the circumstance typifies the fact that in the day of judgment every soul must answer for himself; there is no way by which the righteousness of one can be credited to another's account; the doctrine of supererogation is wholly false.[1165] The Bridegroom's condemnatory disclaimer, "I know you not," was equivalent to a declaration that the imploring but neglectful ones, who had been found unready and unprepared, did not know Him.[1166]
The Bridegroom is the Lord Jesus; the wedding feast represents His glorious arrival to take the Church on earth as His bride.[1163] The virgins symbolize those[Pg 579] who profess to believe in Christ and therefore confidently expect to be part of the blessed participants at the feast. The lit lamp that each maiden carried is the outward expression of Christian belief and practice; and the oil reserves of the wise ones illustrate the spiritual strength and abundance that only diligence and devotion in God's service can ensure. The lack of sufficient oil by the foolish virgins is similar to the poor soil in the stony field, where the seed sprouted quickly but soon withered away.[1164] The Bridegroom's coming was sudden, yet the waiting virgins were not blamed for their surprise at the sudden announcement; the five foolish ones, however, faced the natural consequences of their lack of preparation. The wise virgins' refusal to share their oil at such a critical time should not be seen as unkind; it signifies that on the day of judgment, every soul must account for themselves; there's no way for one person's righteousness to be credited to another; the idea of supererogation is completely false.[1165] The Bridegroom's harsh statement, "I don't know you," was equivalent to saying that those who were imploring but unprepared did not truly know Him.[1166]
The application of the parable and its wealth of splendid suggestion are summarized in a masterly manner by the Lord's impressive adjuration: "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." The fulfilment of the predictions enshrined in this precious parable is yet future, but near. In 1831 the Lord Jesus Christ revealed anew the indications by which the imminence of His glorious advent may be perceived. Through the mouth of His prophet Joseph Smith He thus spake: "And at that day, when I shall come in my glory,[Pg 580] shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins: for they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived; verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day, and the earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance; and they shall multiply and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation, for the Lord shall be in their midst, and his glory shall be upon them, and he will be their King and their Lawgiver."[1167]
The application of the parable and its rich suggestions is summarized brilliantly by the Lord's powerful call to action: "Watch therefore, for you do not know the day or the hour when the Son of Man will come." The fulfillment of the predictions in this valuable parable is still in the future, but it’s close. In 1831, the Lord Jesus Christ revealed once more the signs by which we can understand the nearness of His glorious return. Through His prophet Joseph Smith, He said: "And at that day, when I come in my glory,[Pg 580] the parable I spoke about the ten virgins will be fulfilled: for those who are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit as their guide, and have not been deceived; truly I tell you, they will not be cut down and thrown into the fire, but will endure the day, and the earth will be given to them as an inheritance; and they will grow and become strong, and their children will grow up without sin unto salvation, for the Lord will be in their midst, and His glory will be upon them, and He will be their King and their Lawgiver."[1167]
Still discoursing in solemn earnestness to the apostles as the evening shadows gathered about the Mount of Olives, the Lord delivered the last of His recorded parables. We call it the Parable of the Entrusted Talents.[1168]
Still speaking seriously to the apostles as the evening shadows fell around the Mount of Olives, the Lord shared the last of His recorded parables. We call it the Parable of the Entrusted Talents.[1168]
"For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things:[Pg 581] enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his servants and entrusted them with his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to each according to their ability. Then he went on his journey. The servant who received the five talents went out and traded with them, and made five more talents. Similarly, the one who received two gained two more. But the servant who received one went and dug in the ground, hiding his master's money. After a long time, the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The servant who had received five talents came and brought five more, saying, 'Master, you entrusted me with five talents; look, I have gained five more.' His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little. I will set you over much: enter into the joy of your master.' The servant who had received two talents also came and said, 'Master, you entrusted me with two talents; look, I have gained two more.' His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little. I will set you over much: enter into the joy of your master.' Then the one who had received one talent came and said, 'Master, I knew you were a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground: here it is, what belongs to you.' His master answered, 'You wicked and lazy servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered. You should have put my money in the bank, and on my return, I would have received my own with interest. Therefore, take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten talents. For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness: in that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"
Some of the resemblances between this parable and that of the Pounds[1169] appear on even a casual reading; significant differences are discovered by comparison and study. The earlier parable was spoken to a mixed multitude in the course of our Lord's last journey from Jericho to Jerusalem; the later one was given in privacy to the most intimate of His disciples in the closing hours of the last day of His public preaching. The two should be studied together. In the story of the Pounds, an equal amount of capital is given to each of the servants, and men's diverse ability to use and apply, with commensurate results in reward or penalty, is demonstrated; in that of the Entrusted Talents, the servants receive different amounts, "every man according to his several ability"; and equal diligence, though shown in one instance by great gain and in the other by small but proportionate increase, is equally rewarded. Unfaithfulness and negligence are condemned and punished in both.
Some similarities between this parable and that of the Pounds[1169] are noticeable even on a casual reading; significant differences emerge through comparison and study. The earlier parable was shared with a diverse crowd during our Lord's final journey from Jericho to Jerusalem; the later one was given privately to His closest disciples in the final hours of His public preaching. The two should be examined together. In the story of the Pounds, each servant is given the same amount of capital, demonstrating how each person's different abilities to use and apply it result in varying rewards or penalties. In the parable of the Entrusted Talents, the servants receive different amounts, "every man according to his several ability"; and equal effort, whether resulting in a large gain in one case or a smaller but proportional increase in another, is rewarded equally. Both parables condemn and punish unfaithfulness and negligence.
In the parable now under consideration, the master is presented as delivering his wealth into the hands of his own[Pg 582] servants, literally, bondservants;[1170] they, as well as the possessions held by them in trust were his. Those servants had no rights of actual ownership, nor title of permanent proprietorship in the treasure committed to their care; all they had, the time and opportunity to use their talents, and they themselves, belonged to their lord. We cannot fail to perceive even in the early incidents of the story that the Master of the servants was the Lord Jesus; the servants, therefore, were the disciples and more particularly the apostles, who, while of equal authority through ordination in the Holy Priesthood, as specifically illustrated by the earlier parable of the Pounds, were of varied ability, of diverse personality, and unequal generally in nature and in such accomplishments as would be called into service throughout their ministry. The Lord was about to depart; He would return only "after a long time"; the significance of this latter circumstance is in line with that expressed through the parable of the Ten Virgins in the statement that the Bridegroom tarried.
In the parable currently being discussed, the master is shown handing over his wealth to his own servants, specifically bondservants; they, along with the belongings they were entrusted with, belonged to him. Those servants had no actual ownership rights, nor did they have permanent title to the treasure put in their care; all they had was the time and opportunity to use their talents, and they themselves were the property of their lord. We can clearly see even in the early parts of the story that the Master of the servants was the Lord Jesus; therefore, the servants were the disciples, and more specifically the apostles, who, while having equal authority through their ordination in the Holy Priesthood, as shown in the earlier parable of the Pounds, had different abilities, diverse personalities, and were generally unequal in nature and in the skills that would be needed throughout their ministry. The Lord was about to leave; He would return only "after a long time"; the importance of this latter detail aligns with what is expressed in the parable of the Ten Virgins in the statement that the Bridegroom delayed.
At the time of reckoning, the servants who had done well, the one with his five talents, the other with his two, reported gladly, conscious as they were of having at least striven to do their best. The unfaithful servant prefaced his report with a grumbling excuse, which involved the imputation of unrighteousness in the Master. The honest, diligent, faithful servants saw and reverenced in their Lord the perfection of the good qualities which they possessed in measured degree; the lazy and unprofitable serf, afflicted by distorted vision, professed to see in the Master his own base defects. The story in this particular, as in the other features relating to human acts and tendencies, is psychologically true; in a peculiar sense men are prone to conceive of the attributes of God as comprizing in augmented degree the dominant traits of their own nature.[Pg 583]
When the time came for evaluation, the servants who had performed well, one with five talents and the other with two, happily reported their success, aware that they had at least tried their best. The unfaithful servant began his report with a complaining excuse, implying that the Master was unjust. The honest, hardworking servants recognized and respected in their Lord the perfection of the good qualities they possessed in smaller amounts; meanwhile, the lazy and unproductive servant, blinded by his own shortcomings, claimed to see his own flaws reflected in the Master. This story, like other aspects related to human behavior and inclinations, is psychologically accurate; in a unique way, people tend to view God's attributes as having greater versions of their own dominant traits.[Pg 583]
Both the servant who had been entrusted with five talents and he who had received but two were equally commended, and, as far as we are told, were equally recompensed. The talents bestowed upon each were the gift of his Lord, who knew well whether that servant was capable of using to better advantage one, two, or five. Let no one conclude that good work of relatively small scope is less necessary or acceptable than like service of wider range. Many a man who has succeeded well in business with small capital would have failed in the administration of vast sums; so also in spiritual achievements "there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit."[1171] Of the man endowed with many talents greater returns were expected; of the one-talented man relatively little was required, yet in that little he failed.[1172] At the least he could have delivered the money to the bank, through which it would have been kept in circulation to the benefit of the community, and would have earned interest meanwhile. Likewise, in the spiritual application, a man possessed of any good gift, such as musical ability, eloquence, skill in handicraft, or the like, ought to use that gift to the full, that he or others may be profited thereby: but should he be too neglectful to exercize his powers in independent service, he may assist others to profitable effort, by encouragement if by nothing more.
Both the servant who was given five talents and the one who received just two were praised equally, and from what we know, they were rewarded the same. The talents given to each were a gift from their master, who understood whether each servant could handle one, two, or five more effectively. No one should think that doing good work on a smaller scale is any less important or appreciated than work on a larger scale. Many people who have done well in business with a small amount of capital would have struggled managing large sums; similarly, in spiritual matters, "there are different gifts, but the same Spirit."[1171] The person with many talents was expected to bring greater returns; the one with just one talent was required to do less, but he still failed at that. [1172] At the very least, he could have taken the money to the bank, where it would have been put to good use for the community and would have earned interest in the meantime. Similarly, in a spiritual sense, someone with a good talent, like musical ability, public speaking, or a craft, should fully utilize that talent so that he or others can benefit from it. But if he neglects to use his gifts independently, he can still help others to be effective by providing support, even if that’s all he does.
Who can doubt in the spirit of the Lord's teaching, that had the man been able to report the doubling of his single talent, he would have been as cordially commended and as richly recompensed as were his more highly endowed and faithful fellows? It is notable that to the charge of unrighteousness made by the unfaithful servant, the Lord deigns no refutation; the spirit of the reply was the same as that expressed in the earlier parable: "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant."[1173] The unworthy[Pg 584] man sought to excuse himself by the despicable but all too common subterfuge of presumptuously charging culpability in another, and in this instance, that other was his Lord. Talents are not given to be buried, and then to be dug up and offered back unimproved, reeking with the smell of earth and dulled by the corrosion of disuse. The unused talent was justly taken from him who had counted it as of so little worth, and was given to one, who, although possessing much, would use the additional gift to his own profit, to the betterment of his fellows, and to the glory of his Lord.
Who can doubt, in the spirit of the Lord's teaching, that if the man had been able to show that he had doubled his single talent, he would have been as warmly praised and as richly rewarded as his more gifted and faithful companions? It's worth noting that when the unfaithful servant accused him of wrongdoing, the Lord didn't provide a rebuttal; the essence of His response was the same as that expressed in the earlier parable: "By your own words, I will judge you, you wicked servant." The unworthy man tried to excuse himself with the pathetic but all too common excuse of presumptuously blaming someone else, and in this case, that someone was his Lord. Talents aren't meant to be buried and then dug up to be offered back unchanged, smelling musty and dull from neglect. The unused talent was justly taken from him, who valued it so little, and given to someone who, even though he had much, would use the extra gift for his own benefit, for the betterment of his peers, and to glorify his Lord.
THE INEVITABLE JUDGMENT.[1174]
The Lord had uttered His last parable. In words of plainness, though suffused with the beauty of effective simile, He impressed upon the listening disciples the certainty of judgment by which the world shall be visited in the day of His appearing. Then shall the wheat be segregated from the tares,[1175] and the sheep divided from the goats. "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left." Unto those on His right hand the King shall give commendation and blessing, bestowing a rich recompense for their good works, as attested by the hungry they had fed, the thirsty to whom they had given drink, the stranger they had lodged, the naked they had clothed, the sick to whom they had ministered, the prisoners they had visited and encouraged, all of which mercies are accredited to them as having been rendered to their Lord in person. The blessed company, overwhelmed by the plenitude of the King's bounty, of which[Pg 585] they regard themselves as undeserving, will fain disclaim the merit attributed to them; "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
The Lord had shared His final parable. In straightforward words, filled with the beauty of effective comparison, He made it clear to His attentive disciples that judgment is certain for the world on the day He returns. Then, the wheat will be separated from the weeds, and the sheep will be divided from the goats. "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, He will sit on His glorious throne. All nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, as a shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on His right side, but the goats on His left." To those on His right, the King will offer praise and blessing, rewarding them richly for their good deeds, as indicated by the hungry they fed, the thirsty they provided drinks for, the strangers they welcomed, the naked they clothed, the sick they cared for, and the prisoners they visited and encouraged—all of which acts of kindness are credited to them as if done for their Lord Himself. The blessed group, overwhelmed by the abundance of the King's generosity, which they believe they don't deserve, will humbly deny the credit given to them; "And the King will reply and say to them, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."
Unto them who wait on the left in terrified expectancy, the King shall recount their several deficiencies, in that they had given Him neither food nor drink, shelter nor clothing despite His need; neither had they visited Him though ill, nor ministered unto His wants when He lay in a prison cell. In the desperation of anguish these shall ask when and where they had had such opportunity of comforting Him, and He shall answer, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me." The righteous shall be welcomed with "Come ye blessed of my Father"; the wicked shall hear the awful sentence, "Depart from me ye cursed." Eternal life is the inestimable reward; everlasting punishment the unfathomable doom.[1176]
To those who wait on the left in scared anticipation, the King will list their shortcomings, since they gave Him neither food nor drink, shelter nor clothing despite His needs; they also didn’t visit Him when He was sick or help Him when He was in prison. In their desperate anguish, they will ask when and how they could have comforted Him, and He will reply, "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." The righteous will be greeted with "Come, you who are blessed by my Father"; the wicked will hear the terrible judgment, "Depart from me, you who are cursed." Eternal life is the priceless reward; everlasting punishment is the unfathomable fate.[1176]
Viewing as one discourse the two parables and the teaching that directly followed, we find in it such unity of subject and thoroughness of treatment as to give to the whole both beauty and worth beyond the sum of these qualities exhibited in the several parts. Vigilant waiting in the Lord's cause, and the dangers of unreadiness are exemplified in the story of the virgins; diligence in work and the calamitous results of sloth are prominent features of the tale of the talents. These two phases of service are of reciprocal and complementary import; it is as necessary at times to wait as at others to work. The lapse of a long period, as while the Bridegroom tarried, and as during the Master's absence in "a far country,"[1177] is made plain throughout as intervening between the Lord's departure and His return in glory. The absolute certainty of the Christ coming to execute judgment[Pg 586] upon the earth, in the which every soul shall receive according to his deserts, is the sublime summary of this unparalleled discourse.
Viewing the two parables and the teaching that followed as one cohesive message, we see a unity of subject and depth of treatment that gives the entire piece a beauty and value beyond what the individual parts showcase. Being watchful in the Lord's service and the risks of being unprepared are illustrated in the story of the ten virgins; diligence and the disastrous consequences of laziness are central themes in the parable of the talents. These two aspects of service are interconnected and complement each other; sometimes it’s essential to wait, while at other times it’s crucial to work. The long period, like when the Bridegroom was delayed and during the Master's absence in "a far country,"[1177] is clearly depicted as the time between the Lord's departure and His return in glory. The absolute certainty of Christ coming to judge the earth, where every person will receive what they deserve, is the powerful conclusion of this extraordinary message.
ANOTHER SPECIFIC PREDICTION OF THE LORD'S DEATH.
Following the instructions to the apostles at the resting place on Olivet, and probably in the course of the continued walk toward Bethany that evening, Jesus reminded the Twelve of the awful fate awaiting Him, and specified the time of His betrayal and the manner of His death. "Ye know," He said, "that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified."[1178]
Following the instructions to the apostles at the resting place on Olivet, and likely during the ongoing walk toward Bethany that evening, Jesus reminded the Twelve of the terrible fate awaiting Him, and specified the time of His betrayal and the manner of His death. "You know," He said, "that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to be crucified."[1178]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 32.
1. Early Fulfilment of the Lord's Prophecies.—As to the literal fulfilment of the Lord's predictions relating to the times immediately following His ascension and down to the destruction of Jerusalem, the student must be referred to scriptural and other history. Only a brief summary of the most notable events can be attempted here.
1. Early Fulfilment of the Lord's Prophecies.—Regarding the actual fulfillment of the Lord's predictions about the period right after His ascension up to the destruction of Jerusalem, the reader should consult the Scriptures and other historical sources. Here, we can only provide a short summary of the most significant events.
On the matter of wars and rumors or threats of wars, see Josephus, Antiquities xviii, ch. 9, and Wars, ii, ch. 10. The latter reference is to the account of the decree issued by Caligula that his statue be set up and duly reverenced in the temple, in consequence of which the Jews protested so strenuously that war was declared against them, but was averted by the death of the emperor. Concerning the death of Caligula, Josephus remarks that it "happened most happily for our nation in particular, which would have almost utterly perished, if he had not been suddenly slain." Other threats of war against the Jews were severally made by the emperors Claudius and Nero.
On the topic of wars and the rumors or threats of wars, check out Josephus, Antiquities xviii, ch. 9, and Wars, ii, ch. 10. The latter reference discusses the decree issued by Caligula that his statue be erected and properly honored in the temple, which led to strong protests from the Jews, resulting in a declaration of war against them, but it was prevented by the emperor's death. Regarding Caligula's death, Josephus notes that it "happened most happily for our nation in particular, which would have almost completely perished if he had not been suddenly killed." Other threats of war against the Jews were made by the emperors Claudius and Nero.
Nation rose against nation, as for example, in the assault of Greeks and Syrians upon the Jews, in the course of which 50,000 Jews were slain at Selucia on the Tigris, and 20,000 at Cæsarea, 13,000 at Scythopolis, and 2,500 at Ascalon. Famine and its attendant pestilence prevailed during the reign of Claudius, (41-54 A.D.) and such had been specifically predicted by inspiration, through Agabus (Acts 11:28). The famine was very severe in Palestine (Josephus, Antiquities, xx, ch. 2). Earthquakes were of alarming frequency and of unusual severity, between the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, particularly in Syria, Macedonia, Campania, and Achia. See Tacitus, Annals, books xii and xiv; and for account of violent seismic disturbances at[Pg 587] Rome, see Suetonius in his Life of Galba. Josephus (Wars iv, ch. 4) records a particularly severe earthquake that disrupted parts of Judea, and was accompanied by "amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth—a manifest indication that some destruction was coming upon men." The portent of "fearful sights and great signs" from heaven, as recorded by Luke was realized in the phenomenal events chronicled by Josephus (Preface to "Wars").
Nations fought against nations, such as when the Greeks and Syrians attacked the Jews, resulting in the deaths of 50,000 Jews in Selucia on the Tigris, 20,000 in Cæsarea, 13,000 in Scythopolis, and 2,500 in Ascalon. Famine and the diseases that came with it were widespread during the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.), which had been specifically predicted through Agabus (Acts 11:28). The famine was especially severe in Palestine (Josephus, Antiquities, xx, ch. 2). Earthquakes occurred frequently and were unusually strong between the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, particularly in Syria, Macedonia, Campania, and Achaia. See Tacitus, Annals, books xii and xiv; and for reports of violent seismic events in[Pg 587] Rome, see Suetonius in his Life of Galba. Josephus (Wars iv, ch. 4) records a particularly severe earthquake that disrupted parts of Judea and was accompanied by "amazing tremors and roars of the earth—a clear sign that some destruction was coming upon people." The warning of "fearful sights and great signs" from heaven, as noted by Luke, was fulfilled in the extraordinary events described by Josephus (Preface to "Wars").
Of the persecution that befell the apostles and others, and of their arraignment before rulers, Dr. Adam Clarke, in his commentary on passages in Matt 24, says: "We need go no farther than the Acts of the Apostles for the completion of these particulars. Some were delivered to councils, as Peter and John (Acts 4:5). Some were brought before rulers and kings, as Paul before Gallio (18:12); before Felix (ch. 24); before Festus and Agrippa (ch. 25). Some had utterance and wisdom which their adversaries were not able to resist; so Stephen (6:10), and Paul who made even Felix himself tremble (24:25). Some were imprisoned, as Peter and John (4:3). Some were beaten, as Paul and Silas (16:23). Some were put to death, as Stephen (7:59); and James the brother of John (12:2). But if we look beyond the book of the Acts of the Apostles, to the bloody persecutions under Nero, we shall find these predictions still more amply fulfilled; in these, numberless Christians fell, besides those two champions of the faith, Peter and Paul. And it was, as says Tertullian, a war against the very name of Christ; for he who was called Christian had committed crime enough in bearing the name to be put to death. So true were our Savior's words that they should be hated of all men for His Name's sake."
Of the persecution faced by the apostles and others, and their trials before rulers, Dr. Adam Clarke, in his commentary on passages in Matt 24, says: "We need to look no further than the Acts of the Apostles for the details of these events. Some were brought to councils, like Peter and John (Acts 4:5). Others were taken before rulers and kings, such as Paul before Gallio (18:12); before Felix (ch. 24); and before Festus and Agrippa (ch. 25). Some spoke with such insight and wisdom that their opponents couldn’t resist them; like Stephen (6:10) and Paul, who even made Felix tremble (24:25). Some were imprisoned, like Peter and John (4:3). Some were beaten, like Paul and Silas (16:23). Some were killed, like Stephen (7:59) and James the brother of John (12:2). But if we look beyond the book of the Acts of the Apostles to the brutal persecutions under Nero, we will find these predictions fulfilled even more extensively; countless Christians suffered, in addition to those two champions of the faith, Peter and Paul. Tertullian described it as a war against the very name of Christ; just being called a Christian was considered a sufficient crime to warrant death. Our Savior's words ring true that they would be hated by all men for His Name’s sake."
Among the false prophets, and men who claimed to be the duly accredited ministers of Christ, were Simon Magus who drew many people after him (Acts 8:9, 13, 18-24; see also The Great Apostasy, 7:1, 2), Menander, Dositheus, and Theudas, and the false apostles referred to by Paul (2 Cor. 11:13) and others, such as Hymeneus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17, 18). Dummelow's Commentary applies here the record by Josephus concerning "a body of wicked men, who deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, who prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them the signals of victory." Compare 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:18; 4:1. That the love of many did wax cold, both before and after the destruction of Jerusalem, is attested by the facts of the world-wide apostasy, which was the result of corruption within and persecution from without the Church (see The Great Apostasy, chaps. 3-9).
Among the false prophets and those who claimed to be legitimate ministers of Christ were Simon Magus, who attracted many followers (Acts 8:9, 13, 18-24; see also The Great Apostasy, 7:1, 2), along with Menander, Dositheus, and Theudas, as well as the false apostles mentioned by Paul (2 Cor. 11:13) and others like Hymeneus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17, 18). Dummelow's Commentary references a record by Josephus about "a group of wicked men who deceived and misled the people under the guise of divine inspiration, who led the masses to act irrationally, and went ahead of them into the wilderness, claiming that God would show them the signs of victory there." See also 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:18; 4:1. The fact that many people's love grew cold, both before and after the destruction of Jerusalem, is evidenced by the widespread apostasy resulting from corruption within and persecution from outside the Church (see The Great Apostasy, chaps. 3-9).
The preaching of the gospel of the kingdom "in all the world" was no less truly an essential characteristic of the apostolic period than it is of the current or last dispensation. The rapid spread of the gospel and the phenomenal growth of the Church under the direction of the apostles of old, is recorded as one of the marvels of history (Great Apostasy, 1:21, and citation of Eusebius). Paul, writing about thirty years after Christ's[Pg 588] ascension, affirms that the gospel had already been carried to every nation, and "preached to every creature under heaven" (Col. 1:23, compare verse 6).
The preaching of the gospel of the kingdom "throughout the world" was just as crucial during the apostolic period as it is in the present or recent times. The rapid spread of the gospel and the incredible growth of the Church under the leadership of the apostles is recorded as one of history's wonders (Great Apostasy, 1:21, and citation of Eusebius). Paul, writing about thirty years after Christ's[Pg 588] ascension, states that the gospel had already reached every nation and was "preached to every creature under heaven" (Col. 1:23, compare verse 6).
The "abomination of desolation" cited by the Lord from the prophecy by Daniel was strictly fulfilled in the investment of Jerusalem by the Roman army (compare Luke 21:20, 21). To the Jews the ensigns and images of the Romans were a disgusting abomination. Josephus (Wars vi, ch. 6) states that the Roman ensigns were set up inside the temple and that the soldiery offered sacrifices before them.
The "abomination of desolation" mentioned by the Lord from Daniel's prophecy was clearly fulfilled when the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem (see Luke 21:20, 21). For the Jews, the banners and symbols of the Romans were a repulsive abomination. Josephus (Wars vi, ch. 6) notes that the Roman banners were placed inside the temple and that the soldiers offered sacrifices in front of them.
The warning to all to flee from Jerusalem and Judea to the mountains when the armies would begin to surround the city was so generally heeded by members of the Church, that according to the early Church writers not one Christian perished in the awful siege (see Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., book iii, ch. 5). The first siege by Gallus was unexpectedly raised, and then, before the armies of Vespasian arrived at the walls, all Jews who had faith in the warning given by Christ to the apostles, and by these to the people, fled beyond Jordan, and congregated mostly at Pella (compare Josephus, Wars ii, ch. 19).
The warning for everyone to escape from Jerusalem and Judea to the mountains when the armies started surrounding the city was followed so widely by members of the Church that, according to early Church writers, not a single Christian died during the horrific siege (see Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., book iii, ch. 5). The first siege by Gallus was unexpectedly lifted, and then, before Vespasian's armies reached the city walls, all Jews who believed the warning given by Christ to the apostles, and by them to the people, fled across the Jordan River and mostly gathered at Pella (compare Josephus, Wars ii, ch. 19).
As to the unprecedented horrors of the siege, which culminated in the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, see Josephus, Wars vi, chaps. 3 and 4. That historian estimates the number slain in Jerusalem alone as 1,100,000 and in other cities and rural parts a third as many more. For details see Josephus, Wars ii, chaps. 18, 20; iii, 2, 7, 8, 9; iv, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9; vii, 6, 9, 11. Many tens of thousands were taken captive, to be afterward sold into slavery, or to be slain by wild beasts, or in gladiatorial combat in the arena for the amusement of Roman spectators.
Regarding the unprecedented horrors of the siege, which led to the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, refer to Josephus, Wars vi, chaps. 3 and 4. That historian estimates the number of people killed in Jerusalem alone at 1,100,000, with another third as many killed in other cities and rural areas. For details, see Josephus, Wars ii, chaps. 18, 20; iii, 2, 7, 8, 9; iv, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9; vii, 6, 9, 11. Many tens of thousands were taken captive, later to be sold into slavery, or killed by wild beasts, or in gladiatorial combat in the arena for the entertainment of Roman spectators.
In the course of the siege, a wall was constructed about the entire city, thus fulfilling the Lord's prediction (Luke 19:43), "thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee," in which, by the admittedly better translation, "bank" or "palisade" should appear instead of "trench". In September A.D. 70 the city fell into the hands of the Romans; and its destruction was afterward made so thorough that its site was plowed up. Jerusalem was "trodden down of the Gentiles", and ever since has been under Gentile dominion, and so shall continue to be "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." (Luke 21:24.)
During the siege, a wall was built around the entire city, fulfilling the Lord's prophecy (Luke 19:43), "your enemies will surround you with a trench," though a better translation would use "bank" or "palisade" instead of "trench." In September A.D. 70, the city fell to the Romans, and its destruction was so complete that the site was plowed over. Jerusalem was "trampled by the Gentiles," and has since remained under Gentile control, and will continue to be "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24.)
2. In the Deserts and in Secret Chambers.—The 24th chapter of Matthew, and its parallel scriptures in Mark 13 and Luke 21, may be the more easily understood if we bear in mind that the Lord therein speaks of two distinct events, each a consummation of long ages of preparation, and the first a prototype of the second. Many of the specific predictions are applicable both to the time preceding or at the destruction of Jerusalem, and to developments of succeeding time down to the second coming of Christ. The passage in Matt. 24:26 may be given this two-fold application. Josephus tells of men leading others away into the desert, saying under pretended inspiration that there should they find God; and the same historian mentions a false prophet[Pg 589] who led many into the secret chambers of the temple during the Roman assault, promising them that there would the Lord give them deliverance. Men, women, and children followed this fanatical leader, and were caught in the holocaust of destruction, so that 6,000 of them perished in the flames (Josephus, Wars vi, ch. 5). Concerning an application of the Lord's precepts to later times and conditions, the author has elsewhere written (The Great Apostasy, 7:22-25): One of the heresies of early origin and rapid growth in the Church was the doctrine of antagonism between body and spirit, whereby the former was regarded as an incubus and a curse. From what has been said this will be recognized as one of the perversions derived from the alliance of Gnosticism with Christianity. A result of this grafting in of heathen doctrines was an abundant growth of hermit practises, by which men sought to weaken, torture, and subdue their bodies, that their spirits or "souls" might gain greater freedom. Many who adopted this unnatural view of human existence retired to the solitude of the desert, and there spent their time in practises of stern self-denial and in acts of frenzied self-torture. Others shut themselves up as voluntary prisoners, seeking glory in privation and self-imposed penance. It was this unnatural view of life that gave rise to the several orders of recluses, hermits, and monks.
2. In the Deserts and in Secret Chambers.—The 24th chapter of Matthew, as well as its counterparts in Mark 13 and Luke 21, can be better understood if we keep in mind that the Lord is discussing two separate events, each marking the culmination of extensive periods of preparation, with the first serving as a model for the second. Many specific predictions apply to both the time leading up to and during the destruction of Jerusalem, and to developments over the years right up to the second coming of Christ. The passage in Matt. 24:26 can be interpreted in both ways. Josephus mentions individuals leading others into the desert, claiming to be inspired and saying they would find God there; he also talks about a false prophet[Pg 589] who took many into the hidden areas of the temple during the Roman siege, assuring them that the Lord would deliver them there. Men, women, and children followed this deluded leader and were caught in the devastation, resulting in 6,000 of them perishing in the flames (Josephus, Wars vi, ch. 5). Regarding the application of the Lord's teachings to later times and situations, the author has noted elsewhere (The Great Apostasy, 7:22-25): One of the early heresies that gained traction in the Church was the belief in a conflict between body and spirit, where the body was seen as a burden and a curse. From this, it can be recognized as one of the distortions that arose from the merging of Gnosticism with Christianity. This blending of pagan ideas led to a surge in hermit practices, where individuals attempted to weaken, torment, and control their bodies in order for their spirits or "souls" to achieve greater freedom. Many who embraced this unnatural perspective of life retreated to the deserts, spending their days in extreme self-denial and frenzied self-torture. Others confined themselves voluntarily, seeking honor in deprivation and self-imposed suffering. It was this unnatural outlook on life that spawned several groups of recluses, hermits, and monks.
Think you not that the Savior had such practises in mind, when, warning the disciples of the false claims to sanctity that would characterize the times then soon to follow, He said: "Wherefore if they shall say unto you. Behold he [Christ] is in the desert, go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers, believe it not"?
Think you not that the Savior had such practices in mind when warning the disciples about the false claims to holiness that would soon arise? He said: "So if they say to you, 'Look, he [Christ] is in the desert,' don't go out; or 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' don't believe it."
3. The Time of Christ's Advent Not Known.—The Lord's statement that the time of His advent in glory was unknown to man, and that the angels knew it not, "neither the Son", but that it was known to the Father only, appears plain and unambiguous notwithstanding many and conflicting commentaries thereon. Jesus repeatedly affirmed that His mission was to do the will of the Father; and it is evident that the Father's will was revealed to Him from time to time. While in the flesh He laid no claim to omniscience; though whatever He willed to know He learned through the medium of communication with the Father. Christ had not asked to know what the Father had not intimated His readiness to reveal, which, in this instance, was the day and hour of the Son's appointed return to earth as a glorified, resurrected Being. We need not hesitate to believe that at the time Jesus delivered to the apostles the discourse under consideration, He was uninformed on the matter; for He so states. In the last interview between Christ and the apostles immediately before His ascension (Acts 1:6, 7) they asked "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." Nor has the date of the Messianic consummation been since revealed to any man; though even now, the fig tree is rapidly putting forth its[Pg 590] leaves, and he who hath eyes to see and a heart to understand knows that the summer of the Lord's purpose is near at hand.
3. The Time of Christ's Advent Not Known.—The Lord's statement that no one knows the time of His glorious return, and that the angels don’t know it either, "neither the Son," but only the Father, is clear and straightforward despite numerous and conflicting interpretations. Jesus often said that His mission was to fulfill the Father’s will, and it’s clear that the Father revealed His will to Him at different times. While He was on earth, He didn’t claim to know everything; rather, He learned what He needed to know through His communication with the Father. Christ did not seek to know what the Father had not indicated He was ready to share, which, in this case, was the specific day and hour for the Son's return to earth as a glorified, resurrected Being. We can confidently believe that when Jesus spoke to the apostles about this matter, He was not informed; He explicitly said so. In the final conversation between Christ and the apostles just before His ascension (Acts 1:6, 7), they asked, "Lord, are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel at this time?" He replied, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has set by His own authority." The date for the ultimate Messianic fulfillment hasn’t been revealed to anyone since; however, even now, the fig tree is quickly putting forth its leaves, and those who have eyes to see and hearts to understand know that the season for the Lord's purpose is drawing near.[Pg 590]
4. The False Doctrine of Supererogation.—Among the pernicious fallacies promulgated as authorized dogmas by the apostate church during the long period of spiritual darkness following the close of the apostolic ministry, was the awful enormity known as the doctrine of supererogation. As stated by Mosheim (Eccl. Hist. Cent. xii, part ii, ch. 3:4) the dreadful doctrine was formulated in the thirteenth century as follows: "That there actually existed an immense treasure of merit, composed of the pious deeds and virtuous actions which the saints had performed beyond what was necessary for their own salvation, and which were therefore applicable to the benefit of others; that the guardian and dispenser of this precious treasure was the Roman pontiff, and that of consequence he was empowered to assign to such as he thought proper a portion of this inexhaustible source of merit, suitable to their respective guilt, and sufficient to deliver them from the punishment due to their crimes." Concerning the fallacy of this doctrine the author has written (The Great Apostasy, 9:15), in this wise: "This doctrine of supererogation is as unreasonable as it is unscriptural and untrue. Man's individual responsibility for his acts is as surely a fact as is his agency to act for himself. He will be saved through the merits and by the atoning sacrifice of our Redeemer and Lord; and his claim upon the salvation provided is strictly dependent on his compliance with the principles and ordinances of the gospel as established by Jesus Christ. Remission of sins and the eventual salvation of the human soul are provided for; but these gifts of God are not to be purchased with money. Compare the awful fallacies of supererogation and the blasphemous practise of assuming to remit the sins of one man in consideration of the merits of another, with the declaration of the one and only Savior of mankind: 'But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment.'" If conclusions as to doctrine may be drawn from our Lord's parables, the parable of the Ten Virgins affords refutation of the Satanic suggestion that one man's sin may be neutralized by another's righteousness. We know no supererogation but that of the Lord Jesus Christ, through whose merits salvation is placed within the reach of all men.
4. The False Doctrine of Supererogation.—Among the harmful ideas promoted as accepted beliefs by the fallen church during the long period of spiritual darkness after the apostolic ministry ended, was the troubling concept known as the doctrine of supererogation. As noted by Mosheim (Eccl. Hist. Cent. xii, part ii, ch. 3:4), this disturbing doctrine was developed in the thirteenth century as follows: "That there actually existed a vast treasure of merit, made up of the pious deeds and virtuous actions that the saints performed beyond what was necessary for their own salvation, and which were therefore available for the benefit of others; that the keeper and distributor of this precious treasure was the Roman pontiff, and that as a result, he was empowered to assign to those he deemed appropriate a portion of this endless source of merit, suitable to their respective guilt, and enough to free them from the punishment due to their sins." Regarding the fallacy of this doctrine, the author wrote (The Great Apostasy, 9:15): "This doctrine of supererogation is as unreasonable as it is unscriptural and false. Each person's responsibility for their actions is as certain a fact as their ability to act for themselves. They will be saved through the merits and the atoning sacrifice of our Redeemer and Lord; and their claim to the salvation provided is strictly dependent on their adherence to the principles and ordinances of the gospel as established by Jesus Christ. Forgiveness of sins and the eventual salvation of the human soul are available, but these gifts from God cannot be purchased with money. Compare the damaging fallacies of supererogation and the blasphemous practice of claiming to absolve one person's sins based on another's merits, with the declaration of the one and only Savior of humanity: 'But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment.'" If we can draw conclusions about doctrine from our Lord's parables, the parable of the Ten Virgins provides evidence against the devilish suggestion that one person's sin can be offset by another's righteousness. We recognize no supererogation except that of the Lord Jesus Christ, through whose merits salvation is made accessible to all.
5. "This Generation."—Consult any reliable unabridged dictionary of the English language for evidence of the fact that the term "generation," as connoting a period of time, has many meanings, among which are "race, kind, class." The term is not confined to a body of people living at one time. Fausett's Bible Cyclopedia, Critical and Expository, after citing many meanings attached to the word, says: "In Matthew 24:34 'this generation shall not pass (viz. the Jewish race, of which the generation in Christ's days was a sample in character; compare Christ's address to the "generation," 23:35, 36, in proof that "generation" means at times the whole Jewish race) till all these things be fulfilled'—a prophecy that the Jews shall be a distinct people still when He shall come again."[Pg 591]
5. "This Generation."—Check any reliable unabridged dictionary of the English language for proof that the term "generation," when referring to a period of time, has various meanings, including "race, kind, class." The term isn't limited to a group of people living at the same time. Fausett's Bible Cyclopedia, Critical and Expository, after listing numerous meanings associated with the word, states: "In Matthew 24:34 'this generation shall not pass (specifically, the Jewish race, of which the generation in Christ's days is a representative in character; see Christ's address to the 'generation,' 23:35, 36, as evidence that 'generation' can refer to the entire Jewish race) until all these things are fulfilled'—a prophecy that the Jews will remain a distinct people even when He returns."[Pg 591]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1153] Dan. 9:27.
[1157] The "body," as that of the Church, is rendered "carcase" in both authorized and revised versions. For the application of the figure—of eagles gathering about a carcase—to the assembling of scattered Israel, see P. of G.P., Joseph Smith, 1:27, where we read: "so likewise shall mine elect be gathered from the four quarters of the earth." Among Bible scholars, a favorite interpretation of the passage, "For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together," is that Christ was likening unto eagles (revised version "vultures") the angels that shall come with Him to execute judgment upon mankind, and unto a carcase the corruption of sin. See Matt. 24:28; compare Luke 17:37.
[1157] The "body," like that of the Church, is translated as "carcass" in both the authorized and revised versions. For the use of the metaphor—of eagles gathering around a carcass—in relation to the gathering of scattered Israel, see P. of G.P., Joseph Smith, 1:27, which states: "so likewise shall mine elect be gathered from the four quarters of the earth." Among Bible scholars, a common interpretation of the passage, "For wherever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together," is that Christ was comparing eagles (revised version "vultures") to the angels who will come with Him to bring judgment upon humanity, and the carcass represents the decay of sin. See Matt. 24:28; compare Luke 17:37.
[1162] Matt. 25:1-13.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 25:1-13.
[1166] Compare John 10:14.
[1168] Matt. 25:14-30.
[1170] Margin, revised version.
Margin, updated version.
[1172] Luke 12:48.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 12:48.
[1173] Luke 19:22; compare Matt. 12:37.
[1174] Matt. 25:31-46.
Matt. 25:31-46.
[1178] Matt. 26:2.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 26:2.
CHAPTER 33.
THE LAST SUPPER AND THE BETRAYAL.
PRIESTLY CONSPIRATORS AND THE TRAITOR.
As the time for the annual Feast of the Passover approached, and particularly during the two days immediately preceding the beginning of the festival, the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people, in short the Sanhedrin and the entire priestly party, conspired persistently together as to the best manner of taking Jesus into custody and putting Him to death. At one of these gatherings of evil counsel, which was held at the palace of the high priest, Caiaphas,[1179] it was decided that Jesus should be taken by subtlety if possible, as the probable effect of an open arrest would be an uprising of the people. The rulers feared especially an outbreak by the Galileans, who had a provincial pride in the prominence of Jesus as one of their countrymen, and many of whom were then in Jerusalem. It was further concluded and for the same reasons, that the Jewish custom of making impressive examples of notable offenders by executing public punishment upon them at times of great general assemblages, be set aside in the case of Jesus; therefore the conspirators said: "Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people."[1180]
As the annual Passover Feast drew near, especially in the two days before the festival began, the chief priests, scribes, and elders, which included the Sanhedrin and the entire religious leadership, worked together persistently to figure out the best way to arrest Jesus and have Him killed. During one of these meetings, held at the palace of the high priest Caiaphas,[1179] it was decided that they should take Jesus quietly if possible, since an open arrest could lead to a riot among the people. The leaders were particularly worried about an uprising from the Galileans, who felt a sense of pride in Jesus being one of their own, and many of them were in Jerusalem at the time. They also agreed, for the same reasons, to bypass the Jewish custom of making public examples out of notable criminals during large gatherings; therefore, the conspirators said: "Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people."[1180]
On earlier occasions they had made futile attempts to get Jesus into their hands;[1181] and they were naturally dubious as to the outcome of their later machinations. At this juncture they were encouraged and gladdened in their wicked plots[Pg 592] by the appearance of an unexpected ally. Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, sought an audience with these rulers of the Jews, and infamously offered to betray his Lord into their hands.[1182] Under the impulse of diabolic avarice, which, however, was probably but a secondary element in the real cause of his perfidious treachery, he bargained to sell his Master for money, and chaffered with the priestly purchasers over the price of the Savior's blood. "What will ye give me?" he asked; "and they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver."[1183] This amount, approximately seventeen dollars in our money, but of many times greater purchasing power with the Jews in that day than now with us, was the price fixed by the law as that of a slave; it was also the foreseen sum of the blood-money to be paid for the Lord's betrayal.[1184] That the silver was actually paid to Judas, either at this first interview or at some later meeting between the traitor and the priests, is demonstrated by after events.[1185]
In the past, they had made unsuccessful attempts to capture Jesus, and they were understandably skeptical about the outcome of their new plans. At this point, they felt encouraged and pleased in their evil schemes by the arrival of an unexpected ally. Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, approached these Jewish leaders and notoriously offered to betray his Lord to them. Driven by a wicked greed, which was likely just a part of the true reason for his treacherous actions, he negotiated to sell his Master for money and haggled with the priests over the price of the Savior's blood. "What will you give me?" he asked, and they agreed on thirty pieces of silver. This amount, roughly seventeen dollars today, had much greater purchasing power at that time among the Jews than it does now. It was the amount set by the law as the price for a slave and was also the anticipated sum of the blood money for betraying the Lord. That the silver was actually given to Judas, whether during this first meeting or at a later one with the priests, is confirmed by subsequent events.
He had pledged himself to the blackest deed of treachery of which man is capable, and from that hour he sought the opportunity of superseding his infamous promise by its more villainous fulfilment. We are yet to be afflicted by other glimpses of the evil-hearted Iscariot in the course of this dread chronicle of tragedy and perdition; for the present let it be said that before Judas sold Christ to the Jews, he had sold himself to the devil; he had become Satan's serf, and did his master's bidding.
He had committed himself to the darkest act of betrayal that anyone could imagine, and from that moment on, he looked for a way to replace his notorious promise with an even more wicked action. We will still witness more of the malevolent Iscariot as this grim tale of tragedy and doom unfolds; for now, it's important to note that before Judas betrayed Christ to the Jews, he had already sold his soul to the devil; he had become Satan's servant, carrying out his master's orders.
THE LAST SUPPER.
The day preceding the eating of the passover lamb had come to be known among the Jews as the first day of the feast of unleavened bread,[1186] since on that day all leaven had[Pg 593] to be removed from their dwellings, and thereafter for a period of eight days the eating of anything containing leaven was unlawful. On the afternoon of this day, the paschal lambs were slain within the temple court, by the representatives of families or companies who were to eat together; and a portion of the blood of each lamb was sprinkled at the foot of the altar of sacrifice by one of the numerous priests on duty for the day. The slain lamb, then said to have been sacrificed, was borne away to the appointed gathering place of those by whom it was to be eaten. During the first of the days of unleavened bread, which in the year of our Lord's death appears to have fallen on Thursday,[1187] some of the Twelve inquired of Jesus where they should make preparations for the paschal meal.[1188] He instructed Peter and John to return to Jerusalem, and added: "Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover."
The day before the Passover lamb was traditionally known among the Jews as the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread,[1186] because on that day, all leaven had[Pg 593] to be removed from their homes, and for eight days after, eating anything with leaven was prohibited. On the afternoon of this day, the Passover lambs were sacrificed in the temple courtyard by representatives from families or groups who would eat together; a portion of the blood from each lamb was sprinkled at the base of the altar by one of the many priests working that day. The sacrificed lamb was then taken to the designated gathering place for those who would eat it. During the first days of unleavened bread, which in the year of our Lord's death seems to have fallen on a Thursday,[1187] some of the Twelve asked Jesus where they should prepare for the Passover meal.[1188] He told Peter and John to go back to Jerusalem and added, "Look, when you enter the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him to the house he enters. And say to the owner of the house, 'The Master asks you, Where is the guest room where I will eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room furnished: prepare it there." They went and found everything just as he had told them, and they got ready for the Passover.
In the evening, Thursday evening as we reckon time, but the beginning of Friday according to the Jewish calendar,[1189] Jesus came with the Twelve, and together they sat down to the last meal of which the Lord would partake before His death. Under strain of profound emotion, "He said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this,[Pg 594] and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." The pronouncing of a blessing by the host upon a cup of wine, which was afterward passed round the table to each participant in turn, was the customary manner of beginning the Passover supper. At this solemn meal Jesus appears to have observed the essentials of the Passover procedure; but we have no record of His compliance with the many supernumerary requirements with which the divinely established memorial of Israel's deliverance from bondage had been invested by traditional custom and rabbinical prescription. As we shall see, the evening's proceedings in that upper room comprized much beside the ordinary observance of an annual festival.
In the evening, Thursday evening as we track time, but the start of Friday in the Jewish calendar,[1189] Jesus arrived with the Twelve, and they sat down to the last meal the Lord would share before His death. Overwhelmed with deep emotion, He said to them, "I really wanted to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. I tell you, I won’t eat it again until it’s fulfilled in the kingdom of God." He took the cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this,[Pg 594] and share it among yourselves, because I won’t drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." The host would typically bless a cup of wine, which was then passed around the table to each guest in turn, marking the beginning of the Passover meal. During this solemn dinner, Jesus seems to have followed the key elements of the Passover tradition; however, we have no record of Him adhering to the numerous additional requirements imposed by tradition and rabbinical rules on the memorial of Israel’s liberation from bondage. As we will see, the events of that evening in the upper room included much more than just a standard annual celebration.
The supper proceeded under conditions of tense sadness. As they ate, the Lord sorrowfully remarked: "Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me." Most of the apostles fell into a state of introspection; and one after another exclaimed: "Is it I?" "Lord, is it I?" It is pleasing to note that each of those who so inquired was more concerned with the dread thought that possibly he was an offender, however inadvertently so, than as to whether his brother was about to prove himself a traitor. Jesus answered that it was one of the Twelve, then and there eating with Him from the common dish, and continued with the terrifying pronouncement: "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born." Then Judas Iscariot, who had already covenanted to sell his Master for money, and who at this moment probably feared that silence might arouse suspicion against himself, asked with a brazen audacity that was veritably devilish: "Master, is it I?" With cutting promptness the Lord replied: "Thou hast said."[1190]
The dinner went on in a mood of tense sadness. As they ate, the Lord sadly said, "I truly tell you, one of you who eats with me will betray me." Most of the apostles became introspective, and one by one they asked, "Is it me?" "Lord, is it me?" It’s notable that each of those who asked was more worried about the awful thought that they might be the one betraying him, even unknowingly, than about whether their brother was going to turn traitor. Jesus responded that it was one of the Twelve who was eating with Him from the same plate and continued with the haunting declaration: "The Son of Man is indeed going as it is written about Him, but woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for that man if he had never been born." Then Judas Iscariot, who had already agreed to sell his Master for money and who likely feared that his silence might raise suspicion, asked with an audacity that was almost demonic: "Master, is it me?" With a sharp response, the Lord replied: "You have said so."[1190]
There was further cause of sorrow to Jesus at the supper. Some of the Twelve had fallen into muttering dispute among themselves over the matter of individual precedence,[1191] possibly as to the order in which they should take their places at table, over which triviality scribes and Pharisees as well as the Gentiles often quarreled;[1192] and again the Lord had to remind the apostles that the greatest of them all was he who most willingly served his fellows. They had been taught before; yet now, at this late and solemn hour, they were suffused with vain and selfish ambition. In sorrowful earnestness the Lord pleaded with them, asking who is greater, he that sits at the table, or he that serves? And the obvious reply He supplemented by the statement: "But I am among you as he that serveth." With loving pathos He added: "Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations;"[1193] and then He assured them that they should lack neither honor nor glory in the kingdom of God, for if they proved faithful they should be appointed to thrones as the judges of Israel. For those of His chosen ones who were true to Him, the Lord had no feeling less than that of love, and of yearning for their victory over Satan and sin.
At the supper, Jesus felt more sorrow. Some of the Twelve were quietly arguing among themselves about who should sit where at the table, a silly issue that the scribes, Pharisees, and Gentiles often fought over. Once again, the Lord had to remind the apostles that the greatest among them was the one who served others the most willingly. They had been taught this before; yet here, at such a serious moment, they were filled with selfish ambition. With a heavy heart, the Lord asked them who was greater, the one sitting at the table or the one serving? He added to the obvious answer by saying, "But I am among you as one who serves." With tender emotion, He continued, "You are those who have stood by me in my trials," and then He promised them that they would not miss out on honor or glory in the kingdom of God, for if they remained faithful, they would be appointed to thrones as judges of Israel. The Lord felt nothing but love and a deep desire for the victory of His chosen ones over Satan and sin.
THE ORDINANCE OF THE WASHING OF FEET[1194]
Leaving the table, the Lord laid aside His outer garments and girded Himself with a towel as an apron; then having provided Himself with a basin and a supply of water, He knelt before each of the Twelve in turn, washed his feet, and wiped them with the towel. When He reached Peter, that impulsive apostle protested, saying: "Lord, dost thou wash my feet?" That the proceeding was something more than mere service for personal comfort, and more than an object-lesson of humility, appears in the Lord's words to Peter—"What[Pg 596] I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter." Peter, failing to understand, objected yet more vehemently; "Thou shalt never wash my feet," he exclaimed. Jesus answered: "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." Then, with even greater impetuosity than before, Peter implored as he stretched forth both feet and hands, "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." He had gone to the other extreme, insisting, though ignorantly and unthinkingly, that things be done his way, and failing yet to see that the ordinance had to be administered as the Lord willed. Again correcting His well-intending though presumptuous servant, Jesus said to him: "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all." Each of them had been immersed at baptism; the washing of feet was an ordinance pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, the full import of which they had yet to learn.[1195]
Leaving the table, the Lord took off His outer clothes and wrapped a towel around His waist like an apron; then, after getting a basin and a supply of water, He knelt before each of the Twelve and washed their feet, drying them with the towel. When He got to Peter, that impulsive apostle protested, saying, "Lord, are You going to wash my feet?" The act was more than just a service for personal comfort and beyond an object lesson in humility, as shown by the Lord's words to Peter—"What I am doing you don’t understand now, but you will understand later." Peter, misunderstanding the situation, protested even more strongly, saying, "You will never wash my feet!" Jesus replied, "If I don’t wash you, you have no share with me." Then, even more eagerly than before, Peter pleaded as he extended both his feet and hands, "Lord, not just my feet, but also my hands and my head." He had gone to the opposite extreme, insisting—though foolishly—that things be done his way and still failing to see that the ordinance needed to be performed as the Lord intended. Again correcting His well-meaning but presumptuous servant, Jesus said to him, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not all of you." Each of them had been baptized; the foot washing was an ordinance related to the Holy Priesthood, the full meaning of which they had yet to grasp.
Having resumed His garments and returned to His place at the table, Jesus impressed the significance of what he had done, saying: "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."[1196]
Having put on His clothes again and returned to His spot at the table, Jesus highlighted the importance of what He had done, saying: "You call me Teacher and Lord, and you’re right; that’s what I am. If I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, then you should also wash each other's feet. I’ve set an example for you so that you should do as I’ve done for you. Truly, I tell you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you’ll be blessed if you do them." [1196]
THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.[1197]
While Jesus with the Twelve still sat at table, He took a loaf or cake of bread, and having reverently given thanks and by blessing sanctified it, He gave a portion to each of the[Pg 597] apostles, saying: "Take, eat; this is my body"; or, according to the more extended account, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Then, taking a cup of wine, He gave thanks and blessed it, and gave it unto them with the command: "Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, 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."[1198] In this simple but impressive manner was instituted the ordinance, since known as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The bread and wine, duly consecrated by prayer, become emblems of the Lord's body and blood, to be eaten and drunk reverently, and in remembrance of Him.
While Jesus was still at the table with the Twelve, He took a loaf of bread, gave thanks reverently, blessed it, and shared a piece with each of the[Pg 597] apostles, saying, "Take, eat; this is my body"; or, according to the longer version, "This is my body which is given for you: do this in remembrance of me." Then, taking a cup of wine, He gave thanks and blessed it, and passed it to them with the command: "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. But I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine again until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."[1198] This simple yet powerful act established what is now known as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The bread and wine, consecrated through prayer, become symbols of the Lord's body and blood, to be taken and consumed reverently, in remembrance of Him.
The proceedings at the institution of this sacred rite were afterward revealed to Paul the apostle, whose recorded testimony as to its establishment and sanctity is in accord with the accounts given by the Gospel-writers.[1199] As shall be hereinafter shown, the ordinance was instituted by the Lord among the Nephites, on the western continent, and has been reestablished in the present dispensation.[1200] During the dark ages of apostasy, unauthorized changes in the administration of the Sacrament were introduced, and many false doctrines as to its meaning and effect were promulgated.[1201]
The events surrounding the initiation of this sacred rite were later revealed to Paul the apostle, whose recorded testimony about its establishment and significance aligns with the accounts provided by the Gospel writers.[1199] As will be discussed later, the ordinance was established by the Lord among the Nephites on the western continent and has been reestablished in the current era.[1200] During the dark ages of apostasy, unauthorized modifications in the administration of the Sacrament were introduced, and many false doctrines regarding its meaning and impact were spread.[1201]
THE BETRAYER GOES OUT INTO THE NIGHT.[1202]
In saying to the Twelve, whose feet He had washed, "Ye are clean," the Lord had specified an exception by His after remark, "but not all." John, the recorder, takes care to explain that Jesus had in mind the traitor, and, "therefore said[Pg 598] he, Ye are not all clean." The guilty Iscariot had received without protest the Lord's service in the washing of his recreant feet, though after the ablution he was spiritually more filthy than before. When Jesus had again sat down, the burden of His knowledge concerning the treacherous heart of Judas again found expression. "I speak not of you all," He said, "I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."[1203] The Lord was intent on impressing the fact of His foreknowledge as to what was to come, so that when the terrible development was an accomplished fact, the apostles would realize that thereby the scriptures had been fulfilled. Troubled in spirit, He reiterated the dreadful assertion that one of those present would betray Him. Peter made signs to John, who occupied the place next to Jesus and was at that moment leaning his head on the Lord's breast, that he ask which of them was the traitor. To John's whispered inquiry the Lord replied: "He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it."
In telling the Twelve, whose feet He had washed, "You are clean," the Lord made an exception with His next remark, "but not all." John, the one writing this account, clarifies that Jesus was referring to the traitor, and therefore said, "You are not all clean." The guilty Iscariot accepted the Lord's act of washing his feet without objection, but afterward, he felt spiritually dirtier than before. After Jesus sat down again, the weight of His knowledge about Judas's treacherous heart surfaced once more. "I’m not talking about all of you," He said, "I know whom I have chosen: but so that the scripture may be fulfilled, he who eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me." The Lord wanted to emphasize His foreknowledge of what was coming, so that when the terrible event actually happened, the apostles would understand it was a fulfillment of the scriptures. Disturbed in spirit, He repeated the alarming statement that one of those present would betray Him. Peter signaled to John, who was next to Jesus and leaning against His chest, to ask who the traitor was. In response to John's quiet question, the Lord said, "It is the one to whom I will give a piece of bread after I have dipped it."
There was nothing unusual for a person at table, particularly the host, to dip a piece of bread into the dish of gravy or savory mixture, and hand it to another. Such action on the part of Jesus attracted no general attention. He dipped the morsel of bread and gave it to Judas Iscariot, with the words: "That thou doest, do quickly." The others understood the Lord's remark as an instruction to Judas to attend to some duty or go upon some errand of ordinary kind, perhaps to purchase something for the further celebration of the Passover, or to carry gifts to some of the poor, for Judas was the treasurer of the party and "had the bag." But Iscariot understood. His heart was all the more hardened by the discovery that Jesus knew of his infamous plans, and he was maddened by the humiliation he felt in the Master's presence. After the sop, which he had opened his[Pg 599] mouth to receive from the Lord's hand, "Satan entered into him" and asserted malignant mastership. Judas went out immediately, abandoning forever the blessed company of his brethren and the Lord. John chronicles the traitor's departure with the terse and ominous remark, "and it was night."
It was pretty normal for someone at the table, especially the host, to dip a piece of bread into the gravy or sauce and pass it to someone else. When Jesus did this and handed a piece of bread to Judas Iscariot, it didn’t raise any eyebrows. He said to Judas, "What you’re going to do, do it quickly." The others thought Jesus was just telling Judas to take care of some task or run an errand, maybe to buy something for the continued celebration of Passover or to deliver gifts to the poor, since Judas was the group’s treasurer and "held the money bag." But Iscariot understood the deeper implication. His heart grew even harder when he realized that Jesus was aware of his terrible plans, and he was angry over the shame he felt in front of the Master. After taking the piece of bread that he had opened his mouth to receive from Jesus, "Satan entered into him" and took control. Judas left immediately, abandoning the blessed company of his friends and the Lord for good. John records the traitor’s departure with the brief and foreboding statement, "and it was night."
DISCOURSE FOLLOWING THE SUPPER.
The departure of Judas Iscariot appears to have dissipated to some degree the cloud of utter sadness by which the little company had been depressed; and our Lord Himself was visibly relieved. As soon as the door had closed upon the retreating deserter, Jesus exclaimed, as though His victory over death had been already accomplished: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him." Addressing the Eleven in terms of parental affection, He said: "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."[1204] The law of Moses enjoined mutual love among friends and neighbors;[1205] but the new commandment, by which the apostles were to be governed, embodied love of a higher order. They were to love one another as Christ loved them; and their brotherly affection was to be a distinguishing mark of their apostleship, by which the world would recognize them as men set apart.
The departure of Judas Iscariot seemed to lift some of the heavy sadness that had weighed down the small group, and our Lord Himself looked noticeably relieved. As soon as the door closed behind the leaving traitor, Jesus exclaimed, as if His victory over death had already been achieved: "Now the Son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in him." Speaking to the Eleven with a parental affection, He said: "Little children, I will be with you just a little while longer. You will look for me; and as I told the Jews, where I am going, you cannot come; so now I say to you. I’m giving you a new command: Love one another; just as I have loved you, you should love one another. By this, everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."[1204] The law of Moses commanded mutual love among friends and neighbors;[1205] but the new commandment that the apostles were to follow represented a deeper kind of love. They were to love each other as Christ loved them; and their brotherly love was to be a defining characteristic of their apostleship, through which the world would recognize them as chosen men.
The Lord's reference to His impending separation from them troubled the brethren. Peter put the question, "Lord, whither goest thou?" Jesus answered: "Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow[Pg 600] thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake." Peter seems to have realized that his Master was going to His death; yet, undeterred, he asserted his readiness to follow even that dark way rather than be separated from his Lord. We cannot doubt the earnestness of Peter's purpose nor the sincerity of his desire at that moment. In his bold avowal, however, he had reckoned with the willingness of his spirit only, and had failed to take into full account the weakness of his flesh. Jesus, who knew Peter better than the man knew himself, thus tenderly reproved his excess of self-confidence: "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: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." The first of the apostles, the Man of Rock, yet had to be converted, or as more precisely rendered, "turned again";[1206] for as the Lord foresaw, Peter would soon be overcome, even to the extent of denying his acquaintanceship with Christ. When Peter stoutly declared again his readiness to go with Jesus, even into prison or to death, the Lord silenced him with the remark: "I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me."
The Lord's mention of His upcoming separation from them worried the disciples. Peter asked, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus replied, "Where I’m going, you can’t follow me now, but you will follow me later." Peter said to him, "Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will give my life for you." Peter seemed to realize that his Master was heading towards death; yet, undeterred, he insisted he was ready to face even that dark path rather than be apart from his Lord. We can't doubt Peter's determination or the sincerity of his desire at that moment. However, in his bold statement, he only considered his willingness and didn’t fully account for the weakness of his own flesh. Jesus, who knew Peter better than he knew himself, gently rebuked his overconfidence: "Simon, Simon, look, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith won't fail; and when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." The first of the apostles, the Rock, still needed to be converted, or as it’s more specifically phrased, "turned again"; for, as the Lord foresaw, Peter would soon be overwhelmed, even to the point of denying his connection with Christ. When Peter boldly declared once more that he was ready to go with Jesus, even to prison or death, the Lord silenced him with the remark: "I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you deny three times that you know me."
The apostles had to be prepared to meet a new order of things, new conditions and new exigencies; persecution awaited them, and they were soon to be bereft of the Master's sustaining presence. Jesus asked of them: "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end." The Lord was soon to be numbered among[Pg 601] the transgressors, as had been foreseen;[1207] and His disciples would be regarded as the devotees of an executed criminal. In the mention of purse, scrip, shoes, and sword, some of the brethren caught at the literal meaning, and said, "Lord, behold, here are two swords," Jesus answered with curt finality, "It is enough," or as we might say, "Enough of this." He had not intimated any immediate need of weapons, and most assuredly not for His own defense. Again they had failed to fathom His meaning; but experience would later teach them.[1208]
The apostles had to be ready for a new way of life, with new challenges and demands ahead; persecution was waiting for them, and they would soon be without the comforting presence of the Master. Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without money, supplies, and shoes, did you lack anything?" And they replied, "Nothing." Then He said to them, "But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also your supplies. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your coat and buy one. For I tell you, what is written must still be fulfilled in me: 'And he was counted among the lawless'; for the things concerning me have an end." The Lord was about to be counted among the lawless, as had been foretold; and His disciples would be seen as followers of an executed criminal. When He mentioned purse, supplies, shoes, and swords, some of the brethren took it literally and said, "Lord, here are two swords." Jesus responded curtly, "That’s enough," or as we might say, "Enough of this." He hadn’t suggested any immediate need for weapons, especially not for His own protection. Once again, they hadn’t understood His meaning; but experience would teach them later.
For such information as we have concerning the last discourse delivered by Jesus to the apostles before His crucifixion, we are indebted to John alone among the Gospel-writers; and every reader is advized to study with care the three chapters in which these sublime utterances are preserved for the enlightenment of mankind.[1209] Observing the sorrowful state of the Eleven, the Master bade them be of good cheer, grounding their encouragement and hope on faith in Himself. "Let not your heart be troubled," He said, "ye believe in God, believe also in me." Then, as though drawing aside the veil between the earthly and the heavenly state and giving His faithful servants a glimpse of conditions beyond, He continued: "In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know."[1210] Thus in language simple and plain the Lord declared the fact of graded conditions in the hereafter, of variety of occupation and degrees of glory, of place and station in the eternal worlds.[1211] He[Pg 602] had affirmed His own inherent Godship, and through their trust in Him and obedience to His requirements would they find the way to follow whither He was about to precede them. Thomas, that loving, brave, though somewhat skeptical soul, desiring more definite information ventured to say: "Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" The Lord's answer was a reaffirmation of His divinity; "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him."
For the information we have about the last speech Jesus gave to the apostles before His crucifixion, we rely solely on John among the Gospel writers; every reader is encouraged to carefully study the three chapters where these profound words are recorded for the enlightenment of humanity.[1209] Noticing the sad state of the Eleven, the Master told them to stay positive, grounding their encouragement and hope in faith in Himself. "Don’t let your hearts be troubled," He said, "you believe in God; believe also in me." Then, as if lifting the veil between the earthly and heavenly realms and giving His faithful followers a glimpse of what lies beyond, He continued: "In my Father’s house, there are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me; that where I am, you may be also. And you know the place where I am going, and you know the way."[1210] In simple and clear terms, the Lord stated the reality of different conditions in the afterlife, varying occupations, levels of glory, and positions in the eternal worlds.[1211] He[Pg 602] affirmed His own inherent divinity, and through their trust in Him and obedience to His teachings, they would find the way to follow where He was about to lead them. Thomas, that loving and brave yet somewhat skeptical soul, wanting more specific information, dared to ask: "Lord, we don’t know where you are going; how can we know the way?" The Lord’s answer was a reaffirmation of His divinity: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father as well; from now on, you do know Him and have seen Him."
At this point Philip interposed with the request, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us." Jesus answered with pathetic and mild reproof: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" He was grieved by the thought that His nearest and dearest friends on earth, those upon whom He had conferred the authority of the Holy Priesthood, should be yet ignorant of His absolute oneness with the Father in purpose and action. Had the Eternal Father stood amongst them, in Person, under the conditions there existing, He would have done as did the Well Beloved and Only Begotten Son, whom they knew as Jesus, their Lord and Master. So absolutely were the Father and the Son of one heart and mind, that to know either was to know both; nevertheless the Father could be reached only through the Son. So far as the apostles had faith in Christ, and did His will, should they be able to do the works that Christ in the flesh had done, and even greater things, for His mortal mission was of but a few hours further duration, and the unfolding of the divine plan of the ages would call for yet greater miracles than those wrought by Jesus in the brief period of His ministry.
At this point, Philip chimed in with a request, "Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us." Jesus responded gently but with a hint of disappointment: "Have I been with you so long, and you still don’t know me, Philip? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" He was troubled by the idea that His closest friends, the ones He had entrusted with the Holy Priesthood, were still unaware of His complete unity with the Father in purpose and action. If the Eternal Father had been among them in person, He would have done exactly what the Beloved and Only Begotten Son, known to them as Jesus, their Lord and Master, had done. The Father and the Son were so fully aligned in heart and mind that to know one was to know both; however, the Father could only be reached through the Son. As far as the apostles believed in Christ and followed His will, they would be able to perform the same works that Christ did in the flesh, and even greater things, since His time on earth was limited, and the unfolding divine plan would require even more extraordinary miracles than those accomplished by Jesus during His short ministry.
For the first time the Lord directed His disciples to pray[Pg 603] in His name to the Father, and assurance of success in righteous supplication was given in these words: "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."[1212] The name of Jesus Christ was to be thenceforth the divinely established talisman by which the powers of heaven could be invoked to operate in any righteous undertaking.
For the first time, the Lord told His disciples to pray[Pg 603] to the Father in His name, and He assured them of success in their righteous requests with these words: "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in my name, I will do it."[1212] The name of Jesus Christ was to become the divinely established key through which the powers of heaven could be called upon to support any righteous endeavor.
The Holy Ghost was promised to the apostles; He would be sent through Christ's intercession, to be to them "another Comforter," or as rendered in later translations, "another Advocate" or "Helper," even the Spirit of Truth, who, though the world would reject Him as they had rejected the Christ, should dwell with the disciples, and in them even as Christ then dwelt in them and the Father in Him. "I will not leave you comfortless," Jesus assured the brethren, "I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."[1213] This was followed by the assurance that Christ though unknown by the world would manifest Himself to those who loved Him and kept His commandments.
The Holy Spirit was promised to the apostles; He would be sent through Christ's intercession to be to them "another Comforter," or as later translations say, "another Advocate" or "Helper," even the Spirit of Truth, who, although the world would reject Him as it had rejected Christ, would dwell with the disciples and in them, just as Christ then dwelt in them and the Father in Him. "I will not leave you alone," Jesus assured the brothers, "I will come to you. In a little while, the world will no longer see me; but you will see me: because I live, you will live also. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you."[1213] This was followed by the promise that Christ, though unknown by the world, would reveal Himself to those who loved Him and kept His commandments.
Judas Thaddeus, otherwise known as Lebbeus,[1214] "not Iscariot," as the recorder is careful to particularize, was puzzled over the untraditional and un-Jewish thought of a Messiah who would be known but to the chosen few and not to Israel at large; and he asked: "Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?" Jesus explained that His and the Father's companionship was attainable only by the faithful. He further cheered the apostles by the promise that when the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father would send in the name of the Son,[Pg 604] would come to them, He would teach them further, and would bring to their remembrance the teachings they had received from the Christ. The distinct personality of each member of the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is here again plainly shown.[1215] Comforting the yet troubled disciples, Jesus said: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you"; and that they might realize that this meant more than the conventional salutation of the times, for "Peace be with you" was an every-day greeting among the Jews, the Lord affirmed that He gave that invocation in a higher sense, and "not as the world giveth." Again bidding them put aside their grief and be not afraid, Jesus added: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." The Lord made clear to His servants that He had told them these things beforehand, so that when the predicted events came to pass the apostles would be confirmed in their faith in Him, the Christ. He had time to say but little more, for the next hour would witness the beginning of the supreme struggle; "the prince of this world cometh," He said, and with triumphal joy added, "and hath nothing in me."[1216]
Judas Thaddeus, also known as Lebbeus, "not Iscariot," as the writer makes sure to clarify, was confused by the unconventional notion of a Messiah who would only be recognized by a select few and not by all of Israel. He asked, "Lord, how will you show yourself to us and not to the world?" Jesus explained that only the faithful could have a relationship with Him and the Father. He encouraged the apostles by promising that when the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father would send in the name of the Son, came to them, He would teach them even more and remind them of the lessons they had learned from Christ. The unique personalities of each member of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—are clearly demonstrated here. Comforting the still troubled disciples, Jesus said, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you"; and to help them understand that this meant more than just a simple greeting, since "Peace be with you" was a common way to say hello among the Jews, the Lord emphasized that He offered this in a deeper sense, "not as the world gives." Again telling them to set aside their sorrow and not be afraid, Jesus added, "You have heard me say, I am going away and will come back to you. If you loved me, you would be glad I am going to the Father, because my Father is greater than I." The Lord made it clear to His followers that He had shared these things in advance so that when the prophesied events occurred, the apostles would be reassured in their faith in Him, the Christ. He had only a little more to say, as the next hour would mark the beginning of the ultimate struggle; "the prince of this world is coming," He said, and with triumphant joy added, "and has nothing in me."
In superb allegory the Lord thus proceeded to illustrate the vital relationship between the apostles and Himself, and between Himself and the Father, by the figure of a vine-grower, a vine, and its branches:[1217] "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it,[1218] that it may bring forth more fruit." A grander analogy is not to be found in the world's literature. Those ordained servants of the Lord were as[Pg 605] helpless and useless without Him as is a bough severed from the tree. As the branch is made fruitful only by virtue of the nourishing sap it receives from the rooted trunk, and if cut away or broken off withers, dries, and becomes utterly worthless except as fuel for the burning, so those men, though ordained to the Holy Apostleship, would find themselves strong and fruitful in good works, only as they remained in steadfast communion with the Lord. Without Christ what were they, but unschooled Galileans, some of them fishermen, one a publican, the rest of undistinguished attainments, and all of them weak mortals? As branches of the Vine they were at that hour clean and healthful, through the instructions and authoritative ordinances with which they had been blessed, and by the reverent obedience they had manifested.
In a powerful allegory, the Lord explained the crucial relationship between the apostles and Himself, as well as between Himself and the Father, using the image of a vine-grower, a vine, and its branches:[1217] "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. Every branch in me that doesn’t bear fruit, he removes; and every branch that bears fruit, he prunes, [1218] so that it may produce even more fruit." You won’t find a greater analogy in the world’s literature. Those chosen servants of the Lord were as helpless and useless without Him as a branch cut off from a tree. Just as a branch can only bear fruit through the nourishing sap it gets from the rooted trunk, and if it’s cut or broken off, it withers, dries, and becomes completely worthless aside from being firewood, so those men, even though ordained as Apostles, would be strong and productive in good works only if they maintained a steadfast connection with the Lord. Without Christ, what were they but uneducated Galileans, some of whom were fishermen, one a tax collector, the rest with little distinction, and all mere weak mortals? As branches of the Vine, they were clean and healthy at that moment, thanks to the teachings and authoritative ordinances they had received, and out of the respectful obedience they had shown.
"Abide in me," was the Lord's forceful admonition, else they would become but withered boughs. "I am the vine," He added in explication of the allegory "ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit: so shall ye be my disciples." Their love for one another was again specified as an essential to their continued love for Christ.[1219] In that love would they find joy. Christ had been to them an exemplar of righteous love from the day of their first meeting; and He was about to give the supreme proof of His affection, as foreshadowed in His words, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." And that those men were the Lord's friends was thus graciously affirmed; "Ye are my friends, if ye do[Pg 606] whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." This intimate relationship in no sense modified the position of Christ as their Lord and Master, for by Him they had been chosen and ordained; and it was His will that they should so live that whatever they asked in the name of the holy friendship which He acknowledged should be granted them of the Father.
"Stay connected to me," the Lord urged strongly, or else they would end up like dried-up branches. "I am the vine," He explained in this metaphor, "you are the branches: anyone who remains in me and I in them produces a lot of fruit; without me, you can do nothing. If someone does not remain in me, they are thrown away like a branch and dry up; people gather them and throw them into the fire, where they are burned. If you stay connected to me and my words remain in you, you can ask for anything you want, and it will be given to you. This is how my Father is glorified, that you bear a lot of fruit: then you will be my disciples." Their love for one another was again highlighted as crucial for their ongoing love for Christ. In that love, they would find joy. Christ had been their model of true love from the moment they first met, and He was about to show the ultimate proof of His love, as He had said, "No one has greater love than this: to lay down one's life for their friends." And that they were the Lord's friends was graciously confirmed; "You are my friends if you do whatever I command you. From now on, I no longer call you servants because a servant doesn't know what their master is doing; instead, I have called you friends because everything I learned from my Father, I have shared with you." This close relationship did not change Christ's position as their Lord and Master, for He had chosen and appointed them; and it was His desire that they should live in such a way that whatever they asked in the name of this holy friendship, which He acknowledged, would be granted to them by the Father.
They were again told of the persecutions that awaited them, and of their apostolic calling as special and individual witnesses of the Lord.[1220] That the world then did, and would yet more intensely hate them was a fact they had to face; but they were to remember that the world had hated their Master before them, and that they had been chosen and by ordination had been set apart from the world; therefore they must not hope to escape the world's hatred. The servant was not greater than his master, nor the apostle than his Lord, as on general principles they knew, and as they had been specifically told. They that hated them hated the Christ; and they that hated the Son hated the Father; great shall be the condemnation of such. Had the wicked Jews not closed their eyes and stopped their ears to the mighty works and gracious words of the Messiah, they would have been convinced of the truth, and the truth would have saved them; but they were left without cloak or excuse for their sin; and Christ affirmed that in their evil course had the scriptures been fulfilled in that they had hated Him without a cause.[1221] Then, reverting to the great and cheering promise of support through the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Lord said: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which[Pg 607] proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning."
They were once again informed about the persecutions that lay ahead for them and their special calling as individual witnesses of the Lord.[1220] They had to accept that the world hated them then and would hate them even more in the future; but they needed to remember that the world had hated their Master before them and that they had been chosen and set apart from the world through ordination. Therefore, they shouldn't expect to escape the world's hatred. The servant is not greater than his master, nor is the apostle greater than his Lord, as they generally understood and had been explicitly told. Those who hated them hated Christ; and those who hated the Son also hated the Father; and such will face great condemnation. If the wicked Jews hadn't closed their eyes and stopped their ears to the powerful works and gracious words of the Messiah, they would have been convinced of the truth, and the truth would have saved them; but they were left without excuse for their sin; and Christ confirmed that the scriptures were fulfilled because they hated Him without cause.[1221] Then, turning to the great and encouraging promise of support through the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Lord said: "But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which[Pg 607] proceeds from the Father, He will testify of me: and you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning."
These things had Jesus declared unto them that they might not "be offended," or in other words, taken by surprize, misled, and caused to doubt and stumble by the unprecedented events then impending. The apostles were forewarned of persecution, of their expulsion from the synagogs, and of a time in which hatred against them should be so bitter and the Satanic darkness of mind and spirit so dense that whosoever succeeded in killing one of them would profess that his foul deed had been done in God's service. In view of their overwhelming sorrow at the Lord's departure, He sought again to cheer them, saying: "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."
These things Jesus told them so that they would not be "offended," or in other words, caught off guard, misled, or made to doubt and stumble by the unexpected events that were about to happen. The apostles were warned about persecution, their expulsion from the synagogues, and a time when the hatred against them would be so intense and the darkness of mind and spirit so thick that anyone who managed to kill one of them would claim that their evil act was done in God's service. Understanding their overwhelming sadness at His departure, He tried to comfort them again, saying: "But I tell you the truth; it's for your benefit that I go away: for if I don't go away, the Comforter won't come to you; but if I leave, I will send him to you."
The assured descent of the Holy Ghost, through whom they should be made strong to meet every need and emergency, was the inspiring theme of this part of the Lord's discourse. Many things which Christ yet had to say to His apostles, but which they were at that time unable to understand, the Holy Ghost would teach them. "Howbeit," said Jesus, "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."[1222]
The certain arrival of the Holy Spirit, who would give them strength to face any need or challenge, was the motivating focus of this part of the Lord's message. There were many things that Christ still needed to share with His apostles, but at that moment, they couldn’t grasp them; the Holy Spirit would teach them. "However," said Jesus, "when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth: for he won't speak on his own; but whatever he hears, that is what he will say: and he will reveal to you things to come. He will glorify me: for he will take what is mine and show it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine: that's why I said that he will take from mine and show it to you."[1222]
Turning again to the matter of His departure, then so near as to be reckoned by hours, the Lord said, in amplified form of what He had before affirmed: "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall[Pg 608] see me, because I go to the Father."[1223] The apostles pondered and some questioned among themselves as to the Lord's meaning, yet so deep was the solemnity of the occasion that they ventured no open inquiry. Jesus knew of their perplexity and graciously explained that they would soon weep and lament while the world rejoiced; this had reference to His death; but He promised that their sorrow should be turned into joy; and this was based on His resurrection to which they should be witnesses. He compared their then present and prospective state to that of a woman in travail, who in the after joy of blessed motherhood forgets her anguish. The happiness that awaited them would be beyond the power of man to take away; and thenceforth they should ask not of Christ alone, but of the Father in Christ's name; "And," said the Lord, "in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full."[1224] They were to be advanced to such honor and exalted recognition that they should approach the Father in prayer direct, but in the name of the Son; for they were beloved of the Father because they had loved Jesus, the Son, and had accepted Him as One sent by the Father.
Turning to the topic of His upcoming departure, which was so close it could be counted in hours, the Lord expressed, expanding upon what He had said before: "In a little while, you won’t see me; and again, in a little while, you will see me because I’m going to the Father."[Pg 608] The apostles reflected on this, and some questioned among themselves what the Lord meant, but the seriousness of the moment kept them from asking outright. Jesus understood their confusion and kindly explained that they would soon grieve while the world celebrated; this referred to His death. However, He assured them that their sadness would turn into joy, based on His resurrection, which they would witness. He likened their current and future state to that of a woman in labor, who forgets her pain once she experiences the joy of motherhood. The joy awaiting them would be something no one could take away. From that point on, they would not ask Jesus directly, but they would ask the Father in Jesus’ name; "And," the Lord said, "on that day you won’t ask me anything. Truly, I tell you, whatever you ask the Father in my name, He will give it to you. Until now, you haven't asked for anything in my name; ask, and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete."[1224] They were to be honored and recognized to the extent that they could directly approach the Father in prayer, but in the name of the Son; because they were loved by the Father for loving Jesus, the Son, and for accepting Him as the one sent by the Father.
The Lord again solemnly averred: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." The disciples were gratified at this plain avouchment, and exclaimed: "Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God." Their satisfaction threatened danger through over-confidence; and the Lord cautioned them, saying, that in an hour then close they should all be scattered, every man[Pg 609] to his own, leaving Jesus alone, except for the Father's presence. In the same connection He told them that before the night had passed every one of them would be offended because of Him, even as it had been written: "I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad."[1225] Peter, the most vehement of all in his protestations, had been told, as we have seen, that by cock-crow that night he would have thrice denied his Lord; but all of them had declared they would be faithful whatever the trial.[1226] In further affirmation of the material actuality of His resurrection, Jesus promised the apostles that after He had risen from the grave He would go before them into Galilee.[1227]
The Lord once again stated seriously: "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and returning to the Father." The disciples were pleased with this clear statement and exclaimed: "Now you are speaking clearly and not using any figures of speech. Now we truly believe that you know everything and don’t need anyone to ask you anything: because of this, we believe that you came from God." Their confidence, however, posed a risk of overconfidence, and the Lord warned them that very soon, they would all be scattered, each one going back to their own, leaving Jesus alone, except for the presence of the Father. He also told them that before the night was over, each of them would stumble because of Him, just as it was written: "I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered." Peter, the most passionate in his protests, had been told, as we’ve seen, that before the rooster crows that night, he would deny his Lord three times; but they all insisted they would remain faithful no matter the challenge. To further confirm the reality of His resurrection, Jesus promised the apostles that after He rose from the dead, He would go ahead of them to Galilee.
In conclusion of this last and most solemn of the discourses delivered by Christ in the flesh, the Lord said: "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."[1228]
In conclusion of this last and most serious of the teachings given by Christ in human form, the Lord said: "I have shared these things with you so that you may find peace in me. In this world, you will face challenges, but take heart; I have defeated the world."[1228]
THE CONCLUDING PRAYER.
The impressive discourse to the apostles was followed by a prayer such as could be addressed to none but the Eternal Father, and such as none but the Son of that Father could offer.[1229] It has been called, and not inappropriately, the Lord's High-Priestly Prayer. In it Jesus acknowledged the Father as the source of His power and authority, which authority extends even to the giving of eternal life to all who are worthy: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." By way of reverent report as to the work assigned Him, the Son said: "I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the[Pg 610] glory which I had with thee before the world was." With unfathomable love the Lord pleaded for those whom the Father had given Him, the apostles then present, who had been called out from the world, and who had been true to their testimony of Himself as the Son of God. Of them but one, the son of perdition, had been lost. In the fervor of devoted supplication, the Lord pleaded:
The impressive speech to the apostles was followed by a prayer that could be directed to no one but the Eternal Father, and which only the Son of that Father could offer. [1229] It has been fittingly called the Lord's High-Priestly Prayer. In it, Jesus recognized the Father as the source of His power and authority, authority that even extends to granting eternal life to all who are deserving: "And this is eternal life, that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Respectfully reporting on the work assigned to Him, the Son said: "I have glorified you on earth: I have completed the work you gave me to do. And now, O Father, glorify me with your own self with the[Pg 610] glory I had with you before the world existed." With boundless love, the Lord pleaded for those whom the Father had given Him, the apostles present at that moment, who had been called out from the world and who had remained true to their testimony of Him as the Son of God. Of them, only one, the son of perdition, had been lost. In the intensity of devoted supplication, the Lord begged:
"I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."
"I’m not asking you to take them out of the world, but to protect them from evil. They don’t belong to the world, just as I don’t belong to the world. Make them holy by your truth; your word is truth. Just as you sent me into the world, I’m sending them into the world. And for their sake, I make myself holy so they can also be made holy through the truth. I’m not just praying for these alone, but for everyone who will believe in me through their message; so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. Let them also be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me. I have given them the glory you gave me so that they may be one, just as we are one: I in them and you in me, so they may be completely united; and that the world may know that you sent me and loved them just as you loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so they can see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hasn’t known you, but I have known you, and these have known that you sent me. I have revealed your name to them and will continue to do so; so that the love you have for me may be in them, and I in them."
When they had sung a hymn, Jesus and the Eleven went out to the Mount of Olives.[1230]
When they finished singing a hymn, Jesus and the Eleven went out to the Mount of Olives.[1230]
THE LORD'S AGONY IN GETHSEMANE.[1231]
Jesus and the eleven apostles went forth from the house in which they had eaten, passed through the city gate, which[Pg 611] was usually left open at night during a public festival, crossed the ravine of the Cedron, or more accurately Kidron, brook, and entered an olive orchard known as Gethsemane,[1232] on the slope of Mount Olivet. Eight of the apostles He left at or near the entrance, with the instruction: "Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder"; and with the earnest injunction: "Pray that ye enter not into temptation." Accompanied by Peter, James and John, He went farther; and was soon enveloped by deep sorrow, which appears to have been, in a measure, surprizing to Himself, for we read that He "began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy." He was impelled to deny Himself the companionship of even the chosen three; and, "Saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Mark's version of the prayer is: "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt."[1233]
Jesus and the eleven apostles left the house where they had eaten, passed through the city gate, which[Pg 611] was usually open at night during a public festival, crossed the ravine of the Kidron brook, and entered an olive grove known as Gethsemane,[1232] on the slope of Mount Olivet. He left eight of the apostles at or near the entrance, instructing them: "Stay here while I go and pray over there"; and he earnestly urged them: "Pray that you do not fall into temptation." Accompanied by Peter, James, and John, he went further and soon was overwhelmed with deep sorrow, which seemed to surprise him, for we read that he "began to be greatly distressed and troubled." He felt the need to be alone, even from the chosen three, and said to them, "My soul is deeply sorrowful, to the point of death: stay here and keep watch with me." Then he went a little further, fell on his face, and prayed, saying, "O my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you will." Mark's version of the prayer is: "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you; take this cup away from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what you will."[1233]
This part of His impassioned supplication was heard by at least one of the waiting three; but all of them soon yielded to weariness and ceased to watch. As on the Mount of Transfiguration, when the Lord appeared in glory, so now in the hour of His deepest humiliation, these three slumbered. Returning to them in an agony of soul Jesus found them sleeping; and addressing Peter, who so short a time before had loudly proclaimed his readiness to follow the Lord even to prison and death, Jesus exclaimed: "What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation"; but in tenderness added, "the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." The admonition to[Pg 612] the apostles to pray at that time lest they be led into temptation may have been prompted by the exigencies of the hour, under which, if left to themselves, they would be tempted to prematurely desert their Lord.
This part of His passionate prayer was heard by at least one of the three waiting; but they all soon gave in to tiredness and stopped watching. Just like on the Mount of Transfiguration, when the Lord appeared in glory, these three fell asleep during His greatest moment of humiliation. When Jesus returned to them in anguish, He found them sleeping. He turned to Peter, who had recently boasted that he was ready to follow the Lord even to prison and death, and exclaimed, "What, couldn’t you watch with me for one hour? Stay alert and pray so that you don’t fall into temptation"; but then, with tenderness, He added, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." His reminder to the apostles to pray at that time to avoid falling into temptation was likely prompted by the urgency of the moment, during which, if left alone, they might be tempted to abandon their Lord.
Aroused from slumber the three apostles saw the Lord again retire, and heard Him pleading in agony: "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." Returning a second time He found those whom He had so sorrowfully requested to watch with Him sleeping again, "for their eyes were heavy"; and when awakened they were embarrassed or ashamed so that they wist not what to say. A third time He went to His lonely vigil and individual struggle, and was heard to implore the Father with the same words of yearning entreaty. Luke tells us that "there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him"; but not even the presence of this super-earthly visitant could dispel the awful anguish of His soul. "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."[1234]
Awakened from sleep, the three apostles saw the Lord stepping away again and heard Him pleading in distress: "O my Father, if this cup cannot pass from me unless I drink it, your will be done." When He returned a second time, He found those He had sorrowfully asked to stay awake with Him asleep again, "for their eyes were heavy"; and when they were awakened, they felt embarrassed or ashamed and didn’t know what to say. A third time, He returned to His solitary vigil and personal struggle, and His heartfelt plea to the Father was repeated. Luke tells us that "an angel appeared to him from heaven, strengthening him"; but even the presence of this heavenly visitor couldn't ease the deep anguish of His soul. "And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was like great drops of blood falling down to the ground."[1234]
Peter had had a glimpse of the darksome road which he had professed himself so ready to tread; and the brothers James and John knew now better than before how unprepared they were to drink of the cup which the Lord would drain to its dregs.[1235]
Peter had caught a glimpse of the dark road he had claimed he was ready to walk; and the brothers James and John understood more clearly than before how unprepared they were to drink from the cup that the Lord would empty to the last drop.[1235]
When for the last time Jesus came back to the disciples left on guard, He said: "Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." There was no use of further watching; already the torches of the approaching band conducted by Judas were observable in the distance. Jesus exclaimed: "Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me." Standing with the Eleven, the Lord calmly awaited the traitor's coming.[Pg 613]
When Jesus came back to the disciples who were supposed to be on guard, he said, "You can keep sleeping and take your rest. The time has come, and the Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners." There was no point in staying awake anymore; the torches of the approaching group led by Judas were visible in the distance. Jesus said, "Get up, let's go; here comes the one who is betraying me." Standing with the Eleven, the Lord calmly waited for the traitor to arrive.[Pg 613]
Christ's agony in the garden is unfathomable by the finite mind, both as to intensity and cause. The thought that He suffered through fear of death is untenable. Death to Him was preliminary to resurrection and triumphal return to the Father from whom He had come, and to a state of glory even beyond what He had before possessed; and, moreover, it was within His power to lay down His life voluntarily.[1236] He struggled and groaned under a burden such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible. It was not physical pain, nor mental anguish alone, that caused Him to suffer such torture as to produce an extrusion of blood from every pore; but a spiritual agony of soul such as only God was capable of experiencing. No other man, however great his powers of physical or mental endurance, could have suffered so; for his human organism would have succumbed, and syncope would have produced unconsciousness and welcome oblivion. In that hour of anguish Christ met and overcame all the horrors that Satan, "the prince of this world"[1237] could inflict. The frightful struggle incident to the temptations immediately following the Lord's baptism[1238] was surpassed and overshadowed by this supreme contest with the powers of evil.
Christ's suffering in the garden is something that the limited human mind can hardly grasp, both in its intensity and its cause. The idea that He endured this out of fear of death doesn't hold up. For Him, death was just a step before resurrection and a glorious return to the Father from whom He came, entering a state of glory even greater than what He had before. Besides, He had the power to willingly give up His life.[1236] He struggled under a weight no one else who has lived on earth could even begin to imagine. His suffering wasn’t just from physical pain or mental anguish alone; it was a deep spiritual torment that only God could truly understand. No other person, no matter how strong physically or mentally, could have endured this; their human body would have given up, leading to unconsciousness and a welcome escape from the pain. In that moment of despair, Christ faced and overcame all the horrors that Satan, "the prince of this world"[1237], could unleash. The intense struggle connected to the temptations right after His baptism[1238] was surpassed and overshadowed by this ultimate battle against evil.
In some manner, actual and terribly real though to man incomprehensible, the Savior took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world. Modern revelation assists us to a partial understanding of the awful experience. In March 1830, the glorified Lord, Jesus Christ, thus spake: "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent, but if they would not repent, they must suffer even as I, which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit: and would that I might[Pg 614] not drink the bitter cup and shrink—nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men."[1239]
In some way, real and profoundly significant although incomprehensible to man, the Savior took on the burden of humanity’s sins from Adam to the end of time. Modern revelation helps us gain a partial understanding of this terrible experience. In March 1830, the glorified Lord, Jesus Christ, said: "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for everyone, so that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they refuse to repent, they must suffer just as I did, which caused me, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble in pain and to bleed from every pore, and to experience suffering in both body and spirit: and I wished that I could not drink the bitter cup and pull back—nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and completed my preparations for the children of men."[Pg 614]
From the terrible conflict in Gethsemane, Christ emerged a victor. Though in the dark tribulation of that fearful hour He had pleaded that the bitter cup be removed from His lips, the request, however oft repeated, was always conditional; the accomplishment of the Father's will was never lost sight of as the object of the Son's supreme desire. The further tragedy of the night, and the cruel inflictions that awaited Him on the morrow, to culminate in the frightful tortures of the cross, could not exceed the bitter anguish through which He had successfully passed.
From the terrible struggle in Gethsemane, Christ came out as a winner. Even though during that dark and distressing hour He begged for the bitter cup to be taken away from Him, His request, no matter how many times He repeated it, was always made with a condition; fulfilling the Father's will was always at the forefront of the Son's ultimate desire. The further tragedy of the night, along with the cruel suffering that awaited Him the next day, which would end in the horrifying tortures of the cross, couldn't surpass the deep anguish that He had already endured and overcome.
THE BETRAYAL AND THE ARREST.[1240]
During the period of the Lord's last and most loving communion with the Eleven, Judas had been busy in his treacherous conspiracy with the priestly authorities. It is probable that the determination to make the arrest that night was reached when Judas reported that Jesus was within the city walls and might easily be apprehended. The Jewish rulers assembled a body of temple guardsmen or police, and obtained a band of Roman soldiers under command of a tribune; this band or cohort was probably a detachment from the garrison of Antonia commissioned for the work of the night on requisition of the chief priests.[1241] This company of men and officers representing a combination of ecclesiastical and military authority, set forth in the night with Judas at their head, intent on the arrest of Jesus. They were equipped with lanterns, torches, and weapons. It is probable that they were first conducted to the house in which Judas had left[Pg 615] his fellow apostles and the Lord, when the traitor had been dismissed; and that finding the little company had gone out, Judas led the multitude to Gethsemane, for he knew the place, and knew also that "Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples."
During the time of the Lord's last and most loving gathering with the Eleven, Judas was busy plotting with the religious authorities. It’s likely that the decision to make the arrest that night was made when Judas informed them that Jesus was inside the city walls and could be easily captured. The Jewish leaders gathered a group of temple guards and obtained a squad of Roman soldiers led by a tribune; this group was probably a detachment from the Antonia garrison assigned for the night at the request of the chief priests.[1241] This group of men and officers, representing a mix of religious and military authority, set out that night with Judas leading them, aiming to arrest Jesus. They were armed with lanterns, torches, and weapons. It’s likely that they were first taken to the house where Judas had left his fellow apostles and the Lord after he was dismissed; and upon finding that the small group had left, Judas led the crowd to Gethsemane, as he knew the place and also knew that "Jesus often went there with his disciples."
While Jesus was yet speaking to the Eleven whom He had roused from slumber with the announcement that the betrayer was at hand, Judas and the multitude approached. As a preconcerted sign of identification the recreant Iscariot, with treacherous duplicity, came up with a hypocritical show of affection, saying, "Hail, master," and profaned his Lord's sacred face with a kiss.[1242] That Jesus understood the treacherous significance of the act appears in His pathetic, yet piercing and condemning reproach: "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" Then, applying the title with which the other apostles had been honored, the Lord said: Friend, do that for which thou art come.[1243] It was a reiteration of the behest given at the supper table, "That thou doest, do quickly."
While Jesus was still talking to the Eleven, whom He had woken from sleep with the news that the betrayer was coming, Judas and the crowd arrived. As a prearranged signal for identification, the traitorous Iscariot approached with a fake show of affection, saying, "Hail, master," and dishonored his Lord's sacred face with a kiss.[1242] Jesus clearly understood the deceitful meaning of the act, as shown in His painful but piercing and condemning response: "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" Then, using the title that the other apostles had received, the Lord said: Friend, do what you came to do.[1243] It was a reiteration of the command given at the supper table, "What you are going to do, do quickly."
The armed band hesitated, though their guide had given the signal agreed upon. Jesus walked toward the officers, with whom stood Judas, and asked, "Whom seek ye?" To their reply, "Jesus of Nazareth," the Lord rejoined: "I am he." Instead of advancing to take Him, the crowd pressed backward, and many of them fell to the ground in fright. The simple dignity and gentle yet compelling force of Christ's presence proved more potent than strong arms and weapons of violence. Again He put the question, "Whom seek ye?" and again they answered, "Jesus of Nazareth." Then said Jesus: "I have told you that I am he; if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way." The last remark had reference to the apostles, who were in danger of arrest;[Pg 616] and in this evidence of Christ's solicitude for their personal safety, John saw a fulfilment of the Lord's then recent utterance in prayer, "Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none."[1244] It is possible that had any of the Eleven been apprehended with Jesus and made to share the cruel abuse and torturing humiliation of the next few hours, their faith might have failed them, relatively immature and untried as it then was; even as in succeeding years many who took upon themselves the name of Christ yielded to persecution and went into apostasy.[1245]
The armed group hesitated, even though their guide had given the agreed signal. Jesus walked toward the officers, with Judas by their side, and asked, "Whom are you looking for?" When they replied, "Jesus of Nazareth," He said, "I am He." Instead of moving forward to arrest Him, the crowd stepped back, and many fell to the ground in fear. The simple dignity and gentle yet powerful presence of Christ were more effective than strong arms and weapons. He asked again, "Whom are you looking for?" and once more they answered, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus responded, "I have told you that I am He; if you are looking for me, let these go." His last comment referred to the apostles, who were at risk of being arrested; in this demonstration of Christ's concern for their safety, John recognized the fulfillment of the Lord's earlier prayer, "Of those you gave me, I have lost none." It’s possible that if any of the Eleven had been captured with Jesus and forced to endure the cruel mistreatment and torment of the next few hours, their faith might have faltered, as it was still relatively immature and untested at that time; just as in later years, many who called themselves Christians succumbed to persecution and fell away.
When the officers approached and seized Jesus, some of the apostles, ready to fight and die for their beloved Master, asked, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" Peter, waiting not for a reply, drew his sword and delivered a poorly aimed stroke at the head of one of the nearest of the crowd, whose ear was severed by the blade. The man thus wounded was Malchus, a servant of the high priest. Jesus, asking liberty of His captors by the simple request, "Suffer ye thus far,"[1246] stepped forward and healed the injured man by a touch. Turning to Peter the Lord rebuked his rashness, and commanded him to return the sword to its scabbard, with the reminder that "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Then, to show the needlessness of armed resistance, and to emphasize the fact that He was submitting voluntarily and in accordance with foreseen and predicted developments, the Lord continued: "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"[1247] And further, "the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?"[1248]
When the officers came to arrest Jesus, some of the apostles, ready to fight and die for their beloved Master, asked, "Lord, should we attack with the sword?" Peter, not waiting for an answer, drew his sword and swung at the head of one of the closest people, accidentally cutting off his ear. The wounded man was Malchus, a servant of the high priest. Jesus, asking the guards for a moment, said, "Let this happen," stepped forward, and healed the injured man with a touch. Turning to Peter, the Lord criticized his rashness and told him to put away his sword, reminding him that "all those who take up the sword will die by the sword." Then, to show that armed resistance was unnecessary and to emphasize that he was submitting willingly as part of a larger plan, the Lord said, "Do you think I can't call on my Father right now, and he would send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how could the scriptures be fulfilled if this didn’t happen?" And he added, "Shouldn’t I drink the cup that my Father has given me?"
But, though surrendering Himself unresistingly, Jesus[Pg 617] was not unmindful of His rights; and to the priestly officials, chief priests, captain of the temple guard, and elders of the people who were present, He voiced this interrogative protest against the illegal night seizure: "Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Luke records the Lord's concluding words thus: "but this is your hour, and the power of darkness." Unheeding His question, and without deference to His submissive demeanor, the captain and the officers of the Jews bound Jesus with cords and led Him away, a Prisoner at the mercy of His deadliest enemies.
But even though Jesus[Pg 617] allowed Himself to be taken without resistance, He was still aware of His rights. To the religious leaders—the chief priests, the captain of the temple guard, and the elders—who were there, He voiced a questioning protest against the illegal nighttime arrest: "Are you coming out like you would for a thief, armed with swords and clubs, to take me? I was with you every day, teaching in the temple, and you didn’t try to arrest me then. But all of this is happening so that the words of the prophets can be fulfilled." Luke records the Lord's final words like this: "but this is your hour, and the power of darkness." Ignoring His question and without regard for His calm attitude, the captain and the officers of the Jews tied Jesus with ropes and took Him away as a prisoner at the mercy of His fiercest enemies.
The eleven apostles, seeing that resistance was useless, not only on account of disparity of numbers and supply of weapons but chiefly because of Christ's determination to submit, turned and fled. Every one of them forsook Him, even as He had foretold. That they were really in jeopardy is shown by an incident preserved by Mark alone. An unnamed young man, aroused from sleep by the tumult of the marching band, had sallied forth with no outer covering but a linen sheet. His interest in the arrest of Jesus and his close approach caused some of the guardsmen or soldiers to seize him; but he broke loose and escaped leaving the sheet in their hands.
The eleven apostles, realizing that fighting back was pointless, not just because they were outnumbered and outgunned but mainly because Christ was determined to submit, turned and ran away. Each of them abandoned Him, just as He had predicted. The fact that they were truly in danger is illustrated by an incident recorded only by Mark. A young man, unnamed, who had been awakened from sleep by the noise of the soldiers, rushed out wearing nothing but a linen sheet. Curious about Jesus's arrest and getting too close, some of the guards grabbed him, but he broke free and escaped, leaving the sheet behind.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 33.
1. The Day of the Passover Feast.—Controversy has been rife for many centuries as to the day of the passover feast in the week of our Lord's death. That He was crucified on Friday, the day before the Jewish Sabbath, and that He rose a resurrected Being on Sunday, the day following the Sabbath of the Jews, are facts attested by the four Gospel-writers. From the three synoptists we infer that the last supper occurred on the evening of the first day of unleavened bread, and therefore at the beginning of the Jewish Friday. That the Lord's last supper was regarded by Himself and the apostles as a passover meal appears from Matt. 26:2, 17, 18, 19 and parallel passages, Mark 14:14-16; Luke 22:11-13; as also from Luke 22:7, 15. John, however,[Pg 618] who wrote after the synoptists and who probably had their writings before him, as is indicated by the supplementary character of his testimony or "Gospel", intimates that the last supper of which Jesus and the Twelve partook together occurred before the Feast of the Passover (John 13:1, 2); and the same writer informs us that on the following day, Friday, the Jews refrained from entering the Roman hall of judgment, lest they be defiled and so become unfit to eat the Passover (18:28). It should be remembered that by common usage the term "Passover" was applied not only to the day or season of the observance, but to the meal itself, and particularly to the slain lamb (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12, 14, 16; Luke 22:8, 11, 13, 15; John 18:28; compare 1 Cor. 5:7). John also specifies that the day of the crucifixion was "the preparation of the passover" (19:14), and that the next day, which was Saturday, the Sabbath, "was an high day" (verse 31), that is a Sabbath rendered doubly sacred because of its being also a feast day.
1. The Day of the Passover Feast.—There has been a lot of debate for centuries about the day of the Passover feast during the week of our Lord's death. It is established that He was crucified on Friday, the day before the Jewish Sabbath, and that He rose on Sunday, the day after the Sabbath. These facts are supported by all four Gospel writers. From the three synoptic Gospels, we gather that the Last Supper took place on the evening of the first day of unleavened bread, which means it began on Jewish Friday. It’s clear from Matt. 26:2, 17, 18, 19 and similar passages in Mark 14:14-16; Luke 22:11-13; as well as Luke 22:7, 15 that the Last Supper was considered by Jesus and the apostles to be a Passover meal. However, John, who wrote after the synoptic Gospels and likely had access to them, suggests that the Last Supper with Jesus and the Twelve happened before the Feast of Passover (John 13:1, 2). He also informs us that on the next day, Friday, the Jews avoided entering the Roman judgment hall so they wouldn’t be defiled and would remain fit to eat the Passover (18:28). It’s important to remember that the term "Passover" was generally used not just for the day or season of the observance, but also for the meal itself, especially for the slain lamb (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12, 14, 16; Luke 22:8, 11, 13, 15; John 18:28; see also 1 Cor. 5:7). John also notes that the day of the crucifixion was "the preparation of the Passover" (19:14) and that the following day, which was Saturday, the Sabbath, "was a high day" (verse 31), meaning a Sabbath made doubly holy because it was also a feast day.
Much has been written by way of attempt to explain this seeming discrepancy. No analysis of the divergent views of Biblical scholars on this subject will be attempted here; the matter is of incidental importance in connection with the fundamental facts of our Lord's betrayal and crucifixion; for brief summaries of opinions and concise arguments the student may be referred to Smith's Comprehensive Bible Dictionary, article "Passover"; Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, pp. 480-2, and 566-8; Farrar's Life of Christ, Appendix, Excursus 10; Andrews' Life of our Lord, and Gresswell's Dissertations. Suffice it here to say that the apparent inconsistency may be explained by any of several assumptions. Thus, first, and very probably, the Passover referred to by John, for the eating of which the priests were desirous of keeping themselves free from Levitical defilement, may not have been the supper at which the paschal lamb was eaten, but the supplementary meal, the Chagigah. This later meal, the flesh part of which was designated as a sacrifice, had come to be regarded with veneration equal to that attaching to the paschal supper. Secondly; it is held by many authorities on Jewish antiquities that before, at, and after the time of Christ, two nights were devoted yearly to the paschal observance, during either of which the lamb might be eaten, and that this extension of time had been made in consideration of the increased population, which necessitated the ceremonial slaughtering of more lambs than could be slain on a single day; and in this connection it is interesting to note that Josephus (Wars, vi, ch. 9:3) records the number of lambs slain at a single Passover as 256,500. In the same paragraph, Josephus states that the lambs had to be slain between the ninth and the eleventh hour (3 to 5 p.m.). According to this explanation, Jesus and the Twelve may have partaken of the passover meal on the first of the two evenings, and the Jews who next day feared defilement may have deferred their observance until the second. Thirdly; the Lord's last paschal supper may have been eaten earlier than the time of general observance, He knowing that night to be His last in[Pg 619] mortality. Supporters of this view explain the message to the man who provided the chamber for the last supper, "My time is at hand" (Matt. 26:18) as indicating a special urgency for the passover observance by Christ and the apostles, before the regularly appointed day. Some authorities assert that an error of one day had crept into the Jewish reckoning of time, and that Jesus ate the passover on the true date, while the Jews were a day behind. If "the preparation of the passover" (John 19:14) on Friday, the day of Christ's crucifixion, means the slaughtering of the paschal lambs, our Lord, the real sacrifice of which all earlier altar victims had been but prototypes, died on the cross while the passover lambs were being slain at the temple.
Much has been written to explain this apparent discrepancy. No attempt will be made here to analyze the different views of biblical scholars on this subject; it is of secondary importance in connection with the fundamental facts of our Lord's betrayal and crucifixion. For brief summaries of opinions and concise arguments, students can refer to Smith's Comprehensive Bible Dictionary, article "Passover"; Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, pp. 480-2 and 566-8; Farrar's Life of Christ, Appendix, Excursus 10; Andrews' Life of our Lord, and Gresswell's Dissertations. It’s enough to say here that the apparent inconsistency can be explained by several assumptions. First, it’s very likely that the Passover John refers to, for which the priests wanted to avoid Levitical defilement, may not have been the meal at which the paschal lamb was eaten, but the supplementary meal, the Chagigah. This later meal, whose flesh was considered a sacrifice, came to be revered just as much as the paschal supper. Secondly, many experts on Jewish antiquities believe that before, during, and after the time of Christ, two nights were dedicated each year to the paschal observance, during which the lamb could be eaten. This extended time was likely necessitated by the growing population, which required the ceremonial slaughtering of more lambs than could be done in one day. In this context, it’s noteworthy that Josephus (Wars, vi, ch. 9:3) records the number of lambs slaughtered at a single Passover as 256,500. In the same paragraph, he states that the lambs had to be killed between the ninth and the eleventh hour (3 to 5 p.m.). According to this explanation, Jesus and the Twelve might have shared the Passover meal on the first of the two evenings, while the Jews who feared defilement the following day may have postponed their observance until the second evening. Thirdly, the Lord’s last paschal supper may have been eaten earlier than the general observance, as He knew that night would be His last in mortality. Supporters of this view interpret the message to the man who provided the room for the last supper, “My time is at hand” (Matt. 26:18), as indicating a special urgency for the Passover observance by Christ and the apostles before the officially appointed day. Some authorities suggest that an error of one day had entered the Jewish calendar, meaning Jesus ate the Passover on the correct date while the Jews were a day behind. If "the preparation of the Passover" (John 19:14) on Friday, the day of Christ's crucifixion, refers to the slaughtering of the paschal lambs, our Lord—the true sacrifice of which all earlier altar victims were merely prototypes—died on the cross while the Passover lambs were being slaughtered at the temple.
2. Did Judas Iscariot Partake of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper?—This question cannot be definitely answered from the brief accounts we have of the proceedings at the last supper. At best, only inference, not conclusion, is possible. According to the records made by Matthew and Mark, the Lord's announcement that there was a traitor among the Twelve was made early in the course of the meal; and the institution of the Sacrament occurred later. Luke records the prediction of treachery as following the administering of the sacramental bread and wine. All the synoptists agree that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was administered before the sitting at the ordinary meal had broken up; though the Sacrament was plainly made a separate and distinct feature. John (13:2-5) states that the washing of feet occurred when supper was ended, and gives us good reason for inferring that Judas was washed with the rest (verses 10, 11), and that he later (verses 26-30) went out into the night for the purpose of betraying Jesus. The giving of a "sop" to Judas (verses 26, 27) even though supper was practically over, is not inconsistent with John's statement that the supper proper was ended before the washing of feet was performed; the act does not appear to have been so unusual as to cause surprize. To many it has appeared plausible, that because of his utter baseness Judas would not be permitted to participate with the other apostles in the holy ordinance of the Sacrament; others infer that he was allowed to partake, as a possible means of moving him to abandon his evil purpose even at that late hour, or of filling his cup of iniquity to overflowing. The writer's personal opinion is based on the last conception.
2. Did Judas Iscariot Take Part in the Lord's Supper?—This question can’t be definitively answered based on the brief accounts we have of the last supper. At best, we can only make inferences, not conclusions. According to the accounts by Matthew and Mark, Jesus announced that one of the Twelve was a traitor early during the meal, while the institution of the Sacrament happened later. Luke indicates that the prediction of betrayal came after the sacramental bread and wine were given. All the synoptic gospels agree that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was administered before the regular meal had fully ended, although the Sacrament was clearly a separate and distinct element. John (13:2-5) states that the washing of feet took place after the supper was over and provides good reason to believe that Judas was washed along with the others (verses 10, 11), and that he later (verses 26-30) went out into the night to betray Jesus. The act of giving a "sop" to Judas (verses 26, 27), even though the supper was nearly finished, doesn’t contradict John's statement that the main meal ended before the foot washing took place; this act doesn’t seem to have been unusual enough to cause surprise. Many find it plausible that, due to his complete depravity, Judas would not be allowed to participate with the other apostles in this holy ordinance of the Sacrament; others suggest he was allowed to partake as a way to possibly sway him to abandon his evil intentions at that late hour or to fill his cup of wrongdoing to the brim. The writer's personal opinion leans toward the latter view.
3. Washing of Feet.—The ordinance of the washing of feet was reestablished through revelation December 27, 1832. It was made a feature of admission to the school of the prophets, and detailed instructions relating to its administration were given (see Doc. and Cov. 88:140, 141). Further direction as to the ordinances involving washing were revealed January 19, 1841 (see Doc. and Cov. 124:37-39).
3. Washing of Feet.—The practice of washing feet was reinstated through revelation on December 27, 1832. It became a part of entry to the school of the prophets, and specific instructions regarding its administration were provided (see Doc. and Cov. 88:140, 141). Additional guidance about the ordinances related to washing was revealed on January 19, 1841 (see Doc. and Cov. 124:37-39).
4. Discontinuity of the Lord's Last Discourse to the Apostles.—It is certain that part of the discourse following the last supper was delivered in the upper room where Christ and the Twelve had eaten; it is possible that the latter portion was spoken and the prayer offered (John 15, 16, 17) outdoors as[Pg 620] Jesus and the Eleven wended their way toward the Mount of Olives. The 14th chapter of John ends with "Arise, let us go hence"; the next chapter opens with another section of the discourse. From Matt 26:30-35, and Mark 14:26-31 we may infer that the prediction of Peter's denial of his Lord was made as the little company walked from the city to the mount. On the other hand, John (18:1) states that "When Jesus had spoken these words", namely, the whole discourse, and the concluding prayer, "he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron." Not one of our Lord's sublime utterances on that night of solemn converse with His own, and of communion between Himself and the Father, is affected by the circumstance of place.
4. Discontinuity of the Lord's Last Discourse to the Apostles.—It is clear that part of the talk after the Last Supper was given in the upper room where Christ and the Twelve ate; it’s possible that the later part was spoken and the prayer offered (John 15, 16, 17) outside as[Pg 620] Jesus and the Eleven made their way toward the Mount of Olives. The 14th chapter of John ends with "Get up, let’s go"; the next chapter starts with another part of the discourse. From Matt 26:30-35 and Mark 14:26-31, we can gather that the prediction of Peter denying Jesus happened while the small group walked from the city to the mount. On the other hand, John (18:1) says that "When Jesus had said these words," meaning the entire discourse and the concluding prayer, "he went out with his disciples across the brook Cedron." None of our Lord's profound sayings that night during that serious conversation with His followers, and of the connection with the Father, are impacted by the location.
5. Gethsemane.—The name means "oil-press" and probably has reference to a mill maintained at the place for the extraction of oil from the olives there cultivated. John refers to the spot as a garden, from which designation we may regard it as an enclosed space of private ownership. That it was a place frequented by Jesus when He sought retirement for prayer, or opportunity for confidential converse with the disciples, is indicated by the same writer (John 18:1, 2).
5. Gethsemane.—The name means "oil-press" and likely refers to a mill located there for extracting oil from the olives grown in the area. John describes the place as a garden, suggesting it was a private enclosed space. It’s noted by the same writer that this was a location Jesus often visited when He wanted to pray quietly or have private conversations with His disciples (John 18:1, 2).
6. The Bloody Sweat.—Luke, the only Gospel-writer who mentions sweat and blood in connection with our Lord's agony in Gethsemane, states that "his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (22:44). Many critical expositors deny that there was an actual extrusion of blood, on the grounds that the evangelist does not positively affirm it, and that the three apostles, who were the only human witnesses, could not have distinguished blood from sweat falling in drops, as they watched from a distance in the night, even if the moon, which at the passover season was full, had been unobscured. Modern scripture removes all doubt. See Doc. and Cov. 19:16-19 quoted in the text (page 613), also 18:11. See further a specific prediction of the bloody sweat, B. of M., Mosiah 3:7.
6. The Bloody Sweat.—Luke, the only Gospel writer who mentions sweat and blood during Jesus' agony in Gethsemane, states that "his sweat was like great drops of blood falling to the ground" (22:44). Many critical scholars argue against the actual release of blood, claiming that the evangelist does not clearly affirm it and that the three apostles, the only human witnesses, wouldn't have been able to tell blood from sweat falling in drops as they watched from a distance at night, even if the full moon, which occurred during Passover, had been unobscured. Modern scripture clarifies this. See Doc. and Cov. 19:16-19 quoted in the text (page 613), also 18:11. Additionally, see a specific prediction of the bloody sweat in B. of M., Mosiah 3:7.
7. "Suffer Ye thus Far."—Many understand these words, uttered by Jesus as He raised His hand to heal the wounded Malchus, to have been addressed to the disciples, forbidding their further interference. Trench (Miracles, 355) considers the meaning to be as follows: 'Hold now; thus far ye have gone in resistance, but let it be no further; no more of this.' The disputed interpretation is of little importance as to the bearing of the incident on the events that followed.
7. "Suffer Ye thus Far."—Many people interpret these words, spoken by Jesus as He raised His hand to heal the injured Malchus, as being directed at the disciples, telling them to stop interfering. Trench (Miracles, 355) suggests that the meaning is this: 'Wait; you’ve resisted enough, but don’t go any further; no more of this.' The debated interpretation isn’t very significant in terms of how this incident relates to what happened next.
8. The Cup as a Symbol.—Our Lord's frequent mention of His foreseen sufferings as the cup of which the Father would have Him drink (Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11; compare Matt. 20:22; Mark 10:38; 1 Cor. 10:21) is in line with Old Testament usage of the term "cup" as a symbolic expression for a bitter or poisonous potion typifying experiences of suffering. See Psa. 11:6; 75:8; Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15, 17; 49:12. In contrast, the opposite meaning is attached to the use of the term in some passages, e.g. Psa. 16:5; 23:5; 116:13; Jer. 16:7.[Pg 621]
8. The Cup as a Symbol.—Jesus often referred to His anticipated suffering as the cup that the Father wanted Him to drink (Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11; see also Matt. 20:22; Mark 10:38; 1 Cor. 10:21). This aligns with the Old Testament use of the word "cup" as a symbol for a bitter or toxic drink representing experiences of suffering. See Psa. 11:6; 75:8; Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15, 17; 49:12. Conversely, in some passages, the term has a different meaning, for example, Psa. 16:5; 23:5; 116:13; Jer. 16:7.[Pg 621]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1181] John 7:30, 44, 45-53; 11:47-57.
[1184] Exo. 21:32; Zech. 11:12, 13.
[1185] Matt. 27:3-10.
[1186] Matt. 26:17.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 26:17.
[1191] Luke 22:24-30.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 22:24-30.
[1194] John 13:1-20.
John 13:1-20.
[1199] 1 Cor. 11:23-34.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Cor. 11:23-34.
[1201] See "The Great Apostasy" 8:15-19.
[1202] John 13:18-30.
[1203] Compare Psalm 41:9.
[1204] John 13:31-34.
[1205] Lev. 19:18.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Lev. 19:18.
[1207] Isa. 53:12; compare Mark 15:28.
[1209] John, chaps. 14, 15, 16.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John, chapters 14-16.
[1210] John 14:1-4.
[1216] John 14:22-31.
[1217] John 15:1-8.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 15:1-8.
[1218] Revised version, "cleanseth it."
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Revised version, "cleans it."
[1219] John 15:9-17.
[1220] John 15:18-27.
[1222] John 16:13-15; read verses 1-15.
[1226] Matt. 26:31-35; Mark 14:29-31.
[1228] John 16:33.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 16:33.
[1229] John 17.
[1233] "Abba" is expressive of combined affection and honor, and signifies "Father." It is applied to the Eternal Father by Jesus in the passage above, and by Paul (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).
[1233] "Abba" expresses a mix of love and respect, meaning "Father." Jesus uses it to refer to the Eternal Father in the passage above, as does Paul (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).
[1237] John 14:30.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 14:30.
[1238] Page 127.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Page 127.
[1241] "Cohort," a term descriptive of a Roman body, and "military tribune" are more literal renderings of the Greek original than "band" and "captain" in John 18:3, 12. See revised version, margin.
[1241] "Cohort," a term describing a Roman unit, and "military tribune" are more accurate translations of the Greek original than "band" and "captain" in John 18:3, 12. See revised version, margin.
[1242] The Greek text of Matt. 26:49, and Mark 14:45 clearly implies that Judas "kissed him much," that is many times, or effusively. See margin of revised version.
[1242] The Greek text of Matt. 26:49, and Mark 14:45 clearly suggests that Judas "kissed him much," meaning he kissed him many times or in a very affectionate manner. See the margin of the revised version.
[1244] John 18:9; compare 17:12.
[1247] Compare Isa. 53:8.
CHAPTER 34.
THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION.
THE JEWISH TRIAL.
From Gethsemane the bound and captive Christ was haled before the Jewish rulers. John alone informs us that the Lord was taken first to Annas, who sent Him, still bound, to Caiaphas, the high priest;[1249] the synoptists record the arraignment before Caiaphas only.[1250] No details of the interview with Annas are of record; and the bringing of Jesus before him at all was as truly irregular and illegal, according to Hebrew law, as were all the subsequent proceedings of that night. Annas, who was father-in-law to Caiaphas, had been deposed from the high-priestly office over twenty years before; but throughout this period he had exerted a potent influence in all the affairs of the hierarchy.[1251] Caiaphas, as John is careful to remind us, "was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people."[1252]
From Gethsemane, the bound and captured Christ was led before the Jewish leaders. Only John tells us that the Lord was first brought to Annas, who sent Him, still bound, to Caiaphas, the high priest; the other Gospels only mention the hearing before Caiaphas. No details of the meeting with Annas have been recorded; the fact that Jesus was brought before him at all was as irregular and illegal according to Hebrew law as were all the subsequent actions that night. Annas, who was Caiaphas' father-in-law, had been removed from the high-priest position over twenty years earlier, but he had maintained a strong influence in all the matters of the religious authority during this time. Caiaphas, as John is careful to point out, "was the one who advised the Jews that it was better for one man to die for the people."
At the palace of Caiaphas, the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people were assembled, in a meeting of the Sanhedrin, informal or otherwise, all eagerly awaiting the result of the expedition led by Judas. When Jesus, the object of their bitter hatred and their predetermined victim, was brought in, a bound Prisoner, He was immediately put upon trial in contravention of the law, both written and traditional, of which those congregated rulers of the Jews professed to be such zealous supporters. No legal hearing on[Pg 622] a capital charge could lawfully be held except in the appointed and official courtroom of the Sanhedrin. From the account given in the fourth Gospel we infer that the Prisoner was first subjected to an interrogative examination by the high priest in person.[1253] That functionary, whether Annas or Caiaphas is a matter of inference, inquired of Jesus concerning His disciples and His doctrines. Such a preliminary inquiry was utterly unlawful; for the Hebrew code provided that the accusing witnesses in any cause before the court should define their charge against the accused, and that the latter should be protected from any effort to make him testify against himself. The Lord's reply should have been a sufficient protest to the high priest against further illegal procedure. "Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me?—ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said." This was a lawful objection against denying to a prisoner on trial his right to be confronted by his accusers. It was received with open disdain; and one of the officers who stood by, hoping perhaps to curry favor with his superiors, actually struck Jesus a vicious blow,[1254] accompanied by the question, "Answerest thou the high priest so?" To this cowardly assault the Lord replied with almost superhuman gentleness:[1255] "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" Combined with submissiveness, however, this constituted another appeal to the principles of justice; if what Jesus had said was evil, why did not the assailant accuse Him; and if He had spoken well, what right had a police officer to judge, condemn,[Pg 623] and punish, and that too in the presence of the high priest? Law and justice had been dethroned that night.
At Caiaphas' palace, the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people gathered for a Sanhedrin meeting, either formal or informal, all eagerly waiting for news from Judas' mission. When Jesus, the target of their deep-seated hatred and their chosen victim, was brought in as a bound prisoner, He was immediately put on trial in violation of both written and traditional laws that these Jewish leaders claimed to support so passionately. No legal hearing for a capital charge could be lawfully held outside the official Sanhedrin courtroom. From the account in the fourth Gospel, we gather that the high priest personally interrogated the prisoner. Whether this was Annas or Caiaphas is a matter of interpretation, but he questioned Jesus about His disciples and teachings. This initial inquiry was completely illegal; the Hebrew law stated that accusing witnesses must clearly define their charges, and the accused should be protected from having to testify against themselves. Jesus’ response should have been enough to protest against the high priest's illegal actions. "Jesus answered him, I spoke openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where the Jews gather; and in secret, I have said nothing. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard me what I said; they know what I said." This was a valid objection against denying a prisoner the right to confront his accusers. It was met with scorn, and one of the officers standing nearby, perhaps wanting to impress his superiors, struck Jesus with a harsh blow, asking, "Do you answer the high priest like that?" To this cowardly attack, Jesus responded with almost superhuman calmness: "If I spoke wrongly, testify about the wrong; but if I spoke correctly, why do you hit me?" This, along with His submission, was another appeal to justice; if what Jesus said was wrong, why didn't the attacker accuse Him? And if He spoke correctly, what right did a police officer have to judge, condemn, and punish Him in the presence of the high priest? That night, law and justice were completely disregarded.
"Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death."[1256] Whether "all the council" means a legal quorum, which would be twenty-three or more, or a full attendance of the seventy-two Sanhedrists, is of small importance. Any sitting of the Sanhedrin at night, and more particularly for the consideration of a capital charge, was directly in violation of Jewish law. Likewise was it unlawful for the council to consider such a charge on a Sabbath, a feast day, or on the eve of any such day. In the Sanhedrin, every member was a judge; the judicial body was to hear the testimony, and, according to that testimony and nought else, render a decision on every case duly presented. The accusers were required to appear in person; and they were to receive a preliminary warning against bearing false witness. Every defendant was to be regarded and treated as innocent until convicted in due course. But in the so-called trial of Jesus, the judges not only sought witnesses, but specifically tried to find false witnesses. Though many false witnesses came, yet there was no "witness" or testimony against the Prisoner, for the suborned perjurers failed to agree among themselves; and even the lawless Sanhedrists hesitated to openly violate the fundamental requirement that at least two concordant witnesses must testify against an accused person, for, otherwise, the case had to be dismissed.
"Now the chief priests, elders, and the whole council sought false witnesses against Jesus to put him to death." [1256] Whether "the whole council" means a legal quorum of twenty-three or more, or the full attendance of the seventy-two members of the Sanhedrin, is not that important. Any meeting of the Sanhedrin at night, especially for a capital charge, was a direct violation of Jewish law. It was also unlawful for the council to consider such a charge on a Sabbath, a feast day, or on the eve of any such day. In the Sanhedrin, every member was a judge; the judicial body was supposed to hear the testimony and, based only on that testimony, render a decision on every case presented. The accusers were required to appear in person; they were given a preliminary warning against giving false testimony. Every defendant was to be seen and treated as innocent until proven guilty. But in the so-called trial of Jesus, the judges not only sought witnesses but specifically looked for false witnesses. Though many false witnesses came forward, there was no credible "witness" or testimony against the Prisoner, as the suborned perjurers failed to agree among themselves; even the lawless Sanhedrists hesitated to openly break the fundamental rule that at least two consistent witnesses must testify against an accused person, or else the case had to be dismissed.
That Jesus was to be convicted on some charge or other, and be put to death, had been already determined by the priestly judges; their failure to find witnesses against Him threatened to delay the carrying out of their nefarious scheme. Haste and precipitancy characterized their procedure throughout; they had unlawfully caused Jesus to be arrested at night; they were illegally going through the[Pg 624] semblance of a trial at night; their purpose was to convict the Prisoner in time to have Him brought before the Roman authorities as early as possible in the morning—as a criminal duly tried and adjudged worthy of death. The lack of two hostile witnesses who would tell the same falsehoods was a serious hindrance. But, "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." Others, however, testified: "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands."[1257] And so, as Mark observes, even in this particular their "witness" or testimony did not agree. Surely in a case at bar, such discrepancy as appears between "I am able to" and "I will," as alleged utterances of the accused, is of vital importance. Yet this semblance of formal accusation was the sole basis of a charge against Christ up to this stage of the trial. It will be remembered that in connection with the first clearing of the temple, near the commencement of Christ's ministry, He had answered the clamorous demand of the Jews for a sign of His authority by saying "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He spoke not at all of Himself as the one who would destroy; the Jews were to be the destroyers, He the restorer. But the inspired writer is particular to explain that Jesus "spake of the temple of his body," and not at all of those buildings reared by man.[1258]
That Jesus was going to be convicted on some charge and put to death had already been decided by the religious leaders; their inability to find witnesses against Him risked delaying their wicked plan. Their actions were hurried and reckless; they had illegally arrested Jesus at night and were unlawfully conducting a trial at night. Their goal was to convict Him in time to present Him to the Roman authorities as early as possible in the morning—as a criminal who had been tried and found worthy of death. The absence of two hostile witnesses who could tell the same lies was a significant obstacle. But finally, two false witnesses came forward and claimed, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” Others testified, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” And so, as Mark notes, even in this regard, their "witness" or testimony did not match. Certainly, in a trial, the difference between "I am able to" and "I will," as alleged statements of the accused, is crucial. Yet, this facade of formal accusation was the only basis for a charge against Christ up to this point in the trial. It’s important to remember that during His first clearing of the temple, at the beginning of His ministry, He had responded to the Jews' demands for a sign of His authority by saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” He was not claiming to be the one who would destroy it; the Jews would be the destroyers, and He would be the restorer. But the inspired writer clarifies that Jesus “spoke of the temple of His body,” not of the structures built by humans.
One may reasonably inquire as to what serious import could be attached to even such a declaration as the perjured witnesses claimed to have heard from the lips of Christ. The veneration with which the Jews professed to regard the Holy House, however wantonly they profaned its precincts, offers a partial but insufficient answer. The plan of the conspiring rulers appears to have been that of convicting Christ on a charge of sedition, making Him out to be a dangerous[Pg 625] disturber of the nation's peace, an assailant of established institutions, and consequently an inciter of opposition against the vassal autonomy of the Jewish nation, and the supreme dominion of Rome.[1259]
One might reasonably ask what serious significance could be attributed to even a statement that the false witnesses claimed to have heard from Christ himself. The respect that the Jews professed to have for the Holy House, despite how they carelessly violated its sacred space, provides a partial but inadequate answer. It seems that the plan of the conspiring leaders was to convict Christ of sedition, portraying Him as a dangerous disturber of the nation's peace, an attacker of established institutions, and therefore an instigator of opposition against the Jewish nation's vassal autonomy and the supreme authority of Rome.[Pg 625][1259]
The vaguely defined shadow of legal accusation produced by the dark and inconsistent testimony of the false witnesses, was enough to embolden the iniquitous court. Caiaphas, rising from his seat to give dramatic emphasis to his question, demanded of Jesus: "Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?" There was nothing to answer. No consistent or valid testimony had been presented against Him; therefore He stood in dignified silence. Then Caiaphas, in violation of the legal proscription against requiring any person to testify in his own case except voluntarily and on his own initiative, not only demanded an answer from the Prisoner, but exercized the potent prerogative of the high-priestly office, to put the accused under oath, as a witness before the sacerdotal court. "And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God."[1260] The fact of a distinct specification of "the Christ" and "the Son of God" is significant, in that it implies the Jewish expectation of a Messiah, but does not acknowledge that He was to be distinctively of divine origin. Nothing that had gone before can be construed as a proper foundation for this inquiry. The charge of sedition was about to be superseded by one of greater enormity—that of blasphemy.[1261]
The vaguely defined shadow of legal accusation created by the vague and inconsistent testimony of the false witnesses was enough to encourage the corrupt court. Caiaphas, getting up from his seat to add dramatic weight to his question, demanded of Jesus: "Aren't you going to answer? What do these witnesses have against you?" There was nothing to respond to. No consistent or valid testimony had been given against Him; hence He remained silently dignified. Then Caiaphas, breaking the legal rule against forcing anyone to testify in their own case unless they chose to do so, not only demanded an answer from the Prisoner but also exercised his powerful right as high priest to place the accused under oath, making Him a witness before the religious court. "And the high priest answered and said to him, I command you by the living God, tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God." The distinction between "the Christ" and "the Son of God" is important, as it reflects the Jewish expectation of a Messiah, but does not recognize that He was to be uniquely of divine origin. Nothing that had happened before can be seen as a valid basis for this inquiry. The charge of sedition was about to be replaced by one graver—that of blasphemy.
To the utterly unjust yet official adjuration of the high priest, Jesus answered: "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." This expression "Thou hast said" was equivalent[Pg 626] to—I am what thou hast said.[1262] It was an unqualified avowal of divine parentage, and inherent Godship. "Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death."[1263]
To the completely unfair yet official demand of the high priest, Jesus responded: "You have said it: but I tell you this: From now on, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven." This phrase "You have said it" meant— I am what you have said. It was a clear confession of divine lineage and inherent divinity. "Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, He has spoken blasphemy; what further need do we have for witnesses? Look, now you have heard his blasphemy. What do you think? They answered and said, He is deserving of death."
Thus the judges in Israel, comprizing the high priest, the chief priests, the scribes and elders of the people, the Great Sanhedrin, unlawfully assembled, decreed that the Son of God was deserving of death, on no evidence save that of His own acknowledgment. By express provision the Jewish code forbade the conviction, specifically on a capital charge, of any person on his own confession, unless that was amply supported by the testimony of trustworthy witnesses. As in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus had voluntarily surrendered Himself, so before the judges did He personally and voluntarily furnish the evidence upon which they unrighteously declared Him deserving of death. There could be no crime in the claim of Messiahship or divine Sonship, except that claim was false. We vainly search the record for even an intimation that inquiry was made or suggested as to the grounds upon which Jesus based His exalted claims. The action of the high priest in rending his garments was a dramatic affectation of pious horror at the blasphemy with which his ears had been assailed. It was expressly forbidden in the law that the high priest rend his clothes;[1264] but from extra-scriptural writings we learn that the rending of garments as an attestation of most grievous guilt, such as that of blasphemy, was allowable under traditional rule.[1265] There is no indication that the vote of the judges was taken and recorded in the precise and orderly manner required by the law.
Thus the judges in Israel, including the high priest, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people, the Great Sanhedrin, met illegally and decided that the Son of God deserved death, based solely on His own admission. According to Jewish law, a person could not be convicted of a capital crime solely on their confession unless it was strongly supported by reliable witnesses. Just as Jesus had willingly surrendered Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane, He personally and voluntarily provided the evidence that led the judges to wrongfully declare Him deserving of death. There could be no crime in claiming to be the Messiah or the Son of God unless that claim was false. We look in vain through the record for even a hint that anyone asked about the basis for Jesus's significant claims. The high priest tearing his garments was a dramatic display of feigned outrage at the blasphemy he had heard. The law specifically prohibited the high priest from tearing his clothes; [1264] but from extra-biblical texts, we learn that tearing garments to show grief over serious guilt, like blasphemy, was allowed under traditional rules.[1265] There is no sign that the judges took and recorded their vote in the orderly manner that the law required.
Jesus stood convicted of the most heinous offense known in Jewry. However unjustly, He had been pronounced guilty of blasphemy by the supreme tribunal of the nation. In strict accuracy we cannot say that the Sanhedrists sentenced Christ to death, inasmuch as the power to authoritatively pronounce capital sentences had been taken from the Jewish council by Roman decree. The high-priestly court, however, decided that Jesus was worthy of death, and so certified when they handed Him over to Pilate. In their excess of malignant hate, Israel's judges abandoned their Lord to the wanton will of the attendant varlets, who heaped upon Him every indignity their brutish instincts could suggest. They spurted their foul spittle into His face;[1266] and then, having blindfolded Him, amused themselves by smiting Him again and again, saying the while: "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?" The miscreant crowd mocked Him, and railed upon Him with jeers and taunts, and branded themselves as blasphemers in fact.[1267]
Jesus was found guilty of the worst crime imaginable in Jewish law. Although it was unjust, He was declared guilty of blasphemy by the highest court in the nation. Technically, we can't say that the Sanhedrin sentenced Christ to death, since the power to issue capital sentences had been taken away from the Jewish council by Roman law. However, the high priestly court ruled that Jesus was deserving of death, which they confirmed when they handed Him over to Pilate. Consumed by their intense hatred, the judges of Israel turned their Lord over to the cruel whims of the soldiers, who subjected Him to every possible humiliation their brutish minds could conceive. They spat in His face;[1266] and then, blindfolding Him, entertained themselves by hitting Him repeatedly, all the while saying, "Prophesy to us, Christ! Who hit you?" The unruly crowd ridiculed Him, hurled insults at Him, and revealed their own blasphemy in the process.[1267]
The law and the practise of the time required that any person found guilty of a capital offense, after due trial before a Jewish tribunal, should be given a second trial on the following day; and at this later hearing any or all of the judges who had before voted for conviction could reverse themselves; but no one who had once voted for acquittal could change his ballot. A bare majority was sufficient for acquittal, but more than a majority was required for conviction. By a provision that must appear to us most unusual, if all the judges voted for conviction on a capital charge the verdict was not to stand and the accused had to be set at liberty; for, it was argued, a unanimous vote against a prisoner indicated that he had had no friend or defender in court, and that the judges might have been in conspiracy against Him. Under this rule in Hebrew jurisprudence the verdict against Jesus, rendered at the illegal night session[Pg 628] of the Sanhedrists, was void, for we are specifically told that "they all condemned him to be guilty of death."[1268]
The law and practices of that time required that anyone found guilty of a capital crime, after a proper trial before a Jewish court, should have a second trial the next day. At this subsequent hearing, any of the judges who previously voted for conviction could change their decision; however, no judge who had voted for acquittal could alter their vote. A simple majority was enough for acquittal, but more than a majority was necessary for conviction. In a provision that might seem quite unusual to us, if all the judges voted for conviction on a capital charge, the verdict wouldn't stand, and the accused had to be released; it was argued that a unanimous vote against a defendant suggested they had no friends or defenders in court, and that the judges may have conspired against them. According to this rule in Hebrew law, the verdict against Jesus, delivered during the unlawful night session of the Sanhedrin, was invalid, as we are specifically told that "they all condemned him to be guilty of death."
Apparently for the purpose of establishing a shadowy pretext of legality in their procedure, the Sanhedrists adjourned to meet again in early daylight. Thus they technically complied with the requirement—that on every case in which the death sentence had been decreed the court should hear and judge a second time in a later session—but they completely ignored the equally mandatory provision that the second trial must be conducted on the day following that of the first hearing. Between the two sittings on consecutive days the judges were required to fast and pray, and to give the case on trial calm and earnest consideration.
It seems that the Sanhedrin decided to meet again in the morning to create a questionable appearance of legality in their process. This way, they technically followed the rule that any case sentenced to death must be heard and judged again in a later session. However, they completely overlooked the equally important rule that this second trial should happen the day after the first hearing. Between the two meetings on consecutive days, the judges were supposed to fast and pray, giving the case their full attention and serious thought.
Luke, who records no details of the night trial of Jesus, is the only Gospel-writer to give place to a circumstantial report of the morning session. He says: "And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council."[1269] Some Biblical scholars have construed the expression, "led him into their council," as signifying that Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin in the appointed meeting-place of the court, viz. Gazith or the Hall of Hewn Stones, as the law of the time required; but against this we have the statement of John that they led Jesus directly from Caiaphas to the Roman hall of judgment.[1270]
Luke, who doesn’t include details about Jesus’ nighttime trial, is the only Gospel writer to provide a detailed account of the morning session. He says: "And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes came together and led him into their council."[1269] Some Biblical scholars interpret the phrase "led him into their council" to mean that Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin in the designated meeting place of the court, specifically Gazith or the Hall of Hewn Stones, as the law of that time required. However, this is contradicted by John’s account, which states that they took Jesus directly from Caiaphas to the Roman court.[1270]
It is probable, that at this early daylight session, the irregular proceedings of the dark hours were approved, and the details of further procedure decided upon. They "took counsel against Jesus to put him to death"; nevertheless they went through the form of a second trial, the issue of which was greatly facilitated by the Prisoner's voluntary affirmations. The judges stand without semblance of justification for calling upon the Accused to testify; they should have[Pg 629] examined anew the witnesses against Him. The first question put to Him was, "Art thou the Christ? tell us." The Lord made dignified reply: "If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God." Neither did the question imply nor the answer furnish cause for condemnation. The whole nation was looking for the Messiah; and if Jesus claimed to be He, the only proper judicial action would be that of inquiring into the merit of the claim. The crucial question followed immediately: "Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."[1271]
It’s likely that during this early morning session, the irregular actions taken during the night were approved and plans for further steps were made. They “conspired against Jesus to put him to death”; nevertheless, they went through the motions of a second trial, which was made easier by the Prisoner’s own affirmations. The judges had no justification for forcing the Accused to testify; they should have examined the witnesses against Him again. The first question asked was, “Are you the Christ? Tell us.” The Lord replied with dignity: “If I tell you, you won’t believe; and if I ask you, you won’t answer me or let me go. From now on, the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of the power of God.” Neither the question nor the answer provided grounds for condemnation. The entire nation was looking for the Messiah; if Jesus claimed to be Him, the proper judicial action would have been to investigate the merit of that claim. The next critical question came right away: “Are you then the Son of God?” And He responded, “You say that I am.” They said, “What more do we need? We have heard it from His own mouth.”[1271]
Jehovah was convicted of blasphemy against Jehovah. The only mortal Being to whom the awful crime of blasphemy, in claiming divine attributes and powers, was impossible, stood before the judges of Israel condemned as a blasphemer. The "whole council," by which expression we may possibly understand a legal quorum, was concerned in the final action. Thus ended the miscalled "trial" of Jesus before the high-priest and elders[1272] of His people. "And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate."[1273] During the few hours that remained to Him in mortality, He would be in the hands of the Gentiles, betrayed and delivered up by His own.[1274]
Jehovah was accused of blasphemy against Jehovah. The only human being for whom the terrible crime of blasphemy—claiming divine attributes and powers—was impossible, stood before the judges of Israel, condemned as a blasphemer. The "whole council," which likely refers to a legal quorum, was involved in the final decision. Thus ended the misnamed "trial" of Jesus before the high priest and elders of His people. "And right away in the morning, the chief priests held a meeting with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and took him away, and handed him over to Pilate." During the few hours that remained for Him in mortality, He would be in the hands of the Gentiles, betrayed and handed over by His own.
PETER'S DENIAL OF HIS LORD.[1275]
When Jesus was taken into custody in the Garden of Gethsemane, all the Eleven forsook Him and fled. This is[Pg 630] not to be accounted as certain evidence of cowardice, for the Lord had indicated that they should go.[1276] Peter and at least one other disciple followed afar off; and, after the armed guard had entered the palace of the high priest with their Prisoner, Peter "went in, and sat with the servants to see the end." He was assisted in securing admittance by the unnamed disciple, who was on terms of acquaintanceship with the high priest. That other disciple was in all probability John, as may be inferred from the fact that he is mentioned only in the fourth Gospel, the author of which characteristically refers to himself anonymously.[1277]
When Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, all eleven of His disciples abandoned Him and ran away. This shouldn't be seen as definitive proof of cowardice, since the Lord had suggested they leave. Peter, along with at least one other disciple, followed from a distance; and after the guards took their Prisoner into the high priest's palace, Peter "went in and sat with the servants to see what would happen." He was able to gain entry thanks to the unnamed disciple, who was familiar with the high priest. That other disciple was most likely John, which can be inferred from the fact that he is mentioned only in the fourth Gospel, where the author typically refers to himself anonymously.
While Jesus was before the Sanhedrists, Peter remained below with the servants. The attendant at the door was a young woman; her feminine suspicions had been aroused when she admitted Peter, and as he sat with a crowd in the palace court she came up, and having intently observed him, said: "Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee." But Peter denied, averring he did not know Jesus. Peter was restless; his conscience and the fear of identification as one of the Lord's disciples troubled him. He left the crowd and sought partial seclusion in the porch; but there another maid spied him out, and said to those nearby: "This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth"; to which accusation Peter replied with an oath: "I do not know the man."
While Jesus was in front of the Sanhedrin, Peter stayed below with the servants. The doorkeeper was a young woman; her suspicions were raised when she let Peter in, and as he sat with a group in the courtyard, she came over and, after closely observing him, said, "You were also with Jesus of Galilee." But Peter denied it, insisting he didn’t know Jesus. Peter was agitated; his conscience and the fear of being recognized as one of the Lord's disciples bothered him. He left the crowd and tried to find some privacy on the porch; but there, another maid spotted him and said to those nearby, "This man was also with Jesus of Nazareth," to which Peter responded with an oath, "I don’t know the man."
The April night was chilly, and an open fire had been made in the hall or court of the palace. Peter sat with others at the fire, thinking, perhaps, that brazen openness was better than skulking caution as a possible safeguard against detection. About an hour after his former denials, some of the men around the fire charged him with being a disciple of Jesus, and referred to his Galilean dialect as evidence that he was at least a fellow countryman with the high priest's Prisoner; but, most threatening of all, a kinsman of Malchus,[Pg 631] whose ear Peter had slashed with the sword, asked peremptorily: "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?" Then Peter went so far in the course of falsehood upon which he had entered as to curse and swear, and to vehemently declare for the third time, "I know not the man." As the last profane falsehood left his lips, the clear notes of a crowing cock broke upon his ears,[1278] and the remembrance of his Lord's prediction welled up in his mind. Trembling in wretched realization of his perfidious cowardice, he turned from the crowd and met the gaze of the suffering Christ, who from the midst of the insolent mob looked into the face of His boastful, yet loving but weak apostle. Hastening from the palace, Peter went out into the night, weeping bitterly. As his later life attests, his tears were those of real contrition and true repentance.
The April night was chilly, and an open fire had been made in the hall or court of the palace. Peter sat with others at the fire, thinking that being openly confrontational was better than hiding in fear as a way to avoid getting caught. About an hour after his earlier denials, some of the men around the fire accused him of being a disciple of Jesus, pointing to his Galilean accent as proof that he was at least from the same region as the high priest's prisoner. But, most threatening of all, a relative of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off with a sword, asked sharply, "Didn’t I see you in the garden with him?" Then Peter went so far in his lies as to curse and swear, and to loudly declare for the third time, "I don’t know the man." As the last profane lie escaped his lips, the crowing of a rooster rang in his ears, and the memory of his Lord's prediction flooded back to him. Trembling in miserable realization of his cowardice, he turned from the crowd and met the gaze of the suffering Christ, who looked into the face of His boastful yet loving, but weak apostle amidst the mocking crowd. Hurriedly leaving the palace, Peter stepped out into the night, weeping bitterly. As his later life showed, his tears were those of genuine sorrow and real repentance.
CHRIST'S FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE PILATE.
As we have already learned, no Jewish tribunal had authority to inflict the death penalty; imperial Rome had reserved this prerogative as her own. The united acclaim of the Sanhedrists, that Jesus was deserving of death, would be ineffective until sanctioned by the emperor's deputy, who at that time was Pontius Pilate, the governor, or more properly, procurator, of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Pilate maintained his official residence at Cæsarea,[1279] on the Mediterranean shore; but it was his custom to be present in Jerusalem at the times of the great Hebrew feasts, probably in the interest of preserving order, or of promptly quelling any disturbance amongst the vast and heterogeneous multitudes by which the city was thronged on these festive occasions. The governor with his attendants was in Jerusalem at this momentous Passover season. Early on Friday morning,[Pg 632] the "whole council," that is to say, the Sanhedrin, led Jesus, bound, to the judgment hall of Pontius Pilate; but with strict scrupulosity they refrained from entering the hall lest they become defiled; for the judgment chamber was part of the house of a Gentile, and somewhere therein might be leavened bread, even to be near which would render them ceremonially unclean. Let every one designate for himself the character of men afraid of the mere proximity of leaven, while thirsting for innocent blood!
As we’ve already learned, no Jewish court had the power to impose the death penalty; that authority was reserved for imperial Rome. The unanimous decision of the Sanhedrin that Jesus deserved death wouldn’t matter until it was approved by the emperor's representative, who at the time was Pontius Pilate, the governor—or more accurately, procurator—of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Pilate officially lived in Cæsarea,[1279] on the Mediterranean coast, but he usually came to Jerusalem during major Hebrew festivals, likely to maintain order and quickly handle any disturbances among the large and diverse crowds that filled the city during these celebrations. The governor and his entourage were in Jerusalem for this pivotal Passover season. Early on Friday morning,[Pg 632] the "whole council"—that is, the Sanhedrin—brought Jesus, bound, to Pontius Pilate's judgment hall; but they carefully avoided entering the hall to avoid becoming unclean, as it was part of a Gentile's residence, and there could be leavened bread inside, which would make them ceremonially impure. Let everyone assess for themselves the character of people who fear even being near leaven while craving innocent blood!
In deference to their scruples Pilate came out from the palace; and, as they delivered up to him their Prisoner, asked: "What accusation bring ye against this man?" The question, though strictly proper and judicially necessary, surprized and disappointed the priestly rulers, who evidently had expected that the governor would simply approve their verdict as a matter of form and give sentence accordingly; but instead of doing so, Pilate was apparently about to exercize his authority of original jurisdiction. With poorly concealed chagrin, their spokesman, probably Caiaphas, answered: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee." It was now Pilate's turn to feel or at least to feign umbrage, and he replied in effect: Oh, very well; if you don't care to present the charge in proper order, take ye him, and judge him according to your law; don't trouble me with the matter. But the Jews rejoined: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."
In consideration of their concerns, Pilate stepped out of the palace and, as they handed over their prisoner, asked, "What charge do you bring against this man?" The question, although entirely appropriate and legally necessary, surprised and disappointed the religious leaders, who clearly expected the governor to simply confirm their verdict as a formality and pass sentence. Instead, Pilate seemed ready to assert his authority. With barely hidden frustration, their spokesperson, likely Caiaphas, responded, "If he weren't a criminal, we wouldn't have brought him to you." It was now Pilate's turn to feel, or at least pretend to feel, annoyed, and he essentially replied, "Fine; if you don't want to present the charge properly, take him and judge him according to your law; don’t bother me with it." But the Jews responded, "It’s not legal for us to execute anyone."
John the apostle intimates in this last remark a determination on the part of the Jews to have Jesus put to death not only by Roman sanction but by Roman executioners;[1280] for, as we readily may see, had Pilate approved the death sentence and handed the Prisoner over to the Jews for its infliction, Jesus would have been stoned, in accordance with the Hebrew penalty for blasphemy; whereas the Lord had plainly foretold that His death would be by crucifixion,[Pg 633] which was a Roman method of execution, but one never practised by the Jews. Furthermore, if Jesus had been put to death by the Jewish rulers, even with governmental sanction, an insurrection among the people might have resulted, for there were many who believed on Him. The crafty hierarchs were determined to bring about His death under Roman condemnation.
John the apostle hints in this last comment at the determination of the Jews to have Jesus killed not just with Roman approval but by Roman executioners;[1280] because, as we can easily see, if Pilate had approved the death sentence and handed the Prisoner over to the Jews to carry it out, Jesus would have been stoned, following the Hebrew punishment for blasphemy; whereas the Lord clearly predicted that His death would be by crucifixion,[Pg 633] which was a Roman execution method that the Jews never used. Moreover, if Jesus had been executed by the Jewish leaders, even with government support, it could have sparked a riot among the people, since many believed in Him. The scheming leaders were determined to ensure His death under Roman judgment.
"And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that he himself is Christ a King."[1281] It is important to note that no accusation of blasphemy was made to Pilate; had such been presented, the governor, thoroughly pagan in heart and mind, would probably have dismissed the charge as utterly unworthy of a hearing; for Rome with her many gods, whose number was being steadily increased by current heathen deification of mortals, knew no such offense as blasphemy in the Jewish sense. The accusing Sanhedrists hesitated not to substitute for blasphemy, which was the greatest crime known to the Hebrew code, the charge of high treason, which was the gravest offense listed in the Roman category of crimes. To the vociferous accusations of the chief priests and elders, the calm and dignified Christ deigned no reply. To them He had spoken for the last time—until the appointed season of another trial, in which He shall be the Judge, and they the prisoners at the bar.
"And they started to accuse him, saying, 'We found this guy messing with the nation and telling people not to pay taxes to Caesar, claiming that he himself is the Christ, a King.'[1281] It's important to note that no accusation of blasphemy was made to Pilate; if one had been brought forward, the governor, who was thoroughly pagan in heart and mind, would likely have dismissed it as completely unworthy of consideration. Rome, with its many gods—whose numbers were steadily growing due to the current practice of deifying mortals—didn't recognize blasphemy in the Jewish sense. The accusing Sanhedrin leaders didn’t hesitate to replace the charge of blasphemy, which was the most serious crime according to the Hebrew law, with the charge of high treason, the most serious crime in Roman law. In response to the loud accusations from the chief priests and elders, Christ remained calm and dignified, giving no reply. He had spoken to them for the last time—until the appointed time of another trial, where He will be the Judge, and they will be the ones on trial."
Pilate was surprized at the submissive yet majestic demeanor of Jesus; there was certainly much that was kingly about the Man; never before had such a One stood before him. The charge, however, was a serious one; men who claimed title to kingship might prove dangerous to Rome; yet to the charge the Accused answered nothing. Entering the judgment hall, Pilate had Jesus called.[1282] That some of the disciples, and among them almost certainly John, also[Pg 634] went in, is apparent from the detailed accounts of the proceedings preserved in the fourth Gospel. Anyone was at liberty to enter, for publicity was an actual and a widely proclaimed feature of Roman trials.
Pilate was surprised by the calm yet regal presence of Jesus; there was definitely something royal about Him; never before had someone like Him stood in front of him. The accusation, however, was serious; people who claimed to be kings could be dangerous to Rome; yet the accused didn’t respond to the charge. As Pilate entered the judgment hall, he had Jesus brought in.[1282] It’s clear that some of the disciples, including almost certainly John, also went inside, based on the detailed records of the proceedings found in the fourth Gospel. Anyone could enter, as public access was an actual and widely announced part of Roman trials.
Pilate, plainly without animosity or prejudice against Jesus, asked: "Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" The Lord's counter-question, as Pilate's rejoinder shows, meant, and was understood to mean, as we might state it: Do you ask this in the Roman and literal sense—as to whether I am a king of an earthly kingdom—or with the Jewish and more spiritual meaning? A direct answer "Yes" would have been true in the Messianic sense, but untrue in the worldly signification; and "No" could have been inversely construed as true or untrue. "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
Pilate, clearly without hatred or bias against Jesus, asked, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus replied, "Are you asking this on your own, or did others tell you about me?" The Lord's counter-question, as Pilate's response shows, meant—and was understood to mean—could you clarify if you're asking in a Roman and literal sense, regarding whether I'm a king of an earthly kingdom, or in the Jewish and more spiritual sense? A straightforward answer of "Yes" would have been true in the Messianic sense but false in the worldly sense; and "No" could have been interpreted as either true or false. Pilate responded, "Am I a Jew? Your own people and the chief priests have handed you over to me: what have you done?" Jesus replied, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here." Pilate then asked him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this reason, I was born, and for this purpose I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to my voice."
It was clear to the Roman governor that this wonderful Man, with His exalted views of a kingdom not of this world, and an empire of truth in which He was to reign, was no political insurrectionist; and that to consider Him a menace to Roman institutions would be absurd. Those last words—about truth—were of all the most puzzling; Pilate was restive, and perhaps a little frightened under their import. "What is truth?" he rather exclaimed in apprehension than inquired in expectation of an answer, as he started to leave the hall. To the Jews without he announced officially[Pg 635] the acquittal of the Prisoner. "I find in him no fault at all" was the verdict.
It was clear to the Roman governor that this remarkable Man, with His elevated views of a kingdom not of this world and an empire of truth where He was meant to reign, was not a political rebel; considering Him a threat to Roman institutions would be ridiculous. Those final words—about truth—were the most confusing; Pilate was agitated, and perhaps a little scared by their meaning. "What is truth?" he exclaimed more in fear than in search of an answer as he began to leave the hall. To the Jews outside, he officially announced[Pg 635] the release of the Prisoner. "I find no fault in him at all," was the verdict.
But the chief priests and scribes and elders of the people were undeterred. Their thirst for the blood of the Holy One had developed into mania. Wildly and fiercely they shrieked: "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place." The mention of Galilee suggested to Pilate a new course of procedure. Having confirmed by inquiry that Jesus was a Galilean, he determined to send the Prisoner to Herod, the vassal ruler of that province, who was in Jerusalem at the time.[1283] By this action Pilate hoped to rid himself of further responsibility in the case, and moreover, Herod, with whom he had been at enmity, might be placated thereby.
But the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people weren’t deterred. Their desire for the Holy One’s blood had turned into madness. They shouted wildly and fiercely: “He’s stirring up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee to here.” The mention of Galilee gave Pilate a new idea. After confirming through questions that Jesus was a Galilean, he decided to send the Prisoner to Herod, the ruler of that area, who happened to be in Jerusalem at the time.[1283] With this move, Pilate hoped to avoid further responsibility for the case, and maybe, just maybe, it would win over Herod, with whom he had been at odds.
CHRIST BEFORE HEROD.[1284]
Herod Antipas, the degenerate son of his infamous sire, Herod the Great,[1285] was at this time tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and by popular usage, though without imperial sanction, was flatteringly called king. He it was who, in fulfilment of an unholy vow inspired by a woman's voluptuous blandishments, had ordered the murder of John the Baptist. He ruled as a Roman vassal, and professed to be orthodox in the observances of Judaism. He had come up to Jerusalem, in state, to keep the feast of the Passover. Herod was pleased to have Jesus sent to him by Pilate; for, not only was the action a gracious one on the part of the procurator, constituting as after events proved a preliminary to reconciliation between the two rulers,[1286] but it was a means of gratifying Herod's curiosity to see Jesus, of whom he had heard so much, whose fame had terrified him, and by whom he now hoped to see some interesting miracle wrought.[1287]
Herod Antipas, the disreputable son of his well-known father, Herod the Great,[1285] was at that time the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and, although it wasn’t officially recognized, he was popularly referred to as king. He was the one who, in keeping with a sinful vow prompted by a woman's seductive charm, had ordered the execution of John the Baptist. He ruled as a puppet of Rome and claimed to be observant of Jewish traditions. He had come to Jerusalem in a grand fashion to celebrate the Passover. Herod was pleased when Pilate sent Jesus to him; not only did this gesture show goodwill from the procurator, which, as later events showed, paved the way for reconciliation between the two leaders,[1286] but it also satisfied Herod's curiosity to see Jesus, about whom he had heard so much, whose reputation had frightened him, and whom he hoped to see perform some intriguing miracle.[1287]
Whatever fear Herod had once felt regarding Jesus, whom he had superstitiously thought to be the reincarnation of his murdered victim, John the Baptist, was replaced by amused interest when he saw the far-famed Prophet of Galilee in bonds before him, attended by a Roman guard, and accompanied by ecclesiastical officials. Herod began to question the Prisoner; but Jesus remained silent. The chief priests and scribes vehemently voiced their accusations; but not a word was uttered by the Lord. Herod is the only character in history to whom Jesus is known to have applied a personal epithet of contempt. "Go ye and tell that fox" He once said to certain Pharisees who had come to Him with the story that Herod intended to kill Him.[1288] As far as we know, Herod is further distinguished as the only being who saw Christ face to face and spoke to Him, yet never heard His voice. For penitent sinners, weeping women, prattling children, for the scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the rabbis, for the perjured high priest and his obsequious and insolent underling, and for Pilate the pagan, Christ had words—of comfort or instruction, of warning or rebuke, of protest or denunciation—yet for Herod the fox He had but disdainful and kingly silence. Thoroughly piqued, Herod turned from insulting questions to acts of malignant derision. He and his men-at-arms made sport of the suffering Christ, "set him at nought and mocked him"; then in travesty they "arrayed him in a gorgeous robe and sent him again to Pilate."[1289] Herod had found nothing in Jesus to warrant condemnation.
Whatever fear Herod may have felt about Jesus, who he superstitiously believed to be the reincarnation of his murdered victim, John the Baptist, was replaced by curiosity when he saw the famous Prophet of Galilee in chains before him, accompanied by a Roman guard and religious officials. Herod started to question the Prisoner, but Jesus stayed silent. The chief priests and scribes loudly voiced their accusations, but the Lord didn’t say a word. Herod is the only person in history to whom Jesus gave a personal insult. "Go tell that fox," He said to some Pharisees who came to Him with news that Herod wanted to kill Him.[1288] As far as we know, Herod is also unique as the only person who saw Christ face to face and spoke to Him, yet never heard His voice. For repentant sinners, crying women, chattering children, the scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the rabbis, the lying high priest and his submissive yet rude assistant, and for Pilate the pagan, Christ had words—of comfort or teaching, of warning or rebuke, of protest or condemnation—yet for Herod the fox, He had only disdainful and royal silence. Feeling insulted, Herod shifted from provoking questions to acts of cruel mockery. He and his soldiers made fun of the suffering Christ, "disregarded Him and mocked Him"; then, as a joke, they "dressed Him in a lavish robe and sent Him back to Pilate."[1289] Herod found nothing in Jesus that deserved condemnation.
CHRIST AGAIN BEFORE PILATE.[1290]
The Roman procurator, finding that he could not evade further consideration of the case, "called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people," and "said unto them,[Pg 637] Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him; No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him." Pilate's desire to save Jesus from death was just and genuine; his intention of scourging the Prisoner, whose innocence he had affirmed and reaffirmed, was an infamous concession to Jewish prejudice. He knew that the charge of sedition and treason was without foundation; and that even the framing of such an accusation by the Jewish hierarchy, whose simulated loyalty to Cæsar was but a cloak for inherent and undying hatred, was ridiculous in the extreme; and he fully realized that the priestly rulers had delivered Jesus into his hands because of envy and malice.[1291]
The Roman governor, realizing he could no longer avoid dealing with the case, "gathered the chief priests, the rulers, and the people," and "said to them,[Pg 637] You brought this man to me, claiming he misleads the people: and look, after examining him in front of you, I have found no fault in him regarding the accusations you make; Nor did Herod, for I sent you to him, and, surely, nothing deserving of death has been done to him. So I will punish him and release him." Pilate's desire to save Jesus from death was fair and sincere; his intention to whip the Prisoner, whose innocence he had repeatedly acknowledged, was a shameful concession to Jewish bias. He knew that the accusations of rebellion and treason were baseless; and that even the Jewish leaders’ pretended loyalty to Caesar was merely a cover for their deep and lasting hatred, which was utterly absurd; he understood that the religious authorities had handed Jesus over to him out of envy and spite.[1291]
It was the custom for the governor at the Passover season to pardon and release any one condemned prisoner whom the people might name. On that day there lay in durance, awaiting execution, "a notable prisoner, called Barabbas," who had been found guilty of sedition, in that he had incited the people to insurrection, and had committed murder. This man stood convicted of the very charge on which Pilate specifically and Herod by implication had pronounced Jesus innocent, and Barabbas was a murderer in addition. Pilate thought to pacify the priests and people by releasing Jesus as the subject of Passover leniency; this would be a tacit recognition of Christ's conviction before the ecclesiastical court, and practically an endorsement of the death sentence, superseded by official pardon. Therefore he asked of them: "Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" There appears to have been a brief interval between Pilate's question and the people's answer, during which the chief priests and elders busied[Pg 638] themselves amongst the multitude, urging them to demand the release of the insurrectionist and murderer. So, when Pilate reiterated the question: "Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you?" assembled Israel cried "Barabbas." Pilate, surprized, disappointed, and angered, then asked: "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified."
It was the custom for the governor during Passover to pardon and release any condemned prisoner the people chose. On that day, there was a notorious prisoner named Barabbas, who had been found guilty of inciting rebellion and committing murder. He was convicted of the very charge for which Pilate had declared Jesus innocent, and Barabbas was also a murderer. Pilate thought he could appease the priests and the crowd by releasing Jesus as part of the Passover amnesty; this would silently acknowledge Christ's conviction by the religious court and practically endorse the death sentence, which would then be overridden by an official pardon. So, he asked them, "Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" There seemed to be a brief pause between Pilate's question and the people's answer, during which the chief priests and elders worked their way through the crowd, urging them to ask for the release of the insurrectionist and murderer. So, when Pilate asked again, "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" the gathered crowd shouted, "Barabbas." Pilate, surprised, disappointed, and angry, then asked, "What should I do then with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all answered him, "Let him be crucified." And the governor said, "Why, what wrong has he done?" But they shouted even louder, "Let him be crucified."
The Roman governor was sorely troubled and inwardly afraid. To add to his perplexity he received a warning message from his wife, even as he sat on the judgment seat: "Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him." Those who know not God are characteristically superstitious. Pilate feared to think what dread portent his wife's dream might presage. But, finding that he could not prevail, and foreseeing a tumult among the people if he persisted in the defense of Christ, he called for water and washed his hands before the multitude—a symbolic act of disclaiming responsibility, which they all understood—proclaiming the while: "I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it." Then rose that awful self-condemnatory cry of the covenant people: "His blood be on us and on our children." History bears an appalling testimony to the literal fulfilment of that dread invocation.[1292] Pilate released Barabbas, and gave Jesus into the custody of the soldiers to be scourged.
The Roman governor was deeply troubled and scared. To make matters worse, he got a warning message from his wife while he was sitting on the judgment seat: "Have nothing to do with that innocent man, because I've suffered a lot today in a dream because of him." Those who don’t know God tend to be superstitious. Pilate was afraid of what his wife's dream might mean. But realizing he couldn’t win and seeing a riot could break out if he continued defending Christ, he called for water and washed his hands in front of everyone—a symbolic act of giving up responsibility, which they all understood—saying: "I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man. It's up to you to handle it." Then came that chilling self-condemnatory cry from the crowd: "His blood be on us and on our children." History has shown the horrifying reality of that dreadful request.[1292] Pilate released Barabbas and handed Jesus over to the soldiers to be whipped.
Scourging was a frightful preliminary to death on the cross. The instrument of punishment was a whip of many thongs, loaded with metal and edged with jagged pieces of bone. Instances are of record in which the condemned died under the lash and so escaped the horrors of living crucifixion. In accordance with the brutal customs of the time, Jesus, weak and bleeding from the fearful scourging He had[Pg 639] undergone, was given over to the half-savage soldiers for their amusement. He was no ordinary victim, so the whole band came together in the Pretorium, or great hall of the palace, to take part in the diabolical sport. They stripped Jesus of His outer raiment, and placed upon Him a purple robe.[1293] Then with a sense of fiendish realism they platted a crown of thorns, and placed it about the Sufferer's brows; a reed was put into His right hand as a royal scepter; and, as they bowed in a mockery of homage, they saluted Him with: "Hail, King of the Jews!" Snatching away the reed or rod, they brutally smote Him with it upon the head, driving the cruel thorns into His quivering flesh; they slapped Him with their hands, and spat upon Him in vile and vicious abandonment.[1294]
Scourging was a terrifying prelude to death on the cross. The punishment tool was a whip made of several strands, weighted with metal and edged with sharp pieces of bone. There are records of condemned individuals dying under the whip, thus escaping the horrors of crucifixion. Following the brutal customs of the time, Jesus, weak and bleeding from the severe flogging He had[Pg 639] endured, was handed over to the half-crazed soldiers for their entertainment. He was no ordinary victim, so the entire group gathered in the Pretorium, or the grand hall of the palace, to partake in the cruel spectacle. They stripped Jesus of His outer clothing and put a purple robe on Him.[1293] Then, with a sense of sadistic realism, they wove a crown of thorns and placed it on the Sufferer’s head; a reed was given to Him in His right hand as a mock scepter; and while they bowed in mock homage, they mocked Him by saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" They snatched away the reed and brutally struck Him on the head with it, driving the painful thorns into His trembling flesh; they slapped Him with their hands and spat on Him in an act of vile and vicious abandon.[1294]
Pilate had probably been a silent observer of this barbarous scene. He stopped it, and determined to make another attempt to touch the springs of Jewish pity, if such existed. He went outside, and to the multitude said: "Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him." This was the governor's third definite proclamation of the Prisoner's innocence. "Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!"[1295] Pilate seems to have counted on the pitiful sight of the scourged and bleeding Christ to soften the hearts of the maddened Jews. But the effect failed. Think of the awful fact—a heathen, a pagan, who knew not God, pleading with the priests and people of Israel for the life of their Lord and King! When, unmoved by the sight, the chief priests and officers cried with increasing vindictiveness, "crucify him, crucify him," Pilate pronounced the fatal sentence, "Take ye him and crucify him," but added with bitter emphasis: "I find no fault in him."
Pilate had probably been silently watching this brutal scene. He intervened and decided to try once more to appeal to any compassion the Jews might have. He stepped outside and told the crowd, "Look, I’m bringing him out to you so you can see that I don’t find any fault in him." This was the governor's third clear statement of the Prisoner's innocence. "Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, 'Look at the man!'"[1295] Pilate seemed to hope that the pitiful sight of the beaten and bleeding Christ would soften the hearts of the enraged Jews. But his plan failed. Think about the terrible reality—a non-believer, a pagan who didn’t know God, pleading with the priests and people of Israel for the life of their Lord and King! When the chief priests and officers, undeterred by the sight, shouted with growing hostility, "Crucify him, crucify him," Pilate issued the grave order, "Take him and crucify him," but emphasized bitterly, "I find no fault in him."
It will be remembered that the only charge preferred[Pg 640] against Christ before the Roman governor was that of sedition; the Jewish persecutors had carefully avoided even the mention of blasphemy, which was the offense for which they had adjudged Jesus worthy of death. Now that sentence of crucifixion had been extorted from Pilate, they brazenly attempted to make it appear that the governor's mandate was but a ratification of their own decree of death; therefore they said: "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." What did it mean? That awe-inspiring title, Son of God, struck yet deeper into Pilate's troubled conscience. Once more he took Jesus into the judgment hall, and in trepidation asked, "Whence art thou?" The inquiry was as to whether Jesus was human or superhuman. A direct avowal of the Lord's divinity would have frightened but could not have enlightened the heathen ruler; therefore Jesus gave no answer. Pilate was further surprized, and perhaps somewhat offended at this seeming disregard of his authority. He demanded an explanation, saying: "Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?" Then Jesus replied: "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." The positions were reversed; Christ was the Judge, and Pilate the subject of His decision. Though not found guiltless, the Roman was pronounced less culpable than he or those who had forced Jesus into his power, and who had demanded of him an unrighteous committal.
It should be noted that the only accusation brought against Christ before the Roman governor was sedition; the Jewish accusers had carefully avoided even mentioning blasphemy, which was the charge they believed made Jesus worthy of death. After securing the crucifixion sentence from Pilate, they shamelessly tried to make it seem like the governor's decision was just a confirmation of their own death sentence; so they said, "We have a law, and according to our law, he should die because he claimed to be the Son of God." What did this mean? That powerful title, Son of God, penetrated even deeper into Pilate’s troubled conscience. Once more, he took Jesus into the judgment hall and nervously asked, "Where are you from?" The question was about whether Jesus was human or something more. A direct claim of divinity from the Lord would have frightened—yet not enlightened—the pagan ruler; so Jesus remained silent. Pilate was further surprised and possibly a bit offended by this apparent disregard for his authority. He demanded an explanation, saying, "Aren't you going to speak to me? Don't you know that I have the power to crucify you and the power to release you?" Then Jesus replied, "You wouldn’t have any power over me at all unless it had been given to you from above; so the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." The roles had been reversed; Christ was the Judge, and Pilate was the one being judged. Though not found innocent, the Roman was deemed less guilty than he or those who had forced Jesus into his hands and demanded an unjust trial.
The governor, though having pronounced sentence, yet sought means of releasing the submissive Sufferer. His first evidence of wavering was greeted by the Jews with the cry, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar." Pilate took his place in the judgment seat, which was set up in the place of the Pavement, or Gabbatha, outside the hall.[Pg 641] He was resentful against those Jews who had dared to intimate that he was no friend of Cæsar, and whose intimation might lead to an embassy of complaint being sent to Rome to misrepresent him in exaggerated accusation. Pointing to Jesus, he exclaimed with unveiled sarcasm: "Behold your King!" But the Jews answered in threatening and ominous shouts: "Away with him, away with him, crucify him." In stinging reminder of their national subjugation, Pilate asked with yet more cutting irony, "Shall I crucify your King?" And the chief priests cried aloud: "We have no king but Cæsar."
The governor, despite having passed sentence, still looked for ways to release the submissive Victim. His first sign of doubt was met by the Jews with the shout, "If you let this man go, you're not a friend of Caesar: anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar." Pilate took his seat on the judgment platform, which was set up in the place called the Pavement, or Gabbatha, outside the hall.[Pg 641] He felt angry at the Jews for implying that he was no friend of Caesar, and their suggestion could lead to a complaint being sent to Rome to misrepresent him with exaggerated claims. Pointing to Jesus, he declared with open sarcasm: "Look at your King!" But the Jews answered with threatening and foreboding shouts: "Get rid of him, get rid of him, crucify him." In a stinging reminder of their national oppression, Pilate asked with even more biting irony, "Should I crucify your King?" And the chief priests shouted back: "We have no king but Caesar."
Even so was it and was to be. The people who had by covenant accepted Jehovah as their King, now rejected Him in Person, and acknowledged no sovereign but Cæsar. Cæsar's subjects and serfs have they been through all the centuries since. Pitiable is the state of man or nation who in heart and spirit will have no king but Cæsar![1296]
Even so it was and was meant to be. The people who had committed themselves to Jehovah as their King now rejected Him in person and recognized no authority but Caesar. They have been Caesar's subjects and servants throughout all the centuries since. Pitiful is the condition of any person or nation that, in heart and spirit, will accept no king but Caesar![1296]
Wherein lay the cause of Pilate's weakness? He was the emperor's representative, the imperial procurator with power to crucify or to save; officially he was an autocrat. His conviction of Christ's blamelessness and his desire to save Him from the cross are beyond question. Why did Pilate waver, hesitate, vacillate, and at length yield contrary to his conscience and his will? Because, after all, he was more slave than freeman. He was in servitude to his past. He knew that should complaint be made of him at Rome, his corruption and cruelties, his extortions and the unjustifiable slaughter he had caused would all be brought against him. He was the Roman ruler, but the people over whom he exercized official dominion delighted in seeing him cringe, when they cracked, with vicious snap above his head, the whip of a threatened report about him to his imperial master, Tiberius.[1297]
What was the reason for Pilate's weakness? He was the emperor's representative, the imperial procurator with the authority to crucify or save; officially, he was a dictator. His belief in Christ's innocence and his desire to rescue Him from the cross are undeniable. So why did Pilate waver, hesitate, and ultimately go against his conscience and will? Because, in the end, he was more of a slave than a free man. He was bound by his past. He knew that if someone complained about him in Rome, his corruption, cruelty, extortion, and the unjustifiable violence he had caused would all be brought against him. He was the Roman ruler, yet the people he controlled took pleasure in seeing him cower when they threatened to report him to his imperial master, Tiberius. [1297]
JUDAS ISCARIOT.[1298]
When Judas Iscariot saw how terribly effective had been the outcome of his treachery, he became wildly remorseful. During Christ's trial before the Jewish authorities, with its associated humiliation and cruelty, the traitor had seen the seriousness of his action; and when the unresisting Sufferer had been delivered up to the Romans, and the fatal consummation had become a certainty, the enormity of his crime filled Judas with nameless horror. Rushing into the presence of the chief priests and elders, while the final preparations for the crucifixion of the Lord were in progress, he implored the priestly rulers to take back the accursed wage they had paid him, crying in an agony of despair: "I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." He may have vaguely expected a word of sympathy from the conspirators in whose wickedly skilful hands he had been so ready and serviceable a tool; possibly he hoped that his avowal might stem the current of their malignancy, and that they would ask for a reversal of the sentence. But the rulers in Israel repulsed him with disgust. "What is that to us?" they sneered, "see thou to that." He had served their purpose; they had paid him his price; they wished never to look upon his face again; and pitilessly they flung him back into the haunted blackness of his maddened conscience. Still clutching the bag of silver, the all too real remembrancer of his frightful sin, he rushed into the temple, penetrating even to the precincts of priestly reservation, and dashed the silver pieces upon the floor of the sanctuary.[1299] Then, under the goading impulse of his master, the devil, to whom he had become a bond-slave, body and soul, he went out and hanged himself.
When Judas Iscariot realized how devastating the outcome of his betrayal had been, he was filled with intense regret. During Christ's trial before the Jewish leaders, witnessing the humiliation and brutality, he recognized the gravity of his actions. When the defenseless Sufferer was handed over to the Romans and the inevitable conclusion became clear, the weight of his crime overwhelmed Judas with indescribable horror. He rushed into the presence of the chief priests and elders while they were making the final arrangements for the Lord's crucifixion, begging the religious leaders to return the cursed payment they had given him, crying out in despair: "I have sinned, for I have betrayed innocent blood." He may have expected some sympathy from the conspirators he had aided so willingly; perhaps he hoped his confession would weaken their malicious intent, leading them to reverse the sentence. But the rulers of Israel rejected him with disdain. "What is that to us?" they sneered, "that's your problem." He had served their purpose; they had given him his money; they never wanted to see him again; and mercilessly they cast him back into the darkness of his tormented conscience. Still holding the bag of silver, a painful reminder of his terrible sin, he stormed into the temple, even into the sacred areas reserved for the priests, and threw the silver coins onto the sanctuary floor.[1299] Then, driven by the urging of the master, the devil, to whom he had become a slave in body and soul, he went out and hanged himself.
The chief priests gathered up the pieces of silver, and in sacrilegious scrupulosity, held a solemn council to determine what they should do with the "price of blood." As they deemed it unlawful to add the attainted coin to the sacred treasury, they bought with it a certain clay-yard, once the property of a potter, and the very place in which Judas had made of himself a suicide; this tract of ground they set apart as a burial place for aliens, strangers, and pagans. The body of Judas, the betrayer of the Christ, was probably the first to be there interred. And that field was called "Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."[1300]
The chief priests collected the pieces of silver and, out of a sense of guilt, held a serious meeting to decide what to do with the "price of blood." They believed it was wrong to put the stained coins into the sacred treasury, so they used the money to buy a piece of land, once owned by a potter, and the very place where Judas took his own life. They designated this land as a burial site for foreigners, strangers, and non-believers. Judas, the betrayer of Christ, was probably the first person buried there. That field was called "Aceldama," which means "the field of blood."[1300]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 34.
1. Annas, and His Interview with Jesus.—"No figure is better known in contemporary Jewish history than that of Annas; no person deemed more fortunate or successful, but also none more generally execrated than the late high priest. He had held the pontificate for only six or seven years; but it was filled by not fewer than five of his sons, by his son-in-law Caiaphas, and by a grandson. And in those days it was, at least for one of Annas' disposition, much better to have been than to be high priest. He enjoyed all the dignity of the office, and all its influence also, since he was able to promote to it those most closely connected with him. And while they acted publicly, he really directed affairs, without either the responsibility or the restraints which the office imposed. His influence with the Romans he owed to the religious views which he professed, to his open partisanship of the foreigner, and to his enormous wealth.... We have seen what immense revenues the family of Annas must have derived from the Temple booths, and how nefarious and unpopular was the traffic. The names of those bold, licentious, unscrupulous, degenerate sons of Aaron were spoken with whispered curses. Without referring to Christ's interference with that Temple-traffic, which, if His authority had prevailed, would of course have been fatal to it, we can understand how antithetic in every respect a Messiah, and such a Messiah as Jesus, must have been to Annas.... No account is given of what passed before Annas. Even the fact of Christ's being first brought to him is only mentioned in the fourth Gospel. As the disciples had all forsaken Him and fled, we can understand that they were in ignorance of what actually passed, till they had again rallied, at least so far, that Peter and 'another disciple', evidently John, 'followed Him into the palace of the high priest'—that is, into the palace of Caiaphas, not of Annas. For as,[Pg 644] according to the three synoptic Gospels, the palace of the high priest Caiaphas was the scene of Peter's denial, the account of it in the fourth Gospel must refer to the same locality, and not to the palace of Annas."—Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; vol. 2, pp. 547-8.
1. Annas and His Interview with Jesus.—"No figure is more recognized in modern Jewish history than Annas; no one regarded as more fortunate or successful, but also no one more widely condemned than the former high priest. He held the position for only six or seven years, but was succeeded by five of his sons, his son-in-law Caiaphas, and a grandson. Back then, especially for someone like Annas, it was much better to have been high priest than to actually be one. He enjoyed all the prestige of the role and its influence, as he was able to appoint those closest to him. While they acted publicly, he truly controlled the situation, without the responsibilities or constraints that came with the title. His influence with the Romans stemmed from his professed religious views, his open support for the foreign ruler, and his massive wealth.... We’ve seen how much money the Annas family must have made from the Temple booths, and how corrupt and disliked that business was. The names of those bold, reckless, unethical, and degenerate sons of Aaron were spoken with quiet curses. Without even mentioning Christ's disruption of that Temple trade, which, had His authority prevailed, would have inevitably ended it, we can grasp how completely opposite a Messiah, especially one like Jesus, must have been to Annas.... There’s no account of what transpired before Annas. Even the fact that Christ was first brought to him is only mentioned in the fourth Gospel. Since the disciples had all deserted Him and fled, we can see they were unaware of what really occurred until they regrouped, at least enough for Peter and 'another disciple', clearly John, to 'follow Him into the high priest’s palace'—meaning the palace of Caiaphas, not Annas. For, as [Pg 644] in the three synoptic Gospels, Caiaphas's palace was the setting for Peter's denial, the account in the fourth Gospel must refer to the same location, and not to Annas's palace."—Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; vol. 2, pp. 547-8.
2. Christ's Forbearance when Smitten.—That Jesus maintained His equanimity and submissiveness even under the provocation of a blow dealt by a brutish underling in the presence of the high priest, is confirmatory of our Lord's affirmation that He had "overcome the world" (John 16:33). One cannot read the passage without comparing, perhaps involuntarily, the divine submissiveness of Jesus on this occasion, with the wholly natural and human indignation of Paul under somewhat similar conditions at a later time (Acts 23:1-5). The high priest Ananias, displeased at Paul's remarks, ordered someone who stood by to smite him on the mouth. Paul broke forth in angry protest: "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" Afterward he apologized, saying that he knew not that it was the high priest who had given the command that he be smitten. See Articles of Faith, xxiii, II, and Note 1 following the same lecture; and Farrar's Life and Works of St. Paul, pp. 539-540.
2. Christ's Forbearance when Smitten.—Jesus kept His calm and submitted even when struck by a brutal servant in front of the high priest, which supports His claim that He had "overcome the world" (John 16:33). It's hard not to compare Jesus' divine patience in this moment with Paul's entirely human anger in a similar situation later on (Acts 23:1-5). High priest Ananias, upset by Paul's comments, told someone nearby to hit him in the mouth. Paul responded with anger: "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting there to judge me by the law and then ordering me to be hit in violation of the law?" Later, he apologized, admitting he didn't realize it was the high priest who had ordered the blow. See Articles of Faith, xxiii, II, and Note 1 following the same lecture; and Farrar's Life and Works of St. Paul, pp. 539-540.
3. High Priests and Elders.—These titles as held by officials of the Jewish hierarchy in the time of Christ must not be confused with the same designations as applied to holders of the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. The high priest of the Jews was the presiding priest; he had to be of Aaronic descent to be a priest at all; he became high priest by Roman appointment. The elders, as the name indicates, were men of mature years and experience, who were appointed to act as magistrates in the towns, and as judges in the ecclesiastical tribunals, either in the Lesser Sanhedrins of the provinces, or in the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. The term "elder" as commonly used among the Jews in the days of Jesus had no closer relation to eldership in the Melchizedek Priesthood than had the title "scribe". The duties of Jewish high priests and elders combined both ecclesiastical and secular functions; indeed both offices had come to be in large measure political perquisites. See "Elder" in Smith's Bible Dictionary. From the departure of Moses to the coming of Christ, the organized theocracy of Israel was that of the Lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, comprizing the office of priest, which was confined to the lineage of Aaron, and the lesser offices of teacher and deacon, which were combined in the Levitical order. See "Orders and Offices in the Priesthood" by the author in The Articles of Faith, xi:13-24.
3. High Priests and Elders.—These titles held by officials in the Jewish hierarchy during the time of Christ should not be mistaken for the same terms used for those in the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. The Jewish high priest was the chief priest; to be a priest, he had to be a descendant of Aaron and was appointed as high priest by the Romans. The elders, as their name suggests, were older individuals with experience, who were appointed to serve as local leaders and judges in religious courts, either in the Lesser Sanhedrins in the provinces or in the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. The term "elder," as it was commonly used among the Jews during Jesus' time, had no closer connection to eldership in the Melchizedek Priesthood than the title "scribe." The roles of Jewish high priests and elders included both religious and secular responsibilities; in fact, both positions had largely become political advantages. See "Elder" in Smith's Bible Dictionary. From the time of Moses until the arrival of Christ, the organized theocracy of Israel was based on the Lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, which included the priesthood limited to Aaron's lineage, along with the lesser roles of teacher and deacon found in the Levitical order. See "Orders and Offices in the Priesthood" by the author in The Articles of Faith, xi:13-24.
4. Illegalities of the Jewish Trial of Jesus.—Many volumes have been written on the so-called trial of Jesus. Only a brief summary of the principal items of fact and law can be incorporated here. For further consideration reference may be made to the following treatments: Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; Andrews, Life of Our Lord; Dupin, Jesus before[Pg 645] Caiaphas and Pilate; Mendelsohn, Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews; Salvador, Institutions of Moses; Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ; Maimonides, Sanhedrin; MM. Lemann, Jesus before the Sanhedrin; Benny, Criminal Code of the Jews; and Walter M. Chandler, of the New York Bar, The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's Standpoint. The last named is a two volume work treating respectively, "The Hebrew Trial" and "The Roman Trial", and contains citations from the foregoing and other works.
4. Illegalities of the Jewish Trial of Jesus.—Many books have been written about the so-called trial of Jesus. Here, we can only include a brief summary of the main facts and legal issues. For more in-depth exploration, you can refer to the following works: Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; Andrews, Life of Our Lord; Dupin, Jesus before[Pg 645]Caiaphas and Pilate; Mendelsohn, Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews; Salvador, Institutions of Moses; Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ; Maimonides, Sanhedrin; MM. Lemann, Jesus before the Sanhedrin; Benny, Criminal Code of the Jews; and Walter M. Chandler, of the New York Bar, The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's Standpoint. The latter is a two-volume work discussing "The Hebrew Trial" and "The Roman Trial," and includes citations from the above and other sources.
Edersheim (vol. 2, pp. 556-8) contends that the night arraignment of Jesus in the house of Caiaphas was not a trial before the Sanhedrin, and notes the irregularities and illegalities of the procedure as proof that the Sanhedrin could not have done what was done that night. With ample citations in corroboration of the legal requirements specified, the author says: "But besides, the trial and sentence of Jesus in the palace of Caiaphas would have outraged every principle of Jewish criminal law and procedure. Such causes could only be tried, and capital sentence pronounced, in the regular meeting-place of the Sanhedrin, not, as here, in the high priest's palace; no process, least of all such an one, might be begun in the night, nor even in the afternoon, although if the discussion had gone on all day, sentence might be pronounced at night. Again, no process could take place on Sabbaths or feast-days, or even on the eves of them, although this would not have nullified proceedings; and it might be argued on the other side, that a process against one who had seduced the people should preferably be carried on, and sentence executed, on public feast-days, for the warning of all. Lastly, in capital causes there was a very elaborate system of warning, and cautioning witnesses; while it may safely be affirmed that at a regular trial Jewish judges, however prejudiced, would not have acted as the Sanhedrists and Caiaphas did on this occasion.... But although Christ was not tried and sentenced in a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, there can, alas! be no question that His condemnation and death were the work, if not of the Sanhedrin, yet of the Sanhedrists—of the whole body of them ('all the council') in the sense of expressing what was the judgment and purpose of all the supreme council and leaders of Israel, with only very few exceptions. We bear in mind that the resolution to sacrifice Christ had for some time been taken."
Edersheim (vol. 2, pp. 556-8) argues that the night arraignment of Jesus at Caiaphas's house was not a trial before the Sanhedrin and highlights the irregularities and illegalities of the procedure as evidence that the Sanhedrin could not have conducted what occurred that night. With plenty of references supporting the legal requirements, the author states: "Moreover, the trial and sentencing of Jesus in Caiaphas’s palace would have violated every principle of Jewish criminal law and procedure. Such cases could only be tried, and a death sentence pronounced, in the official meeting place of the Sanhedrin, not, as in this case, in the high priest's palace; no process, especially one like this, could be initiated at night, nor even in the afternoon, although if the discussion had lasted all day, a sentence could be pronounced at night. Additionally, no proceedings could take place on Sabbaths or feast days, or even on their eves, although this would not have invalidated the proceedings; it could be argued that a case against someone who had led the people astray should preferably take place, and sentence be carried out, on public feast days for everyone's warning. Lastly, in capital cases, there was a detailed system for warning and advising witnesses; it can be confidently asserted that in a regular trial, Jewish judges, no matter how biased, would not have acted as the Sanhedrins and Caiaphas did on this occasion.... But although Christ was not formally tried and sentenced in a Sanhedrin meeting, there can, unfortunately, be no doubt that His condemnation and death were the result, if not of the Sanhedrin, then of the Sanhedrists—the entire body of them ('all the council') in terms of representing the judgment and intent of all the supreme council and leaders of Israel, with only a few exceptions. We remember that the decision to sacrifice Christ had been made some time ago."
The purpose in quoting the foregoing is to show on acknowledged and eminent authority, some of the illegalities of the night trial of Jesus, which, as shown by the above, and by the scriptural record, was conducted by the high priest and "the council" or Sanhedrin, in admittedly irregular and unlawful manner. If the Sanhedrists tried and condemned, yet were not in session as the Sanhedrin, the enormity of the proceeding is, if possible, deeper and blacker than ever.
The reason for quoting the above is to demonstrate, based on recognized and respected authority, some of the illegalities of the nighttime trial of Jesus, which, as shown above and by the biblical account, was carried out by the high priest and "the council" or Sanhedrin in clearly irregular and unlawful ways. If the members of the Sanhedrin tried and condemned him but were not officially in session as the Sanhedrin, the gravity of the situation is, if anything, even more profound and disturbing.
In Chandler's excellent work (vol. I, "The Hebrew Trial"), the record of fact in the case, and the Hebrew criminal law bearing thereon are exhaustively considered. Then follows an elaborate "Brief", in which the following points are set forth in order.[Pg 646]
In Chandler's great work (vol. I, "The Hebrew Trial"), the facts of the case and the relevant Hebrew criminal law are thoroughly examined. Next is a detailed "Brief," which outlines the following points in order.[Pg 646]
"Point 1: The Arrest of Jesus was illegal", since it was effected by night, and through the treachery of Judas, an accomplice, both of which features were expressly forbidden in the Jewish law of that day.
Point 1: The Arrest of Jesus was illegal since it happened at night and involved the betrayal by Judas, an accomplice, both of which were clearly prohibited by the Jewish law of that time.
"Point 2: The private examination of Jesus before Annas or Caiaphas was illegal"; for (1) it was made by night; (2) the hearing of any cause by a 'sole judge' was expressly forbidden; (3) as quoted from Salvador, 'A principle perpetually reproduced in the Hebrew scriptures relates to the two conditions of publicity and liberty.'
"Point 2: The private examination of Jesus before Annas or Caiaphas was illegal"; for (1) it took place at night; (2) having a hearing by a 'sole judge' was explicitly prohibited; (3) as stated by Salvador, 'A principle continually emphasized in the Hebrew scriptures pertains to the two conditions of openness and freedom.'
"Point 3: The indictment against Jesus was, in form, illegal. 'The entire criminal procedure of the Mosaic code rests upon four rules: certainty in the indictment; publicity in the discussion; full freedom granted to the accused; and assurance against all dangers or errors of testimony'—Salvador, p. 365. 'The Sanhedrin did not and could not originate charges; it only investigated those brought before it'—Edersheim, vol. I, p. 309. 'The evidence of the leading witnesses constituted the charge. There was no other charge; no more formal indictment. Until they spoke and spoke in the public assembly, the prisoner was scarcely an accused man,'—Innes, p. 41. 'The only prosecutors known to Talmudic criminal jurisprudence are the witnesses to the crime. Their duty is to bring the matter to the cognizance of the court, and to bear witness against the criminal. In capital cases they are the legal executioners also. Of an official accuser or prosecutor there is nowhere any trace in the laws of the ancient Hebrews.'—Mendelsohn, p. 110.
Point 3: The indictment against Jesus was, in form, illegal. 'The entire criminal procedure of the Mosaic code is based on four rules: certainty in the indictment; publicity in the discussion; full freedom granted to the accused; and protection against all dangers or errors of testimony'—Salvador, p. 365. 'The Sanhedrin did not and could not initiate charges; it only examined those presented before it'—Edersheim, vol. I, p. 309. 'The testimonies of the main witnesses formed the charge. There was no other charge; no more formal indictment. Until they spoke and spoke in the public assembly, the accused was hardly regarded as an accused man,'—Innes, p. 41. 'The only prosecutors recognized in Talmudic criminal law are the witnesses to the crime. Their role is to bring the matter to the attention of the court and to testify against the offender. In capital cases, they are also the legal executioners. There is no trace of an official accuser or prosecutor in the laws of the ancient Hebrews.'—Mendelsohn, p. 110.
"Point 4: The proceedings of the Sanhedrin against Jesus were illegal because they were conducted at night. 'Let a capital offense be tried during the day, but suspend it at night,'—Mishna, Sanhedrin 4:1. 'Criminal cases can be acted upon by the various courts during daytime only, by the Lesser Sanhedrions from the close of the morning service till noon, and by the Great Sanhedrion till evening.'—Mendelsohn, p. 112.
Point 4: The Sanhedrin's trial of Jesus was unlawful because it took place at night. 'Capital cases should be tried during the day, but should be put on hold at night,'—Mishna, Sanhedrin 4:1. 'Criminal cases can only be handled by the different courts during the day; the Lesser Sanhedrions from the end of the morning service until noon, and the Great Sanhedrion until evening.'—Mendelsohn, p. 112.
"Point 5: The proceedings of the Sanhedrin against Jesus were illegal because the court convened before the offering of the morning sacrifice. 'The Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice,'—Talmud, Jer. San. 1:19. 'No session of the court could take place before the offering of the morning sacrifice'.—MM. Lemann, p. 109. 'Since the morning sacrifice was offered at the dawn of day, it was hardly possible for the Sanhedrin to assemble until the hour after that time,'—Mishna, Tamid, ch. 3.
Point 5: The proceedings of the Sanhedrin against Jesus were illegal because the court met before the morning sacrifice was offered. 'The Sanhedrin met from the end of the morning sacrifice until the evening sacrifice,'—Talmud, Jer. San. 1:19. 'No court session could happen before the morning sacrifice was offered.'—MM. Lemann, p. 109. 'Since the morning sacrifice was given at dawn, it was almost impossible for the Sanhedrin to gather until some time after that,'—Mishna, Tamid, ch. 3.
"Point 6: The proceedings against Jesus were illegal because they were conducted on the day preceding a Jewish Sabbath; also on the first day of unleavened bread and the eve of the Passover. 'They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath nor on that of any festival.'—Mishna, San. 4:1. 'No court of justice in Israel was permitted to hold sessions on the Sabbath or any of the seven Biblical holidays. In cases of capital crime, no trial could be commenced on Friday or the day previous to any holiday, because it was not lawful either to adjourn such cases longer[Pg 647] than over night, or to continue them on the Sabbath or holiday.'—Rabbi Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus', p. 67.
Point 6: The proceedings against Jesus were unlawful because they took place on the day before a Jewish Sabbath; also on the first day of unleavened bread and the eve of the Passover. 'They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath or on the eve of any festival.'—Mishna, San. 4:1. 'No court of justice in Israel was allowed to hold sessions on the Sabbath or during any of the seven Biblical holidays. In cases of capital crimes, no trial could start on Friday or the day before any holiday, because it was not permissible to postpone such cases longer than overnight, or to continue them on the Sabbath or holiday.'—Rabbi Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus', p. 67.
"Point 7: The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was concluded within one day. 'A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day.'—Mishna, San. 4:1.
Point 7: The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was completed within one day. 'A criminal case that leads to the acquittal of the accused can end on the same day the trial starts. However, if a death sentence is to be given, it cannot be finalized before the next day.'—Mishna, San. 4:1.
"Point 8: The sentence of condemnation pronounced against Jesus by the Sanhedrin was illegal because it was founded upon His uncorroborated confession. 'We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses,'—Maimonides, 4:2. 'Not only is self-condemnation never extorted from the defendant by means of torture, but no attempt is ever made to lead him on to self-incrimination. Moreover, a voluntary confession on his part is not admitted in evidence, and therefore not competent to convict him, unless a legal number of witnesses minutely corroborate his self-accusation.'—Mendelsohn, p. 133.
Point 8: The condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin was illegal because it was based on His unverified confession. 'It's a basic principle of our legal system that no one can be forced to accuse themselves. If someone confesses guilt in front of a properly established court, that confession can't be used against them unless confirmed by two other witnesses,'—Maimonides, 4:2. 'Not only is self-incrimination never obtained from the defendant through torture, but there is no effort made to induce them to incriminate themselves. Furthermore, a voluntary confession isn't considered valid evidence and therefore can't be used to convict them unless it's corroborated by a required number of witnesses.'—Mendelsohn, p. 133.
"Point 9: The condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the verdict of the Sanhedrin was unanimous. 'A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an acquittal.'—Mendelsohn, p. 141. 'If none of the judges defend the culprit, i.e., all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court, the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could not be executed.'—Rabbi Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus', p. 74.
Point 9: The condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the verdict of the Sanhedrin was unanimous. 'A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt given on the day of the trial acts as a declaration of innocence.'—Mendelsohn, p. 141. 'If none of the judges advocates for the accused, meaning all declare him guilty without any defense in court, the verdict of guilty is invalid, and the death sentence cannot be carried out.'—Rabbi Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus', p. 74.
"Point 10: The proceedings against Jesus were illegal in that: (1) The sentence of condemnation was pronounced in a place forbidden by law; (2) The high priest rent his clothes; (3) The balloting was irregular. 'After leaving the hall Gazith no sentence of death can be passed upon any one soever,'—Talmud, Bab. 'Of Idolatry' 1:8. 'A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed place.'—Maimonides, 14. See further Levit. 21:10; compare 10:6. 'Let the judges each in his turn absolve or condemn.'—Mishna, San. 15:5. 'The members of the Sanhedrin were seated in the form of a semicircle, at the extremity of which a secretary was placed, whose business it was to record the votes. One of these secretaries recorded the votes in favor of the accused, the other those against him.'—Mishna, San. 4:3. 'In ordinary cases the judges voted according to seniority, the oldest commencing; in a capital case the reverse order was followed.'—Benny, p. 73.
Point 10: The trial against Jesus was unlawful because: (1) The sentence of condemnation was declared in a location prohibited by law; (2) The high priest tore his garments; (3) The voting process was irregular. 'Once outside the hall Gazith, no death sentence can be given to anyone,'—Talmud, Bab. 'Of Idolatry' 1:8. 'A death sentence can only be declared as long as the Sanhedrin is in session at the designated location.'—Maimonides, 14. See also Levit. 21:10; compare 10:6. 'Let the judges each, in turn, either absolve or condemn.'—Mishna, San. 15:5. 'The members of the Sanhedrin were arranged in a semicircle, at the end of which a secretary was positioned, whose job was to record the votes. One secretary recorded the votes for the accused, while the other recorded those against him.'—Mishna, San. 4:3. 'In standard cases, the judges voted by seniority, starting with the oldest; in a capital case, the order was reversed.'—Benny, p. 73.
"Point 11: The members of the Great Sanhedrin were legally disqualified to try Jesus. 'Nor must there be on the judicial bench either a relation or a particular friend, or an enemy of either the accused or of the accuser.'—Mendelsohn, p. 108. 'Nor under any circumstances was a man known to be at enmity with the accused person permitted to occupy a position among the judges.'—Benny, p. 37.[Pg 648]
Point 11: The members of the Great Sanhedrin were legally disqualified to try Jesus. 'No relative, close friend, or enemy of the accused or the accuser should be on the judicial bench.'—Mendelsohn, p. 108. 'Under no circumstances was a person known to be an enemy of the accused allowed to serve as a judge.'—Benny, p. 37.[Pg 648]
"Point 12: The condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the merits of the defense were not considered. 'Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently.'—Deut. 13:14. 'The judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of their conscience.'—Mishna, San. 4:5. 'The primary object of the Hebrew judicial system was to render the conviction of an innocent person impossible. All the ingenuity of the Jewish legists was directed to the attainment of this end.'—Benny, p. 56."
"Point 12: Jesus' condemnation was illegal because the merits of his defense were not considered. 'Then you shall inquire, investigate, and ask thoroughly.'—Deut. 13:14. 'The judges shall consider the matter with the sincerity of their conscience.'—Mishna, San. 4:5. 'The main goal of the Hebrew judicial system was to make it impossible to convict an innocent person. All the skill of Jewish legal experts was focused on achieving this goal.'—Benny, p. 56."
Chandler's masterly statements of fact and his arguments on each of the foregoing points are commended to the investigator. The author tersely avers: "The pages of human history present no stronger case of judicial murder than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, for the simple reason that all forms of law were outraged and trampled under foot in the proceedings instituted against Him." (p. 216.)
Chandler's skillful presentation of facts and his arguments on the points mentioned above are recommended to those who are investigating. The author succinctly states: "The pages of human history show no stronger example of judicial murder than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, simply because all forms of law were violated and disregarded in the proceedings against Him." (p. 216.)
5. "His Blood be on us, and on Our Children."—Edersheim (vol. 2, p. 578) thus forcefully comments on the acknowledgment of responsibility for the death of Christ: "The Mishna tells us that, after the solemn washing of hands of the elders and their disclaimer of guilt, priests responded with this prayer: 'Forgive it to thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, O Lord, and lay not innocent blood upon thy people Israel.' But here, in answer to Pilate's words, came back that deep, hoarse cry: 'His blood be upon us,' and—God help us!—'on our children.' Some thirty years later, and on that very spot, was judgment pronounced against some of the best in Jerusalem; and among the 3,600 victims of the governor's fury, of whom not a few were scourged and crucified right over against the Pretorium, were many of the noblest of the citizens of Jerusalem. (Josephus, Wars, xiv, chap. 8:9). A few years more, and hundreds of crosses bore Jewish mangled bodies within sight of Jerusalem. And still have these wanderers seemed to bear, from century to century, and from land to land, that burden of blood; and still does it seem to weigh 'on us and on our children'."
5. "His Blood be on us, and on Our Children."—Edersheim (vol. 2, p. 578) strongly comments on the acknowledgment of responsibility for the death of Christ: "The Mishna tells us that after the formal washing of the elders' hands and their declaration of innocence, the priests responded with this prayer: 'Forgive it to your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, O Lord, and do not lay innocent blood upon your people Israel.' But here, in response to Pilate's words, came back that deep, hoarse cry: 'His blood be upon us,' and—God help us!—'on our children.' About thirty years later, and at that very location, judgment was passed against some of the best in Jerusalem; and among the 3,600 victims of the governor's wrath, many of whom were scourged and crucified right across from the Pretorium, were some of the noblest citizens of Jerusalem. (Josephus, Wars, xiv, chap. 8:9). A few years later, hundreds of crosses bore the mangled bodies of Jews within sight of Jerusalem. And still, these wanderers seem to carry that burden of blood, from century to century, and from land to land; and it still appears to weigh 'on us and on our children'."
6. "We Have no King but Cæsar."—"With this cry Judaism was, in the person of its representatives, guilty of denial of God, of blasphemy, of apostasy. It committed suicide; and ever since has its dead body been carried in show from land to land, and from century to century,—to be dead and to remain dead, till He come a second time, who is the resurrection and the life."—Edersheim, vol. 2, p. 581.
6. "We Have no King but Cæsar."—"With this cry, Judaism, through its representatives, denied God, committed blasphemy, and turned away from its faith. It essentially chose destruction; and ever since, its lifeless body has been displayed from one place to another, and from one century to the next,—to be dead and to stay dead, until He returns a second time, who is the resurrection and the life."—Edersheim, vol. 2, p. 581.
7. The Underlying Cause of Pilate's Surrender to the Jewish Demands.—Pilate knew what was right but lacked the moral courage to do it. He was afraid of the Jews, and more afraid of hostile influence at Rome. He was afraid of his conscience, but more afraid of losing his official position. It was the policy of Rome to be gracious and conciliatory in dealing with the religions and social customs of conquered nations. Pontius Pilate had violated this liberal policy from the early days of his procuratorship. In utter disregard of the Hebrew antipathy against images and heathen insignia, he had the legionaries enter Jerusalem at night, carrying their eagles and standards decorated[Pg 649] with the effigy of the emperor. To the Jews this act was a defilement of the Holy City. In vast multitudes they gathered at Cæsarea, and petitioned the procurator that the standards and other images be removed from Jerusalem. For five days the people demanded and Pilate refused. He threatened a general slaughter, and was amazed to see the people offer themselves as victims of the sword rather than relinquish their demands. Pilate had to yield (Josephus, Ant. xviii, chap. 3:1; also Wars, ii, chap. 9:2, 3). Again he gave offense in forcibly appropriating the Corban, or sacred funds of the temple, to the construction of an aqueduct for supplying Jerusalem with water from the pools of Solomon. Anticipating the public protest of the people, he had caused Roman soldiers to disguise themselves as Jews; and with weapons concealed to mingle with the crowds. At a given signal these assassins plied their weapons and great numbers of defenceless Jews were killed or wounded (Josephus, Ant. xviii, chap. 3:2; and Wars, ii, chap. 9:3, 4). On another occasion, Pilate had grossly offended the people by setting up in his official residence at Jerusalem, shields that had been dedicated to Tiberius, and this "less for the honor of Tiberius than for the annoyance of the Jewish people." A petition signed by the ecclesiastical officials of the nation, and by others of influence, including four Herodian princes, was sent to the emperor, who reprimanded Pilate and directed that the shields be removed from Jerusalem to Cæsarea (Philo. De Legatione ad Caium; sec. 38).
7. The Underlying Cause of Pilate's Surrender to the Jewish Demands.—Pilate knew what was right but didn’t have the moral strength to act on it. He was scared of the Jews and even more frightened of negative repercussions in Rome. He worried about his conscience but was more concerned about losing his job. Rome’s approach was to be kind and accommodating when dealing with the religions and customs of conquered peoples. From the beginning of his time as procurator, Pontius Pilate had gone against this tolerant policy. Ignoring the strong Jewish aversion to images and pagan symbols, he allowed soldiers to enter Jerusalem at night carrying eagles and standards adorned with the emperor's image. To the Jews, this was a desecration of their Holy City. Large crowds gathered at Cæsarea, petitioning the procurator to remove the standards and other images from Jerusalem. For five days the people insisted, but Pilate refused. He threatened widespread slaughter and was shocked to see the people offer themselves as sacrifices rather than give up their demands. Pilate had no choice but to back down (Josephus, Ant. xviii, chap. 3:1; also Wars, ii, chap. 9:2, 3). He further angered the people by seizing the Corban, or sacred funds of the temple, to build an aqueduct to supply Jerusalem with water from the pools of Solomon. Expecting public outrage, he had Roman soldiers disguise themselves as Jews, hiding weapons among the crowds. At a prearranged signal, these soldiers attacked, killing or wounding many defenseless Jews (Josephus, Ant. xviii, chap. 3:2; and Wars, ii, chap. 9:3, 4). On another occasion, Pilate offended the public by placing shields dedicated to Tiberius in his official residence in Jerusalem, doing this "less for Tiberius's honor than to irritate the Jewish people." A petition signed by national religious leaders and several prominent individuals, including four Herodian princes, was sent to the emperor, who reprimanded Pilate and ordered the shields removed from Jerusalem to Cæsarea (Philo. De Legatione ad Caium; sec. 38).
These outrages on national feeling, and many minor acts of violence, extortion and cruelty, the Jews held against the procurator. He realized that his tenure was insecure, and he dreaded exposure. Such wrongs had he wrought that when he would have done good, he was deterred through cowardly fear of the accusing past.
These offenses against national sentiment, along with numerous smaller acts of violence, extortion, and cruelty, were held against the procurator by the Jews. He understood that his position was unstable, and he feared being exposed. He had committed so many wrongs that whenever he considered doing something good, he was held back by the cowardly fear of his accusing past.
8. Judas Iscariot.—Today we speak of a traitor as a "Judas" or an "Iscariot". The man who made the combined name infamous has been for ages a subject of discussion among theologians and philosophers, and in later times the light of psychological analysis has been turned upon him. German philosophers were among the earliest to assert that the man had been judged in unrighteousness, and that his real character was of brighter tint than that in which it had been painted. Indeed some critics hold that of all the Twelve Judas was the one most thoroughly convinced of our Lord's divinity in the flesh; and these apologists attempt to explain the betrayal as a deliberate and well-intended move to force Jesus into a position of difficulty from which He could escape only by the exercize of His powers of Godship, which, up to that time, He had never used in His own behalf.
8. Judas Iscariot.—Today, we refer to a traitor as a "Judas" or "Iscariot." The man who tarnished that name has been a topic of debate among theologians and philosophers for ages, and more recently, psychological analysis has explored his character. German philosophers were some of the first to claim that he was judged unfairly, suggesting that his true nature was more positive than the negative portrayal he received. In fact, some critics argue that of all the Twelve, Judas was the one most convinced of Jesus' divinity in human form. These defenders try to interpret the betrayal as a well-intentioned act meant to place Jesus in a challenging situation, from which He could only escape by using His divine powers, which He had not used for Himself until that moment.
We are not the invested judges of Judas nor of any other; but we are competent to frame and hold opinions as to the actions of any. In the light of the revealed word it appears that Judas Iscariot had given himself up to the cause of Satan while ostensibly serving the Christ in an exalted capacity. Such[Pg 650] a surrender to evil powers could be accomplished only through sin. The nature and extent of the man's transgressions through the years are not told us. He had received the testimony that Jesus was the Son of God; and in the full light of that conviction he turned against his Lord, and betrayed Him to death. Modern revelation is no less explicit than ancient in declaring that the path of sin is that of spiritual darkness leading to certain destruction. If the man who is guilty of adultery, even in his heart only, shall, unless he repents, surely forfeit the companionship of the Spirit of God, and "shall deny the faith", and so the voice of God hath affirmed (see Doc. and Cov. 63:16), we cannot doubt that any and all forms of deadly sin shall poison the soul and, if not forsaken through true repentance, shall bring that soul to condemnation. For his trained and skilful servants, Satan will provide opportunities of service commensurate with their evil ability. Whatever the opinion of modern critics as to the good character of Judas, we have the testimony of John, who for nearly three years had been in close companionship with him, that the man was a thief (12:6); and Jesus referred to him as a devil (6:70), and as "the son of perdition" (17:12). See in this connection Doc. and Cov. 76:41-48.
We are not the biased judges of Judas or anyone else; however, we are capable of forming and holding opinions about anyone's actions. Based on the revealed word, it seems that Judas Iscariot surrendered himself to Satan while pretending to serve Christ in a high position. Such a giving in to evil could only happen through sin. We are not told the nature and extent of his wrongdoing over the years. He had received the testimony that Jesus was the Son of God, and in full awareness of that truth, he turned against his Lord and betrayed Him to death. Modern revelation clearly states, just like the ancient ones, that the path of sin leads to spiritual darkness and certain destruction. If a person is guilty of adultery, even if only in their heart, they will, unless they repent, lose the companionship of the Spirit of God and "shall deny the faith," as affirmed by the voice of God (see Doc. and Cov. 63:16). We cannot doubt that any and all forms of deadly sin will poison the soul and, if not abandoned through true repentance, will lead that soul to condemnation. For his trained and skillful servants, Satan will create opportunities for them to serve that match their evil abilities. Regardless of modern critics' opinions on Judas's character, we have the testimony from John, who spent nearly three years closely with him, that he was a thief (12:6); and Jesus called him a devil (6:70) and "the son of perdition" (17:12). See in this connection Doc. and Cov. 76:41-48.
That the evil proclivities of Judas Iscariot were known to Christ is evidenced by the Lord's direct statement that among the Twelve was one who was a devil; (John 6:70; compare 13:27; Luke 22:3); and furthermore that this knowledge was His when the Twelve were selected is suggested by the words of Jesus: "I know whom I have chosen", coupled with the explanation that in the choice He had made would the scriptures be fulfilled. As the sacrificial death of the Lamb of God was foreknown and foretold so the circumstances of the betrayal were foreseen. It would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of the revealed word to say that the wretched Iscariot was in the least degree deprived of freedom or agency in the course he followed to so execrable an end. His was the opportunity and privilege common to the Twelve, to live in the light of the Lord's immediate presence, and to receive from the source divine the revelation of God's purposes. Judas Iscariot was no victim of circumstances, no insensate tool guided by a superhuman power, except as he by personal volition gave himself up to Satan, and accepted a wage in the devil's employ. Had Judas been true to the right, other means than his perfidy would have operated to bring the Lamb to the slaughter. His ordination to the apostleship placed him in possession of opportunity and privilege above that of the uncalled and unordained; and with such blessed possibility of achievement in the service of God came corresponding capability to fall. A trusted and exalted officer of the government can commit acts of treachery and treason such as are impossible to the citizen who has never learned the secrets of State. Advancement implies increased accountability, even more literally so in the affairs of God's kingdom than in the institutions of men.
That Judas Iscariot's evil tendencies were known to Christ is clear from the Lord's direct statement that among the Twelve was one who was a devil; (John 6:70; compare 13:27; Luke 22:3); and it’s further suggested that He had this knowledge when choosing the Twelve, as indicated by Jesus' words: "I know whom I have chosen," along with the explanation that His choice would fulfill the scriptures. Just as the sacrificial death of the Lamb of God was known and predicted, so were the circumstances of the betrayal anticipated. It would contradict both the letter and spirit of the revealed word to claim that the wretched Iscariot lacked any degree of freedom or agency in the path he took to such a terrible end. He had the same opportunity and privilege as the other Twelve, to live in the presence of the Lord and to receive divine revelations about God's purposes. Judas Iscariot was not a victim of circumstances or a mindless tool controlled by a higher power, except in the sense that he willingly surrendered himself to Satan and accepted a payment for his betrayal. Had Judas remained faithful to what was right, other means besides his treachery would have led to the Lamb's sacrifice. His appointment as an apostle gave him access to greater opportunities and privileges than those who were uncalled and unordained; with such blessed potential for success in serving God came an equal potential for failure. A trusted and high-ranking official can commit acts of betrayal and treason that an ordinary citizen, who has never learned the secrets of the State, cannot. Advancement comes with increased responsibility, even more so in God's kingdom than in human institutions.
There is an apparent discrepancy between the account of[Pg 651] Judas Iscariot's death given by Matthew (27:3-10) and that in Acts (1:16-20). According to the first, Judas hanged himself; the second states that he fell headlong, "and all his bowels gushed out." If both records be accurate, the wretched man probably hanged himself, and afterward fell, possibly through the breaking of the cord or the branch to which it was attached. Matthew says the Jewish rulers purchased the "field of blood"; the writer of the Acts quotes Peter as saying that Judas bought the field with the money he had received from the priests. As the ground was bought with the money that had belonged to Iscariot, and as this money had never been formally taken back by the temple officials, the field bought therewith belonged technically to the estate of Judas. The variations are of importance mainly as showing independence of authorship. The accounts agree in the essential feature, that Judas died a miserable suicide.
There’s a clear difference between the account of Judas Iscariot's death in Matthew (27:3-10) and in Acts (1:16-20). In Matthew’s version, Judas hanged himself; in Acts, it says he fell headfirst, “and all his bowels gushed out.” If both accounts are correct, the unfortunate man probably hanged himself and then fell, possibly because the rope or branch broke. Matthew mentions that the Jewish leaders bought the “field of blood”; however, the author of Acts quotes Peter saying that Judas bought the field with the money he got from the priests. Since the land was purchased with the money that belonged to Iscariot, and this money was never officially reclaimed by the temple officials, the field technically belonged to Judas’s estate. The differences are important mainly because they show that the authors wrote independently. Both accounts agree on the key detail: Judas died a tragic suicide.
Concerning the fate of the "sons of perdition," the Lord has given a partial but awful account through a revelation dated February 16, 1832: "Thus saith the Lord, concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves, through the power of the devil, to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born, For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come, Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father—having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels, And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power.... Wherefore, he saves all except them: they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment; And the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows. Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof: Nevertheless I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again: Wherefore the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except them who are ordained unto this condemnation."—Doc. and Cov. 76:31-37, 44-48.[Pg 652]
Concerning the fate of the "sons of perdition," the Lord has provided a partial but terrible account through a revelation dated February 16, 1832: "Thus says the Lord, about all those who know my power, have shared in it, and allowed themselves, through the power of the devil, to be defeated, and to deny the truth and challenge my power—They are the sons of perdition, of whom I say it would have been better for them never to have been born. For they are vessels of wrath, destined to suffer God's wrath, along with the devil and his angels for eternity; Concerning them, I have said there is no forgiveness in this world or the next, having denied the Holy Spirit after receiving it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father—having crucified him to themselves and brought him to open shame. These are the ones who will be cast into the lake of fire and sulfur, with the devil and his angels, and the only ones on whom the second death will have any power.... Therefore, he saves everyone except them: they will face everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels for eternity, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment; And the end of it, neither the place of it, nor their torment, no one knows. It has not been revealed, nor is it, nor will it be revealed to anyone, except to those who partake in it: Nevertheless, I, the Lord, show it by vision to many, but immediately close it again: Therefore the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery of it, they do not understand, nor does any man, except those who are ordained to this condemnation."—Doc. and Cov. 76:31-37, 44-48.[Pg 652]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1249] John 18:13, 24.
[1252] John 18:14; compare 11:49, 50.
[1253] John 18:19-23.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 18:19-23.
[1254] The common text of John 18:22, says that the man "struck Jesus with the palm of his hand," that is to say slapped Him; such an act added humiliating insult to violence; the marginal reading of the revised version is "with a rod." There is lack of agreement on this point in the early Mss.
[1254] In John 18:22, it says that the man "slapped Jesus," which means he hit Him with the palm of his hand; this act added a humiliating insult to the violence. The alternative reading in the revised version is "with a rod." There is some disagreement on this point in the early manuscripts.
[1256] Matt. 26:59-61; Mark 14:55-59.
[1257] Matt. 26:61 and Mark 14:58.
[1260] Matt. 26:63-66; compare Mark 14:61-64.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 26:63-66; see Mark 14:61-64.
[1262] Compare Mark 14:62.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Compare Mark 14:62.
[1264] Lev. 21:10.
[1267] Matt. 26:68; Luke 22:62-65.
[1268] Mark 14:64.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 14:64.
[1269] Luke 22:66.
[1270] John 18:28.
John 18:28.
[1271] Luke 22:66-71.
[1278] Observe that Mark, who alone states that the Lord said to Peter "before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice," (14:30) records a first crowing of the cock after Peter's first denial (v. 68) and a second crowing after the third denial (v. 72).
[1278] Notice that Mark, who is the only one that mentions the Lord telling Peter, "before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times," (14:30) notes a first crow of the rooster after Peter's first denial (v. 68) and a second crow after the third denial (v. 72).
[1280] John 18:28-32.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 18:28-32.
[1281] Luke 23:2.
[1283] Luke 23:5-7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 23:5-7.
[1284] Luke 23:8-12.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 23:8-12.
[1286] Luke 23:12.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 23:12.
[1289] Luke 23:11. Revised version reads, "arraying him in gorgeous apparel." Clarke ("Commentaries") and many other writers assume that the robe was white, that being the usual color of dress amongst the Jewish nobility.
[1289] Luke 23:11. The updated version states, "dressing him in beautiful clothes." Clarke ("Commentaries") and various other authors believe that the robe was white, as this was the typical color worn by Jewish nobility.
[1291] Matt. 27:18; Mark 15:10.
[1294] Compare Luke 18:32.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See Luke 18:32.
[1295] "Ecce Homo."
"Behold the Man."
[1298] Matt. 27:3-10; compare Acts 1:16-20.
[1299] Revised version of Matt. 27:5 reads, "And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary" instead of "in the temple," signifying that he flung the money into the Porch of the Holy House, as distinguished from the outer and public courts.
[1299] The updated version of Matt. 27:5 says, "And he threw the silver coins into the sanctuary" instead of "in the temple," indicating that he tossed the money into the Porch of the Holy House, separate from the outer and public areas.
CHAPTER 35.
DEATH AND BURIAL.
ON THE WAY TO CALVARY.[1301]
Pontius Pilate, having reluctantly surrendered to the clamorous demands of the Jews, issued the fatal order; and Jesus, divested of the purple robe and arrayed in His own apparel, was led away to be crucified. A body of Roman soldiers had the condemned Christ in charge; and as the procession moved out from the governor's palace, a motley crowd comprizing priestly officials, rulers of the Jews, and people of many nationalities, followed. Two convicted criminals, who had been sentenced to the cross for robbery, were led forth to death at the same time; there was to be a triple execution; and the prospective scene of horror attracted the morbidly minded, such as delight to gloat over the sufferings of their fellows. In the crowd, however, were some genuine mourners, as shall be shown. It was the Roman custom to make the execution of convicts as public as possible, under the mistaken and anti-psychological assumption, that the spectacle of dreadful punishment would be of deterrent effect. This misconception of human nature has not yet become entirely obsolete.
Pontius Pilate, having reluctantly given in to the noisy demands of the Jews, issued the deadly order; and Jesus, stripped of the purple robe and dressed in His own clothes, was taken away to be crucified. A group of Roman soldiers was in charge of the condemned Christ, and as the procession left the governor's palace, a mixed crowd made up of religious officials, Jewish leaders, and people from various nationalities followed. Two convicted criminals, sentenced to the cross for theft, were also being led to their deaths at the same time; it was going to be a triple execution, and the expected scene of horror attracted those who took pleasure in watching the suffering of others. Among the crowd, however, were some genuine mourners, as will be revealed. It was the Roman custom to make the execution of convicts as public as possible, based on the mistaken belief that witnessing brutal punishment would deter others. This misunderstanding of human nature is still not completely outdated.
The sentence of death by crucifixion required that the condemned person carry the cross upon which he was to suffer. Jesus started on the way bearing His cross. The terrible strain of the preceding hours, the agony in Gethsemane, the barbarous treatment He had suffered in the palace of the high priest, the humiliation and cruel usage to which He had been subjected before Herod, the frightful scourging[Pg 653] under Pilate's order, the brutal treatment by the inhuman soldiery, together with the extreme humiliation and the mental agony of it all, had so weakened His physical organism that He moved but slowly under the burden of the cross. The soldiers, impatient at the delay, peremptorily impressed into service a man whom they met coming into Jerusalem from the country, and him they compelled to carry the cross of Jesus. No Roman or Jew would have voluntarily incurred the ignominy of bearing such a gruesome burden; for every detail connected with the carrying out of a sentence of crucifixion was regarded as degrading. The man so forced to walk in the footsteps of Jesus, bearing the cross upon which the Savior of the world was to consummate His glorious mission, was Simon, a native of Cyrene. From Mark's statement that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus we infer that the two sons were known to the evangelist's readers as members of the early Church, and there is some indication that the household of Simon the Cyrenian came to be numbered with the believers.[1302]
The death sentence by crucifixion required the condemned person to carry the cross on which they would suffer. Jesus began His journey carrying His cross. The immense strain of the hours before, the agony in Gethsemane, the brutal treatment He endured in the high priest's palace, the humiliation and harsh treatment He faced before Herod, the horrific flogging ordered by Pilate, and the cruel behavior of the heartless soldiers, combined with the deep humiliation and mental pain of it all, had weakened His body so much that He moved slowly under the weight of the cross. The soldiers, frustrated by the delay, forcefully enlisted a man coming into Jerusalem from the countryside, making him carry Jesus's cross. No Roman or Jew would willingly accept the shame of carrying such a grim burden, as every aspect of carrying out a crucifixion sentence was seen as degrading. The man who was compelled to follow in Jesus's footsteps, carrying the cross on which the Savior of the world would complete His glorious mission, was Simon, a native of Cyrene. From Mark's mention that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus, we infer that these two sons were known to the readers of the evangelist as members of the early Church, and there is some evidence that Simon's household became part of the believers.
Among those who followed or stood and watched the death-procession pass, were some, women particularly, who bewailed and lamented the fate to which Jesus was going. We read of no man who ventured to raise his voice in protest or pity; but on this dreadful occasion as at other times, women were not afraid to cry out in commiseration or praise. Jesus, who had been silent under the inquisition of the priests, silent under the humiliating mockery of the sensual Herod and his coarse underlings, silent when buffeted and beaten by the brutal legionaries of Pilate, turned to the women whose sympathizing lamentations had reached His ears, and uttered these pathetic and portentous words of admonition and warning: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall[Pg 654] say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" It was the Lord's last testimony of the impending holocaust of destruction that was to follow the nation's rejection of her King. Although motherhood was the glory of every Jewish woman's life, yet in the terrible scenes which many of those there weeping would live to witness, barrenness would be accounted a blessing; for the childless would have fewer to weep over, and at least would be spared the horror of seeing their offspring die of starvation or by violence; for so dreadful would be that day that people would fain welcome the falling of the mountains upon them to end their sufferings.[1303] If Israel's oppressors could do what was then in process of doing to the "Green Tree," who bore the leafage of freedom and truth and offered the priceless fruit of life eternal, what would the powers of evil not do to the withered branches and dried trunk of apostate Judaism?
Among those who followed or stood and watched the funeral procession pass were some, especially women, who mourned and lamented the fate Jesus was facing. We read of no man who dared to raise his voice in protest or pity; but on this dreadful occasion, as at other times, women were not afraid to cry out in compassion or praise. Jesus, who had remained silent during the interrogation by the priests, silent through the humiliating mockery of the indulgent Herod and his crude followers, and silent as he was beaten by Pilate's brutal soldiers, turned to the women whose sympathetic cries had reached His ears and spoke these moving and significant words of warning: "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For, look, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?" It was the Lord's final testimony about the impending destruction that would follow the nation's rejection of her King. Although motherhood was the pride of every Jewish woman's life, in the terrible events that many of those weeping would live to see, barrenness would be seen as a blessing; the childless would have fewer to mourn over and would be spared the horror of watching their children die of starvation or violence; for that day would be so dreadful that people would gladly welcome the mountains falling on them to end their suffering. If Israel's oppressors could do what they were in the process of doing to the "Green Tree," which symbolized freedom and truth and offered the priceless gift of eternal life, what would the forces of evil not do to the withered branches and dried trunk of fallen Judaism?
Along the city streets, out through the portal of the massive wall, and thence to a place beyond but yet nigh unto Jerusalem, the cortege advanced. The destination was a spot called Golgotha, or Calvary, meaning "the place of a skull."[1304]
Along the city streets, through the huge gate in the massive wall, and then to a place just outside Jerusalem, the procession moved forward. The destination was a spot called Golgotha, or Calvary, which means "the place of a skull."[1304]
CRUCIFIXION.[1305]
At Calvary the official crucifiers proceeded without delay to carry into effect the dread sentence pronounced upon Jesus and upon the two criminals. Preparatory to affixing the condemned to the cross, it was the custom to offer each a narcotic draught of sour wine or vinegar mingled with myrrh and possibly containing other anodyne ingredients,[Pg 655] for the merciful purpose of deadening the sensibility of the victim. This was no Roman practise, but was allowed as a concession to Jewish sentiment. When the drugged cup was presented to Jesus He put it to His lips, but having ascertained the nature of its contents refused to drink, and so demonstrated His determination to meet death with faculties alert and mind unclouded.
At Calvary, the official executioners quickly moved to carry out the grim sentence handed down to Jesus and the two criminals. Before nailing the condemned individuals to the cross, it was customary to offer each of them a narcotic drink made from sour wine or vinegar mixed with myrrh and possibly other pain-relieving ingredients,[Pg 655] to mercifully dull the victim's senses. This was not a Roman practice but was permitted as a concession to Jewish sentiment. When the drugged cup was offered to Jesus, He brought it to His lips but, upon realizing what was in it, chose not to drink, showing His resolve to face death with full awareness and a clear mind.
Then they crucified Him, on the central cross of three, and placed one of the condemned malefactors on His right hand, the other on His left. Thus was realized Isaiah's vision of the Messiah numbered among the transgressors.[1306] But few details of the actual crucifixion are given us. We know however that our Lord was nailed to the cross by spikes driven through the hands and feet, as was the Roman method, and not bound only by cords as was the custom in inflicting this form of punishment among some other nations. Death by crucifixion was at once the most lingering and most painful of all forms of execution. The victim lived in ever increasing torture, generally for many hours, sometimes for days. The spikes so cruelly driven through hands and feet penetrated and crushed sensitive nerves and quivering tendons, yet inflicted no mortal wound. The welcome relief of death came through the exhaustion caused by intense and unremitting pain, through localized inflammation and congestion of organs incident to the strained and unnatural posture of the body.[1307]
Then they crucified Him on the central cross of three and put one of the condemned criminals on His right and the other on His left. This fulfilled Isaiah's vision of the Messiah being counted among the wrongdoers.[1306] But we aren't given many details about the actual crucifixion. We do know, however, that our Lord was nailed to the cross with spikes driven through His hands and feet, which was the Roman method, and not just tied up with ropes as was the custom in some other places. Death by crucifixion was both the most prolonged and painful of all execution methods. The victim endured increasingly severe torture, usually for many hours and sometimes for days. The spikes driven through His hands and feet pierced and crushed sensitive nerves and tendons, yet caused no fatal wound. The relief of death came from the exhaustion caused by intense and relentless pain, as well as the localized inflammation and congestion of organs due to the unnatural and strained position of the body.[1307]
As the crucifiers proceeded with their awful task, not unlikely with roughness and taunts, for killing was their trade and to scenes of anguish they had grown callous through long familiarity, the agonized Sufferer, void of resentment but full of pity for their heartlessness and capacity for cruelty, voiced the first of the seven utterances delivered from the cross. In the spirit of God-like mercy[Pg 656] He prayed: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Let us not attempt to fix the limits of the Lord's mercy; that it would be extended to all who in any degree could justly come under the blessed boon thereof ought to be a sufficing fact. There is significance in the form in which this merciful benediction was expressed. Had the Lord said, "I forgive you," His gracious pardon may have been understood to be but a remission of the cruel offense against Himself as One tortured under unrighteous condemnation; but the invocation of the Father's forgiveness was a plea for those who had brought anguish and death to the Father's Well Beloved Son, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Moses forgave Miriam for her offense against himself as her brother; but God alone could remit the penalty and remove the leprosy that had come upon her for having spoken against Jehovah's high priest.[1308]
As the executioners carried out their cruel task, likely with harshness and insults, since killing was their job and they had become numb to scenes of suffering through long exposure, the tortured Sufferer, devoid of anger but filled with pity for their heartlessness and ability to inflict pain, spoke the first of the seven statements made from the cross. In a spirit of divine mercy[Pg 656], He prayed: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." We should not try to limit the extent of the Lord's mercy; it should be enough that it is offered to all who could reasonably claim its blessed gift. There is importance in how this merciful blessing was communicated. If the Lord had simply said, "I forgive you," His kind pardon might have been seen as just a release from the cruelty directed at Him as One wrongfully condemned; but asking for the Father's forgiveness was a plea for those who had caused pain and death to the Father's Beloved Son, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Moses forgave Miriam for her wrongdoing against him as her brother; but only God could lift the penalty and heal the leprosy that had afflicted her for speaking against Jehovah's high priest.[1308]
It appears that under Roman rule, the clothes worn by a condemned person at the time of execution became the perquisites of the executioners. The four soldiers in charge of the cross upon which the Lord suffered distributed parts of His raiment among themselves; and there remained His coat,[1309] which was a goodly garment, woven throughout in one piece, without seam. To rend it would be to spoil; so the soldiers cast lots to determine who should have it; and in this circumstance the Gospel-writers saw a fulfilment of the psalmist's prevision: "They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."[1310]
It seems that under Roman rule, the clothes worn by a person sentenced to death became property of the executioners. The four soldiers responsible for the cross where the Lord was executed split up His clothes among themselves; what was left was His coat,[1309] which was a high-quality garment, woven in one piece with no seams. To tear it would ruin it; so the soldiers drew lots to see who would get it. In this situation, the Gospel writers recognized a fulfillment of the psalmist's prophecy: "They divided my clothes among them, and cast lots for my robe."[1310]
To the cross above the head of Jesus was affixed a title or inscription, prepared by order of Pilate in accordance with the custom of setting forth the name of the crucified and the nature of the offense for which he had been condemned to death. In this instance the title was inscribed in three languages, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, one or more of[Pg 657] which would be understood by every observer who could read. The title so exhibited read: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews"; or in the more extended version given by John "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews."[1311] The inscription was read by many, for Calvary was close to the public thoroughfare and on this holiday occasion the passers-by were doubtless numerous. Comment was aroused; for, if literally construed, the inscription was an official declaration that the crucified Jesus was in fact King of the Jews. When this circumstance was brought to the attention of the chief priests, they excitedly appealed to the governor, saying: "Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written." Pilate's action in so wording the title, and his blunt refusal to permit an alteration, may have been an intended rebuff to the Jewish officials who had forced him against his judgment and will to condemn Jesus; possibly, however, the demeanor of the submissive Prisoner, and His avowal of Kingship above all royalty of earth had impressed the mind if not the heart of the pagan governor with a conviction of Christ's unique superiority and of His inherent right of dominion; but, whatever the purpose behind the writing, the inscription stands in history as testimony of a heathen's consideration in contrast with Israel's ruthless rejection of Israel's King.[1312]
To the cross above Jesus' head was attached a sign or inscription, ordered by Pilate in line with the custom of stating the name of the person being crucified and the reason for their death sentence. In this case, the inscription was written in three languages: Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, so that one or more of those who could read would understand. The inscription read: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews"; or in the longer version given by John, "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews."[1311] Many people read the inscription, as Calvary was near a public road and, given the holiday, there were likely many passersby. This sparked comments; for, if taken literally, the inscription was an official statement that the crucified Jesus was indeed the King of the Jews. When the chief priests noticed this, they hurried to appeal to the governor, saying: "Don’t write, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews." Pilate replied, "What I have written, I have written." Pilate's choice of words for the title and his firm refusal to change it may have been a deliberate snub to the Jewish leaders who had pressured him to condemn Jesus against his better judgment; perhaps, however, the demeanor of the obedient Prisoner and His declaration of Kingship above all earthly rulers had impressed the pagan governor, instilling in him a sense of Christ's unique superiority and His rightful claim to authority; but whatever Pilate's intention behind the inscription, it remains a historical testament to a pagan's respect in stark contrast to Israel's harsh rejection of its King.[1312]
The soldiers whose duty it was to guard the crosses, until loitering death would relieve the crucified of their increasing anguish, jested among themselves, and derided the Christ, pledging Him in their cups of sour wine in tragic mockery. Looking at the title affixed above the Sufferer's head, they bellowed forth the devil-inspired challenge: "If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself." The morbid multitude, and the passers-by "railed on him, wagging their heads, and[Pg 658] saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself, and come down from the cross." But worst of all, the chief priests and the scribes, the elders of the people, the unvenerable Sanhedrists, became ring-leaders of the inhuman mob as they gloatingly exulted and cried aloud: "He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God."[1313] Though uttered in ribald mockery, the declaration of the rulers in Israel stands as an attestation that Christ had saved others, and as an intended ironical but a literally true proclamation that He was the King of Israel. The two malefactors, each hanging from his cross, joined in the general derision, and "cast the same in his teeth." One of them, in the desperation incident to approaching death, echoed the taunts of the priests and people: "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."
The soldiers who were supposed to guard the crosses, until death would finally put an end to the suffering of the crucified, laughed and made fun of Christ, toasting Him with their cups of sour wine in tragic mockery. Looking at the sign above the Sufferer’s head, they shouted the devil-inspired taunt: “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.” The morbid crowd and passers-by mocked Him, shaking their heads and saying, “Ah, you who destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself and come down from the cross.” But even worse, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people, the unworthy members of the Sanhedrin, led the inhumane mob as they openly rejoiced and shouted: “He saved others; he cannot save himself. If he is the King of Israel, let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let God deliver him now, if He wants to; for he said, I am the Son of God.” Though spoken in crude mockery, the rulers of Israel’s words stand as proof that Christ had saved others and serve as an ironically true proclamation that He was the King of Israel. The two criminals hanging on their crosses joined in the ridicule and “threw the same insults at Him.” One of them, facing the desperation of imminent death, repeated the taunts of the priests and crowd: “If you are Christ, save yourself and us.”
The dominant note in all the railings and revilings, the ribaldry and mockery, with which the patient and submissive Christ was assailed while He hung, "lifted up" as He had said He would be,[1314] was that awful "If" hurled at Him by the devil's emissaries in the time of mortal agony; as in the season of the temptations immediately after His baptism it had been most insidiously pressed upon Him by the devil himself.[1315] That "If" was Satan's last shaft, keenly barbed and doubly envenomed, and it sped as with the fierce hiss of a viper. Was it possible in this the final and most dreadful stage of Christ's mission, to make Him doubt His divine Sonship, or, failing such, to taunt or anger the dying Savior into the use of His superhuman powers for personal relief[Pg 659] or as an act of vengeance upon His tormentors? To achieve such a victory was Satan's desperate purpose. The shaft failed. Through taunts and derision, through blasphemous challenge and diabolical goading, the agonized Christ was silent.
The main theme in all the insults and jeers, the crude jokes and scorn, directed at the patient and yielding Christ as He hung "lifted up," as He had said He would be,[1314] was that terrible "If" thrown at Him by the devil's agents during His time of intense suffering; just like during the temptations right after His baptism, when it had been sneakily pushed upon Him by the devil himself.[1315] That "If" was Satan's final attack, sharply pointed and filled with poison, and it struck like the deadly hiss of a snake. Was it possible, in this ultimate and most horrifying stage of Christ's mission, to make Him doubt His divine Sonship, or if that failed, to provoke or irritate the dying Savior into using His superhuman powers for His own comfort[Pg 659] or to take revenge on those tormenting Him? Achieving such a triumph was Satan's desperate goal. The attempt failed. Through mockery and scorn, through blasphemous challenges and wicked provocation, the suffering Christ remained silent.
Then one of the crucified thieves, softened into penitence by the Savior's uncomplaining fortitude, and perceiving in the divine Sufferer's demeanor something more than human, rebuked his railing fellow, saying: "Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss." His confession of guilt and his acknowledgment of the justice of his own condemnation led to incipient repentance, and to faith in the Lord Jesus, his companion in agony. "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."[1316] To the appeal of penitence the Lord replied with such a promise as He alone could make: "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."[1317]
Then one of the thieves being crucified, touched by the Savior's silent strength and seeing something divine in His behavior, rebuked the other thief who was mocking, saying: "Don't you fear God, since you're under the same sentence? We are justly punished; we are getting what our actions deserve, but this man hasn’t done anything wrong." His admission of guilt and recognition of the justice of his own punishment led to a budding repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus, who was suffering alongside him. "And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom."[1316] To the plea for mercy, the Lord responded with a promise that only He could make: "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."[1317]
Among the spectators of this, the greatest tragedy in history, were some who had come in sympathy and sorrow. No mention is found of the presence of any of the Twelve, save one, and he, the disciple "whom Jesus loved," John the apostle, evangelist, and revelator; but specific record is made of certain women who, first at a distance, and then close by the cross, wept in the anguish of love and sorrow. "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."[1318]
Among the onlookers of this, the biggest tragedy in history, were some who had come out of compassion and sadness. There's no mention of any of the Twelve disciples being there, except for one—John, the disciple "whom Jesus loved," who was an apostle, evangelist, and revelator. However, specific records mention certain women who, first standing at a distance and then approaching the cross, cried out of love and sorrow. "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."[1318]
In addition to the women named were many others, some of whom had ministered unto Jesus in the course of His labors in Galilee, and who were among those that had come[Pg 660] up with Him to Jerusalem.[1319] First in point of consideration among them all was Mary, the mother of Jesus, into whose soul the sword had pierced even as righteous Simeon had prophesied.[1320] Jesus looking with tender compassion upon His weeping mother, as she stood with John at the foot of the cross, commended her to the care and protection of the beloved disciple, with the words, "Woman, behold thy son!" and to John, "Behold thy mother!" The disciple tenderly led the heart-stricken Mary away from her dying Son, and "took her unto his own home," thus immediately assuming the new relationship established by his dying Master.
Along with the women mentioned, there were many others, some of whom had supported Jesus during His time in Galilee and were among those who had come[Pg 660] to Jerusalem with Him.[1319] First and foremost among them was Mary, the mother of Jesus, whose heart was pierced, just as righteous Simeon had predicted.[1320] Jesus, looking at His grieving mother with deep compassion as she stood with John at the foot of the cross, entrusted her to the care of the beloved disciple, saying, "Woman, here's your son!" and to John, "Here's your mother!" The disciple gently took the heartbroken Mary away from her dying Son and "took her into his own home," thus immediately establishing the new relationship set by his dying Master.
Jesus was nailed to the cross during the forenoon of that fateful Friday, probably between nine and ten o'clock.[1321] At noontide the light of the sun was obscured, and black darkness spread over the whole land. The terrifying gloom continued for a period of three hours. This remarkable phenomenon has received no satisfactory explanation from science. It could not have been due to a solar eclipse, as has been suggested in ignorance, for the time was that of full moon; indeed the Passover season was determined by the first occurrence of full moon after the spring equinox. The darkness was brought about by miraculous operation of natural laws directed by divine power. It was a fitting sign of the earth's deep mourning over the impending death of her Creator.[1322] Of the mortal agony through which the Lord passed while upon the cross the Gospel-scribes are reverently reticent.
Jesus was nailed to the cross during the morning of that tragic Friday, likely between nine and ten o'clock.[1321] At noon, the sunlight was blocked, and pitch-black darkness spread over the entire land. This terrifying gloom lasted for three hours. This extraordinary event has not been satisfactorily explained by science. It couldn’t have been caused by a solar eclipse, as some have mistakenly suggested, since it was a full moon; in fact, the Passover season is marked by the first full moon after the spring equinox. The darkness was the result of a miraculous effect of natural laws guided by divine power. It was a fitting sign of the earth's profound sorrow over the impending death of her Creator.[1322] The Gospel writers are respectfully silent about the intense suffering that the Lord endured while on the cross.
At the ninth hour, or about three in the afternoon, a loud voice, surpassing the most anguished cry of physical suffering issued from the central cross, rending the dreadful darkness. It was the voice of the Christ: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God,[Pg 661] why hast thou forsaken me?" What mind of man can fathom the significance of that awful cry? It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death. The cry from the cross, though heard by all who were near, was understood by few. The first exclamation, Eloi, meaning My God, was misunderstood as a call for Elias.
At three in the afternoon, a loud voice, more intense than any physical suffering, came from the central cross, breaking through the heavy darkness. It was Christ's voice: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which means, My God, my God, [Pg 661] why have you abandoned me?" What person can understand the depth of that terrible cry? It seems that, in addition to the excruciating pain of crucifixion, the torment of Gethsemane had returned, intensified beyond what any human could bear. In that most painful moment, Christ was utterly alone, facing the harshest reality. To ensure the ultimate sacrifice of the Son could be fulfilled in its entirety, the Father appears to have withdrawn His immediate Presence, allowing the Savior of humanity to achieve complete victory over sin and death. Although everyone nearby heard the cry from the cross, very few understood its meaning. The first word, Eloi, which means My God, was mistaken as a plea for Elijah.
The period of faintness, the conception of utter forsakenness soon passed, and the natural cravings of the body reasserted themselves. The maddening thirst, which constituted one of the worst of the crucifixion agonies, wrung from the Savior's lips His one recorded utterance expressive of physical suffering. "I thirst" He said. One of those who stood by, whether Roman or Jew, disciple or skeptic, we are not told, hastily saturated a sponge with vinegar, a vessel of which was at hand, and having fastened the sponge to the end of a reed, or stalk of hyssop, pressed it to the Lord's fevered lips. Some others would have prevented this one act of human response, for they said: "Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him." John affirms that Christ uttered the exclamation, "I thirst," only when He knew "that all things were now accomplished"; and the apostle saw in the incident a fulfilment of prophecy.[1323]
The moment of weakness and the feeling of complete abandonment soon faded, and the body’s natural needs came back to the forefront. The intense thirst, which was one of the worst pains during the crucifixion, prompted the Savior to express physical suffering with His only recorded words: "I thirst." One of the bystanders, whether Roman or Jew, disciple or skeptic, is not specified, quickly soaked a sponge in vinegar, which was nearby, and, attaching the sponge to a reed or hyssop stalk, pressed it to the Lord's parched lips. Others tried to stop this act of compassion, saying, "Let him be; let's see if Elijah comes to save him." John notes that Christ exclaimed "I thirst" only when He realized that "everything was now finished"; and the apostle saw this event as a fulfillment of prophecy.[1323]
Fully realizing that He was no longer forsaken, but that His atoning sacrifice had been accepted by the Father, and that His mission in the flesh had been carried to glorious consummation, He exclaimed in a loud voice of holy triumph: "It is finished!" In reverence, resignation, and relief,[Pg 662] He addressed the Father saying: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."[1324] He bowed His head, and voluntarily gave up His life.
Fully realizing that He was no longer abandoned, but that His sacrifice had been accepted by the Father, and that His mission on earth had reached a glorious conclusion, He shouted with a voice of holy triumph: "It is finished!" In reverence, acceptance, and relief,[Pg 662] He spoke to the Father, saying: "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."[1324] He bowed His head and willingly gave up His life.
Jesus the Christ was dead. His life had not been taken from Him except as He had willed to permit. Sweet and welcome as would have been the relief of death in any of the earlier stages of His suffering from Gethsemane to the cross, He lived until all things were accomplished as had been appointed. In the latter days the voice of the Lord Jesus has been heard affirming the actuality of His suffering and death, and the eternal purpose thereby accomplished. Hear and heed His words: "For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him."[1325]
Jesus Christ was dead. His life wasn’t taken from Him; He allowed it to happen. As comforting as death might have been during His earlier suffering from Gethsemane to the cross, He chose to live until everything was completed as planned. In recent times, the voice of the Lord Jesus has been heard confirming the reality of His suffering and death, as well as the eternal purpose achieved through it. Listen to and take to heart His words: "For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; therefore He experienced the pain of all people, so that everyone might repent and come to Him."[1325]
IMPORTANT OCCURRENCES BETWEEN THE LORD'S DEATH AND BURIAL.
The death of Christ was accompanied by terrifying phenomena. There was a violent earthquake; the rocks of the mighty hills were disrupted, and many graves were torn open. But, most portentous of all in Judaistic minds, the veil of the temple which hung between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies[1326] was rent from top to bottom, and the interior, which none but the high priest had been permitted to see, was thrown open to common gaze. It was the rending of Judaism, the consummation of the Mosaic dispensation, and the inauguration of Christianity under apostolic administration.
The death of Christ was marked by startling events. There was a violent earthquake; the strong hills shook, and many tombs opened up. But, most significantly for the Jewish people, the veil of the temple that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies[1326] was torn from top to bottom, revealing the inner sanctuary that only the high priest was allowed to see. This tearing symbolized the end of Judaism, the completion of the Mosaic covenant, and the beginning of Christianity under the leadership of the apostles.
The Roman centurion and the soldiers under his command at the place of execution were amazed and greatly[Pg 663] affrighted. They had probably witnessed many deaths on the cross, but never before had they seen a man apparently die of his own volition, and able to cry in a loud voice at the moment of dissolution. That barbarous and inhuman mode of execution induced slow and progressive exhaustion. The actual death of Jesus appeared to all who were present to be a miracle, as in fact it was. This marvel, coupled with the earthquake and its attendant horrors, so impressed the centurion that he prayed to God, and solemnly declared: "Certainly this was a righteous man." Others joined in fearsome averment: "Truly this was the Son of God." The terrified ones who spoke and those who heard left the place in a state of fear, beating their breasts, and bewailing what seemed to be a state of impending destruction.[1327] A few loving women, however, watched from a distant point, and saw all that took place until the Lord's body was laid away.
The Roman centurion and the soldiers under his command at the execution site were stunned and deeply frightened. They had likely seen many people die on the cross, but had never before witnessed a man seemingly choose to die, able to cry out loudly at the moment of death. That cruel and inhumane method of execution caused a slow and gradual exhaustion. The actual death of Jesus seemed to everyone present to be a miracle, as it truly was. This astonishing event, along with the earthquake and its terrifying aftermath, deeply affected the centurion, who prayed to God and solemnly declared: "Certainly, this was a righteous man." Others echoed this fearful assertion: "Truly, this was the Son of God." Those who spoke, alongside those who listened, left the place in a state of fear, beating their breasts and lamenting what felt like an impending doom. A few devoted women, however, watched from a distance and witnessed everything that happened until the Lord's body was taken away.
It was now late in the afternoon; at sunset the Sabbath would begin. That approaching Sabbath was held to be more than ordinarily sacred for it was a high day, in that it was the weekly Sabbath and a paschal holy day.[1328] The Jewish officials, who had not hesitated to slay their Lord, were horrified at the thought of men left hanging on crosses on such a day, for thereby the land would be defiled;[1329] so these scrupulous rulers went to Pilate and begged that Jesus and the two malefactors be summarily dispatched by the brutal Roman method of breaking their legs, the shock of which violent treatment had been found to be promptly fatal to the crucified. The governor gave his consent, and the soldiers broke the limbs of the two thieves with cudgels. Jesus, however, was found to be already dead, so they broke not His bones. Christ, the great Passover sacrifice, of whom all altar victims had been but suggestive prototypes, died through violence yet without a bone of His body being[Pg 664] broken, as was a prescribed condition of the slain paschal lambs.[1330] One of the soldiers, to make sure that Jesus was actually dead, or to surely kill Him if He was yet alive, drove a spear into His side, making a wound large enough to permit a man's hand to be thrust thereinto.[1331] The withdrawal of the spear was followed by an outflow of blood and water,[1332] an occurrence so surprizing that John, who was an eye-witness, bears specific personal testimony to the fact, and cites the scriptures thereby fulfilled.[1333]
It was now late in the afternoon; at sunset the Sabbath would begin. This upcoming Sabbath was considered particularly sacred because it was both the weekly Sabbath and a Passover holy day.[1328] The Jewish officials, who had not hesitated to kill their Lord, were horrified at the thought of people left hanging on crosses on such a day, as it would defile the land;[1329] so these meticulous rulers went to Pilate and asked that Jesus and the two criminals be quickly executed by the brutal Roman method of breaking their legs, which had been found to be immediately fatal to those crucified. The governor agreed, and the soldiers broke the legs of the two thieves with clubs. Jesus, however, was already dead, so they did not break His bones. Christ, the great Passover sacrifice, of whom all altar victims had merely foreshadowed, died through violence yet without a bone of His body being[Pg 664] broken, as was a required condition of the slain Passover lambs.[1330] One of the soldiers, to ensure that Jesus was actually dead, or to definitely kill Him if He was still alive, thrust a spear into His side, creating a wound large enough for a man's hand to fit inside.[1331] The removal of the spear was followed by an outflow of blood and water,[1332] a surprising occurrence so significant that John, an eyewitness, provides personal testimony to the fact and references the scriptures that were fulfilled.[1333]
THE BURIAL.[1334]
A man known as Joseph of Arimathea, who was at heart a disciple of Christ, but who had hesitated to openly confess his conversion through fear of the Jews, desired to give the Lord's body a decent and honorable interment. But for some such divinely directed intervention, the body of Jesus might have been cast into the common grave of executed criminals. This man, Joseph, was "a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just." It is expressly said of him that he "had not consented to the counsel and deed of them"; from which statement we infer that he was a Sanhedrist and had been opposed to the action of his colleagues in condemning Jesus to death, or at least had refrained from voting with the rest. Joseph was a man of wealth, station, and influence. He went in boldly unto Pilate and begged the body of Christ. The governor was surprized to learn that Jesus was already dead; he summoned the centurion and inquired as to how long Jesus had lived on the cross. The unusual circumstance seems to have added to Pilate's troubled concern. He gave command and the body of Christ was delivered to Joseph.
A man named Joseph of Arimathea, who was truly a disciple of Christ but had been afraid to publicly share his faith because of the Jews, wanted to give the Lord a proper and respectful burial. Without some kind of divine intervention, Jesus's body could have been thrown into the common grave for executed criminals. Joseph was "a counselor; and he was a good man, and a just." It is specifically mentioned that he "had not consented to the counsel and deed of them," which suggests he was part of the Sanhedrin and opposed the decision of his colleagues to condemn Jesus to death, or at least did not vote with them. Joseph was wealthy, well-respected, and influential. He boldly approached Pilate and requested the body of Christ. The governor was surprised to find out that Jesus was already dead; he called for the centurion and asked how long Jesus had been on the cross. This unusual situation seemed to add to Pilate's unease. He then ordered that the body of Christ be handed over to Joseph.
The body was removed from the cross; and in preparing[Pg 665] it for the tomb Joseph was assisted by Nicodemus, another member of the Sanhedrin, the same who had come to Jesus by night three years before, and who at one of the conspiracy meetings of the council had protested against the unlawful condemnation of Jesus without a hearing.[1335] Nicodemus brought a large quantity of myrrh and aloes, about a hundredweight. The odorous mixture was highly esteemed for anointing and embalming, but its cost restricted its use to the wealthy. These two revering disciples wrapped the Lord's body in clean linen, "with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury"; and then laid it in a new sepulchre, hewn in the rock. The tomb was in a garden, not far from Calvary, and was the property of Joseph. Because of the nearness of the Sabbath the interment had to be made with haste; the door of the sepulchre was closed, a large stone was rolled against it;[1336] and thus laid away the body was left to rest. Some of the devoted women, particularly Mary Magdalene, and "the other Mary," who was the mother of James and Joses, had watched the entombment from a distance; and when it was completed "they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment."
The body was taken down from the cross, and while preparing it for the tomb, Joseph was helped by Nicodemus, another member of the Sanhedrin, the same man who had visited Jesus at night three years earlier and who had protested against the illegal condemnation of Jesus without a fair trial at one of the council's conspiracy meetings. Nicodemus brought a large amount of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. This fragrant mixture was highly valued for anointing and embalming, but its high cost meant only the wealthy could afford it. These two devoted disciples wrapped the Lord's body in clean linen, "with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury," and then placed it in a new tomb carved out of rock. The tomb was situated in a garden close to Calvary and belonged to Joseph. Due to the approaching Sabbath, the burial had to be done quickly; the entrance of the tomb was sealed with a large stone, and thus the body was laid to rest. Some devoted women, especially Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary," who was the mother of James and Joses, watched the burial from a distance. Once it was finished, "they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment."
THE SEPULCHRE GUARDED.[1337]
On the day following the "preparation," that is to say on Saturday, the Sabbath and "high-day,"[1338] the chief priests and Pharisees came in a body to Pilate, saying: "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first." It is evident that the most inveterate[Pg 666] of the human enemies of Christ remembered His predictions of an assured resurrection on the third day after His death. Pilate answered with terse assent: "Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can." So the chief priests and Pharisees satisfied themselves that the sepulchre was secure by seeing that the official seal was affixed at the junction of the great stone and the portal, and that an armed guard was placed in charge.
On the day after the "preparation," which means Saturday, the Sabbath and "high-day," the chief priests and Pharisees came together to Pilate, saying: "Sir, we remember that this deceiver said while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' So, please command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, or else his disciples might come at night, steal him away, and tell the people he has risen from the dead. This would make the last deception worse than the first." It’s clear that the most determined enemies of Christ remembered His prediction about rising on the third day after His death. Pilate replied simply, "You have a guard; go and make it as secure as you can." So, the chief priests and Pharisees ensured the tomb was secure by having the official seal placed at the joint of the large stone and the entrance, and making sure an armed guard was on duty.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 35.
1. Simon the Cyrenian.—Simon, upon whom the cross of Jesus was laid, was a member of the Jewish colony in northern Africa, which had been established nearly three centuries before the birth of Christ by Ptolemeus Lagi, who transported thither great numbers of Jews from Palestine (Josephus, Antiquities, xii, chap. 1). Cyrene, the home of Simon, was in the province of Libya; its site is within the present boundaries of Tunis. That the African Jews were numerous and influential is evidenced by the fact that they maintained a synagog in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9) for the accommodation of such of their number as visited the city. Rufus and his mother are mentioned in friendly reference by Paul over a quarter of a century after the death of Christ (Romans 16:13). If this Rufus be one of the sons of Simon named by Mark (15:21), as tradition indicates, it is probable that Simon's family was prominently identified with the Primitive Church. As to whether Simon had become a disciple before the crucifixion, or was converted through his compulsory service in bearing the Lord's cross, or became a member of the Church at a later date, we are not definitely told.
1. Simon the Cyrenian.—Simon, who was forced to carry the cross of Jesus, was part of the Jewish community in northern Africa. This community was established nearly three centuries before Christ was born by Ptolemeus Lagi, who brought many Jews from Palestine to the area (Josephus, Antiquities, xii, chap. 1). Cyrene, Simon's home, was located in the province of Libya, where present-day Tunis is situated. The significant presence and influence of African Jews is shown by the fact that they maintained a synagogue in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9) for members of their community who visited the city. Paul mentions Rufus and his mother in a friendly way over twenty-five years after Christ's death (Romans 16:13). If this Rufus is one of Simon's sons mentioned by Mark (15:21), as tradition suggests, it's likely that Simon's family played an important role in the early Church. We aren't clearly told whether Simon was already a disciple before the crucifixion, was converted through the forced act of carrying the Lord's cross, or joined the Church at a later time.
2. Christ's Words to the Daughters of Jerusalem.—"The time would come, when the Old Testament curse of barrenness (Hosea 9:14) would be coveted as a blessing. To show the fulfilment of this prophetic lament of Jesus it is not necessary to recall the harrowing details recorded by Josephus (Wars, vi, 3:4), when a frenzied mother roasted her own child, and in the mockery of desperateness reserved the half of the horrible meal for those murderers who daily broke in upon her to rob her of what scanty food had been left her; nor yet other of those incidents, too revolting for needless repetition, which the historian of the last siege of Jerusalem chronicles. But how often, these many centuries, must Israel's women have felt that terrible longing for childlessness, and how often must the prayer of despair for the quick death of falling mountains and burying hills rather than prolonged torture (Hosea 10:8), have risen to the lips of Israel's sufferers! And yet, even so, these words were also prophetic of a still more terrible future (Rev. 6:10). For, if Israel had put such flame to its 'green tree' how terribly would[Pg 667] the divine judgment burn among the dry wood of an apostate and rebellious people, that had so delivered up its Divine King, and pronounced sentence upon itself by pronouncing it upon Him!"—Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah vol. 2, p. 588.
2. Christ's Words to the Daughters of Jerusalem.—"The time will come when the Old Testament curse of barrenness (Hosea 9:14) will be seen as a blessing. To illustrate the fulfillment of this prophetic lament from Jesus, it’s not necessary to mention the gruesome details recorded by Josephus (Wars, vi, 3:4), when a desperate mother cooked her own child and, in her madness, saved half of the grotesque meal for the thieves who came daily to steal her meager food; nor the other shocking incidents, too horrific to repeat, that the historian describes about the last siege of Jerusalem. But how often, over these many centuries, must the women of Israel have felt that horrifying longing for childlessness, and how frequently must the desperate prayer for a swift death from collapsing mountains and burying hills rather than prolonged suffering (Hosea 10:8) have crossed the lips of Israel's sufferers! And yet, these words also foretold an even more dreadful future (Rev. 6:10). For, if Israel had ignited such destruction to its 'green tree,' how terribly would[Pg 667] the divine judgment consume the dry wood of a disobedient and rebellious people that had so turned over its Divine King, condemning itself by condemning Him!"—Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah vol. 2, p. 588.
Concerning the prayer that mountains fall to crush and hide, Farrar (Life of Christ, p. 645, note), says: "These words of Christ met with a painfully literal illustration when hundreds of the unhappy Jews at the siege of Jerusalem hid themselves in the darkest and vilest subterranean recesses, and when, besides those who were hunted out, no less than two thousand were killed by being buried under the ruins of their hiding places." A further fulfilment may be yet future. Consult Josephus, Wars, vi. 9:4. See also Hos. 9:12-16; 10:8; Isa. 2:10; compare Rev. 6:16.
Concerning the prayer that mountains would collapse to crush and conceal, Farrar (Life of Christ, p. 645, note) states: "These words of Christ were painfully illustrated when hundreds of distressed Jews during the siege of Jerusalem hid in the darkest, most wretched underground spaces, and when, in addition to those who were hunted down, at least two thousand were killed by being buried under the rubble of their hiding places." There may be a further fulfillment yet to come. Consult Josephus, Wars, vi. 9:4. See also Hos. 9:12-16; 10:8; Isa. 2:10; compare Rev. 6:16.
3. "The Place of a Skull."—The Aramaic Hebrew name "Golgotha", the Greek "Kranion", and the Latin "Calvaria" or, as Anglicized, "Calvary", have the same meaning, and connote "a skull". The name may have been applied with reference to topographical features, as we speak of the brow of a hill; or, if the spot was the usual place of execution, it may have been so called as expressive of death, just as we call a skull a death's head. It is probable that the bodies of executed convicts were buried near the place of death; and if Golgotha or Calvary was the appointed site for execution, the exposure of skulls and other human bones through the ravages of beasts and by other means, would not be surprizing; though the leaving of bodies or any of their parts unburied was contrary to Jewish law and sentiment. The origin of the name is of as little importance as are the many divergent suppositions concerning the exact location of the spot.
3. "The Place of a Skull."—The Aramaic Hebrew name "Golgotha," the Greek "Kranion," and the Latin "Calvaria," or the Anglicized "Calvary," all mean the same thing: "a skull." The name might have been used because of the area's geography, like how we refer to the top of a hill, or if it was the common execution site, it could have referred to death itself, similar to how we call a skull a death's head. It's likely that the bodies of executed criminals were buried close to where they died; if Golgotha or Calvary was the designated execution location, seeing skulls and other human bones exposed due to animal activity or other factors wouldn't be surprising. However, leaving bodies or body parts unburied went against Jewish law and beliefs. The origin of the name is as insignificant as the various theories about the exact location of the place.
4. Crucifixion.—"It was unanimously considered the most horrible form of death. Among the Romans also the degradation was a part of the infliction, and the punishment if applied to freeman was only used in the case of the vilest criminals.... The criminal carried his own cross, or at any rate a part of it. Hence, figuratively, to take, take up or bear one's cross is to endure suffering, affliction, or shame like a criminal on his way to the place of crucifixion (Matt. 10:38; 16:24; Luke 14:27, etc.). The place of execution was outside the city (1 Kings 21:13; Acts 7:58; Heb. 13:12), often in some public road or other conspicuous place. Arrived at the place of execution, the sufferer was stripped naked, the dress being the perquisite of the soldiers (Matt. 27:35). The cross was then driven into the ground, so that the feet of the condemned were a foot or two above the earth, and he was lifted upon it; or else stretched upon it on the ground and then lifted with it." It was the custom to station soldiers to watch the cross, so as to prevent the removal of the sufferer while yet alive. "This was necessary from the lingering character of the death, which sometimes did not supervene even for three days, and was at last the result of gradual benumbing and starvation. But for this guard, the persons[Pg 668] might have been taken down and recovered, as was actually done in the case of a friend of Josephus.... In most cases the body was suffered to rot on the cross by the action of sun and rain, or to be devoured by birds and beasts. Sepulture was generally therefore forbidden; but in consequence of Deut. 21:22, 23, an express national exception was made in favor of the Jews (Matt. 27:58). This accursed and awful mode of punishment was happily abolished by Constantine." Smith's Bible Dict.
4. Crucifixion.—"It was widely regarded as the most brutal form of execution. For the Romans, humiliation was part of the punishment, and this method was only used for the worst criminals if given to a free person.... The condemned carried their own cross, or at least a portion of it. Therefore, to take up or bear one's cross refers to enduring suffering, hardship, or shame like a criminal going to their execution (Matt. 10:38; 16:24; Luke 14:27, etc.). The execution site was located outside the city (1 Kings 21:13; Acts 7:58; Heb. 13:12), often along a public road or in another visible area. Once at the execution site, the victim was stripped naked, with their clothes taken by the soldiers (Matt. 27:35). The cross was then planted in the ground, so the feet of the condemned hung a foot or two above the ground, and they were lifted onto it; alternatively, they could be laid on it on the ground first and then raised with it." Soldiers were stationed to guard the cross to prevent the removal of the victim while still alive. "This was necessary because death could be a long process, sometimes taking up to three days and resulting from gradual numbness and starvation. Without this guard, individuals[Pg 668] could have been taken down and saved, as happened with a friend of Josephus.... In many instances, the body was left to decay on the cross from exposure to the elements, or to be eaten by birds and animals. Burial was typically not allowed; however, due to Deut. 21:22, 23, a specific national exception was made for the Jews (Matt. 27:58). This dreadful and terrible form of punishment was thankfully abolished by Constantine." Smith's Bible Dict.
5. Pilate's Inscription—"The King of the Jews."—No two of the Gospel-writers give the same wording of the title or inscription placed by Pilate's order above the head of Jesus on the cross; the meaning, however, is the same in all, and the unessential variation is evidence of individual liberty among the recorders. It is probable that there was actual diversity in the trilingual versions. John's version is followed in the common abbreviations used in connection with Roman Catholic figures of Christ: J. N. R. J.; or, inasmuch as "I" used to be an ordinary equivalent of "J",—I. N. R. I.—"Jesus of Nazareth, King [Rex] of the Jews."
5. Pilate's Inscription—"The King of the Jews."—No two Gospel writers give the same wording for the title or inscription that Pilate ordered to be placed above Jesus’ head on the cross; however, the meaning is consistent across all of them, and the minor differences show the individual style of each writer. It's likely that there were actual variations in the three language versions. John's version is what is commonly used in the abbreviated forms associated with Roman Catholic depictions of Christ: J. N. R. J.; or since "I" was often used as a substitute for "J",—I. N. R. I.—"Jesus of Nazareth, King [Rex] of the Jews."
6. The Women at the Cross.—"According to the authorized version and revised version, only three women are named, but most modern critics hold that four are intended. Translate, therefore, 'His mother, and His mother's sister, (i.e. Salome, the mother of the evangelist [John]); and Mary the wife of Cleophas; and Mary Magdalene.'"—Taken from Dummelow's commentary on John 19:25.
6. The Women at the Cross.—"According to the standard and revised versions, only three women are named, but most modern critics believe that four are meant. Translate, therefore, 'His mother, and His mother's sister (i.e. Salome, the mother of the evangelist [John]); and Mary the wife of Cleophas; and Mary Magdalene.'"—Taken from Dummelow's commentary on John 19:25.
7. The Hour of the Crucifixion.—Mark (15:25) says: "And it was the third hour and they crucified him"; the time so specified corresponds to the hour from 9 to 10 a.m. This writer and his fellow synoptists, Matthew and Luke, give place to many incidents that occurred between the nailing of Christ to the cross and the sixth hour or the hour from 12 noon to 1 p.m. From these several accounts it is clear that Jesus was crucified during the forenoon. A discrepancy plainly appears between these records and John's statement (19:14) that it was "about the sixth hour" (noon) when Pilate gave the sentence of execution. All attempts to harmonize the accounts in this particular have proved futile because the discrepancy is real. Most critics and commentators assume that "about the sixth hour" in John's account is a misstatement, due to the errors of early copyists of the manuscript Gospels, who mistook the sign meaning 3rd for that signifying 6th.
7. The Hour of the Crucifixion.—Mark (15:25) states: "It was the third hour when they crucified him," which refers to the time between 9 and 10 a.m. This writer and his fellow synoptists, Matthew and Luke, include many events that took place between Christ being nailed to the cross and the sixth hour, or the time between 12 noon and 1 p.m. From these different accounts, it’s clear that Jesus was crucified in the morning. There is a noticeable contradiction between these records and John's statement (19:14) that it was "about the sixth hour" (noon) when Pilate issued the death sentence. All efforts to reconcile these accounts have failed because the discrepancy is genuine. Most critics and commentators believe that "about the sixth hour" in John's account is a mistake, likely due to errors made by early copyists of the Gospel manuscripts, who confused the sign for the 3rd hour with the sign for the 6th.
8. The Physical Cause of Christ's Death.—While, as stated in the text, the yielding up of life was voluntary on the part of Jesus Christ, for He had life in Himself and no man could take His life except as He willed to allow it to be taken, (John 1:4; 5:26; 10:15-18) there was of necessity a direct physical cause of dissolution. As stated also the crucified sometimes lived for days upon the cross, and death resulted, not from the infliction of mortal wounds, but from internal congestion, inflammations, organic disturbances, and consequent exhaustion of vital energy. Jesus, though weakened by long torture during[Pg 669] the preceding night and early morning, by the shock of the crucifixion itself, as also by intense mental agony, and particularly through spiritual suffering such as no other man has ever endured, manifested surprizing vigor, both of mind and body, to the last. The strong, loud utterance, immediately following which He bowed His head and "gave up the ghost", when considered in connection with other recorded details, points to a physical rupture of the heart as the direct cause of death. If the soldier's spear was thrust into the left side of the Lord's body and actually penetrated the heart, the outrush of "blood and water" observed by John is further evidence of a cardiac rupture; for it is known that in the rare instances of death resulting from a breaking of any part of the wall of the heart, blood accumulates within the pericardium, and there undergoes a change by which the corpuscles separate as a partially clotted mass from the almost colorless, watery serum. Similar accumulations of clotted corpuscles and serum occur within the pleura. Dr. Abercrombie of Edinburgh, as cited by Deems (Light of the Nations, p. 682), "gives a case of the sudden death of a man aged seventy-seven years, owing to a rupture of the heart. In his case 'the cavities of the pleura contained about three pounds of fluid, but the lungs were sound.'" Deems also cites the following instance: "Dr. Elliotson relates the case of a woman who died suddenly. 'On opening the body the pericardium was found distended with clear serum, and a very large coagulum of blood, which had escaped through a spontaneous rupture of the aorta near its origin, without any other morbid appearance.' Many cases might be cited, but these suffice." For detailed treatment of the subject the student may be referred to Dr. Wm. Stroud's work On the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. Great mental stress, poignant emotion either of grief or joy, and intense spiritual struggle are among the recognized causes of heart rupture.
8. The Physical Cause of Christ's Death.—As mentioned in the text, Jesus Christ willingly gave up His life, for He had life within Himself, and no one could take it unless He allowed it (John 1:4; 5:26; 10:15-18). However, there had to be a direct physical cause for His death. It's noted that crucified individuals sometimes survive for days on the cross, with death not resulting from fatal wounds but from internal issues like congestion, inflammation, organ disturbances, and eventual exhaustion of vital energy. Jesus, though weakened from long torture during[Pg 669] the night and early morning, as well as the trauma of the crucifixion itself, and especially from intense mental pain and spiritual suffering beyond what any other person has experienced, showed remarkable strength in both mind and body until the end. His strong, loud declaration right before He bowed His head and "gave up the ghost," when taken with other recorded details, suggests a physical rupture of the heart as the direct cause of death. If the soldier's spear penetrated the Lord's left side and reached the heart, the flow of "blood and water" observed by John supports the idea of a heart rupture; it is known that in rare cases where any part of the heart wall breaks, blood accumulates in the pericardium and separates into a partially clotted mass from a nearly clear, watery serum. Similar accumulation of clotted blood and serum can happen in the pleura. Dr. Abercrombie of Edinburgh, as referenced by Deems (Light of the Nations, p. 682), "provides a case of a sudden death of a seventy-seven-year-old man due to a heart rupture. In his case, 'the cavities of the pleura contained about three pounds of fluid, but the lungs were healthy.'" Deems also cites another case: "Dr. Elliotson discusses a woman who died suddenly. 'Upon examining the body, the pericardium was found swollen with clear serum, and a large blood clot that had escaped from a spontaneous rupture of the aorta near its origin, with no other pathological findings.' Many more cases could be shown, but these are sufficient." For an in-depth examination of this topic, students can refer to Dr. Wm. Stroud's work On the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. Significant mental stress, strong emotions, whether from grief or joy, and intense spiritual struggle are among the recognized causes of heart rupture.
The present writer believes that the Lord Jesus died of a broken heart. The psalmist sang in dolorous measure according to his inspired prevision of the Lord's passion: "Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." (Psalm 69:20, 21; see also 22:14.)
The author believes that Jesus died of a broken heart. The psalmist expressed this sorrowfully, anticipating the Lord's suffering: "Reproach has broken my heart, and I am filled with heaviness; I looked for someone to take pity on me, but there was no one, and for comforters, but I found none. They also gave me gall for my food, and in my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink." (Psalm 69:20, 21; see also 22:14.)
9. The Request that Christ's Tomb be Sealed.—Many critics hold that the deputation called upon Pilate on Saturday evening, after the Sabbath had ended. This assumption is made on the ground that to do what these priestly officials did, in personally supervizing the sealing of the tomb, would have been to incur defilement, and that they would not have so done on the Sabbath. Matthew's statement is definite—that the application was made on "the next day, that followed the day of the preparation." The preparation day extended from sunset on Thursday to the beginning of the Sabbath at sunset on Friday.[Pg 670]
9. The Request that Christ's Tomb be Sealed.—Many critics believe that the group went to Pilate on Saturday evening, after the Sabbath was over. This assumption is based on the idea that what these religious leaders did—personally overseeing the sealing of the tomb—would have made them unclean, and they wouldn't have done it on the Sabbath. Matthew's account is clear—that the request was made on "the next day, which followed the day of the preparation." The preparation day lasted from sunset on Thursday to the start of the Sabbath at sunset on Friday.[Pg 670]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1308] Numb. 12.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Num. 12.
[1309] Revised version, marginal reading, "tunic."
Updated version, side note, "tunic."
[1313] Matt. 27:42, 43. The clause "if he be the King of Israel" in verse 42 of the common text is admittedly a mistranslation; it should read "He is the King of Israel." See revised version; also Edersheim, vol. 2, p. 596; compare Mark 15:32.
[1313] Matt. 27:42, 43. The phrase "if he is the King of Israel" in verse 42 of the standard text is clearly a mistranslation; it should say "He is the King of Israel." See the revised version; also Edersheim, vol. 2, p. 596; compare Mark 15:32.
[1314] John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32.
[1317] See chapter 36, following.
[1323] John 19:28; compare Psa. 69:21.
[1324] The Gospel writers leave us in some uncertainty as to which of the last two utterances from the cross.—"It is finished," and "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," was spoken first.
[1324] The Gospel writers don’t clearly tell us which of the last two things said from the cross—“It is finished,” or “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”—was spoken first.
[1328] John 19:31-37.
[1329] Deut. 21:23.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Deut. 21:23.
[1336] See revised version, Mark 15:46.
[1337] Matt. 27:62-66.
CHAPTER 36.
IN THE REALM OF DISEMBODIED SPIRITS.
Jesus the Christ died in the literal sense in which all men die. He underwent a physical dissolution by which His immortal spirit was separated from His body of flesh and bones, and that body was actually dead. While the corpse lay in Joseph's rock-hewn tomb, the living Christ existed as a disembodied Spirit. We are justified in inquiring where He was and what were His activities during the interval between His death on the cross and His emergence from the sepulchre with spirit and body reunited, a resurrected Soul. The assumption that most naturally suggests itself is that He went where the spirits of the dead ordinarily go; and that, in the sense in which while in the flesh He had been a Man among men, He was, in the disembodied state a Spirit among spirits. This conception is confirmed as a fact by scriptural attestation.
Jesus Christ died just like everyone else. His physical body broke down, separating His immortal spirit from His flesh and bones, and that body was truly dead. While His body lay in Joseph's rock-cut tomb, the living Christ existed as a disembodied Spirit. It's natural for us to wonder where He was and what He did between His death on the cross and His rising from the grave with His spirit and body reunited, as a resurrected Soul. The most reasonable assumption is that He went to where the spirits of the dead usually go; and that, just as He had been a man among humans while in the flesh, He became a Spirit among spirits in that disembodied state. This idea is confirmed by scriptural evidence.
As heretofore shown[1339] Jesus Christ was the chosen and ordained Redeemer and Savior of mankind; to this exalted mission He had been set apart in the beginning, even before the earth was prepared as the abode of mankind. Unnumbered hosts who had never heard the gospel, lived and died upon the earth before the birth of Jesus. Of those departed myriads many had passed their mortal probation with varying degrees of righteous observance of the law of God so far as it had been made known unto them, but had died in unblamable ignorance of the gospel; while other multitudes had lived and died as transgressors even against such moiety of God's law to man as they had learned and such as they had professed to obey. Death had claimed as its own all of[Pg 671] these, both just and unjust. To them went the Christ, bearing the transcendently glorious tidings of redemption from the bondage of death, and of possible salvation from the effects of individual sin. This labor was part of the Savior's foreappointed and unique service to the human family. The shout of divine exultation from the cross, "It is finished," signified the consummation of the Lord's mission in mortality; yet there remained to Him other ministry to be rendered prior to His return to the Father.
As previously shown[1339] Jesus Christ was the chosen and appointed Redeemer and Savior of humanity. He was set apart for this important mission from the very beginning, even before the earth was prepared as a home for people. Countless souls who never heard the gospel lived and died on earth before Jesus was born. Among those departed, many completed their mortal lives with varying levels of righteousness according to God’s law as far as it had been revealed to them, but they died without blame for not knowing the gospel. Meanwhile, many others lived and died as wrongdoers, even against the part of God's law that they had learned and claimed to follow. Death claimed all of these, both righteous and unrighteous. To them came Christ, bringing the incredibly glorious news of freedom from the bondage of death and the possibility of salvation from the consequences of individual sin. This work was a significant part of the Savior's preordained and unique role for humanity. The triumphant cry from the cross, "It is finished," marked the completion of the Lord's mission on earth; however, there were still other ministries He needed to perform before returning to the Father.
To the penitent transgressor crucified by His side, who reverently craved remembrance when the Lord should come into His kingdom,[1340] Christ had given the comforting assurance: "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." The spirit of Jesus and the spirit of the repentant thief left their crucified bodies and went to the same place in the realm of the departed.[1341] On the third day following, Jesus, then a resurrected Being, positively stated to the weeping Magdalene: "I am not yet ascended to my Father." He had gone to paradise but not to the place where God dwells. Paradise, therefore, is not Heaven, if by the latter term we understand the abode of the Eternal Father and His celestialized children.[1342] Paradise is a place where dwell righteous and repentant spirits between bodily death and resurrection. Another division of the spirit world is reserved for those disembodied beings who have lived lives of wickedness and who remain impenitent even after death. Alma, a Nephite prophet, thus spake of the conditions prevailing among the departed:
To the repentant sinner crucified beside Him, who respectfully asked to be remembered when the Lord entered His kingdom,[1340] Christ provided the comforting assurance: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." The spirit of Jesus and the spirit of the repentant thief left their crucified bodies and went to the same place in the afterlife.[1341] On the third day afterward, Jesus, now resurrected, told the weeping Mary Magdalene: "I have not yet ascended to my Father." He had gone to paradise but not to the place where God resides. Therefore, paradise is not Heaven, if we understand Heaven to be the home of the Eternal Father and His exalted children.[1342] Paradise is a place where righteous and repentant spirits exist between physical death and resurrection. Another part of the spirit world is set aside for those disembodied beings who have lived wicked lives and who remain unrepentant even after death. Alma, a Nephite prophet, spoke of the conditions that exist among the departed:
"Now concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection. Behold, it has been made known unto me, by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body; yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God[Pg 672] who gave them life. And then shall it come to pass that the spirits of those who are righteous, are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise; a state of rest; a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow, &c. And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil; for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house; and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and this because of their own iniquity; being led captive by the will of the devil. Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked: yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful, looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection."[1343]
"Now about the state of the soul between death and the resurrection. It has been revealed to me by an angel that as soon as people leave this mortal body, the spirits of all individuals, both good and evil, return to the God who gave them life. Then, the spirits of the righteous are welcomed into a state of happiness known as paradise; a place of rest and peace, where they will be free from all their troubles, care, and sorrow. Conversely, the spirits of the wicked, those who are evil, will not share in the Spirit of the Lord because they chose to do evil rather than good; thus, the spirit of the devil took control of them, and they will be cast into outer darkness, where there will be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth due to their own sins, being held captive by the will of the devil. This is the state of the souls of the wicked: trapped in darkness, in a state of dread, anticipating the fiery anger of God. They remain in this condition just like the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection."
While divested of His body Christ ministered among the departed, both in paradise and in the prison realm where dwelt in a state of durance the spirits of the disobedient. To this effect testified Peter nearly three decades after the great event: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."[1344]
While separated from His body, Christ ministered among the departed, both in paradise and in the prison realm where the spirits of the disobedient were held. Peter testified to this nearly thirty years after the significant event: "For Christ also suffered for sins once, the just for the unjust, so He could bring us to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit, through which He also went and preached to the spirits in prison; who were disobedient at one time, when God was patient during the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water."[1344]
The disobedient who had lived on earth in the Noachian period are especially mentioned as beneficiaries of the Lord's ministry in the spirit world. They had been guilty of gross offenses, and had wantonly rejected the teachings and admonitions of Noah, the earthly minister of Jehovah. For their flagrant sin they had been destroyed in the flesh, and their[Pg 673] spirits had endured in a condition of imprisonment, without hope, from the time of their death to the advent of Christ, who came as a Spirit amongst them. We are not to assume from Peter's illustrative mention of the disobedient antediluvians that they alone were included in the blessed opportunities offered through Christ's ministry in the spirit realm; on the contrary, we conclude in reason and consistency that all whose wickedness in the flesh had brought their spirits into the prison house were sharers in the possibilities of expiation, repentance, and release. Justice demanded that the gospel be preached among the dead as it had been and was to be yet more widely preached among the living. Let us consider the further affirmation of Peter, as part of his pastoral admonition to the members of the Primitive Church: "Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."[1345]
The disobedient who lived on earth during the time of Noah are specifically highlighted as recipients of the Lord's ministry in the spirit world. They had committed serious offenses and deliberately ignored the teachings and warnings of Noah, God’s minister. Because of their blatant sins, they were destroyed physically, and their[Pg 673] spirits remained trapped, without hope, from the moment of their death until the arrival of Christ, who came as a Spirit among them. We shouldn’t assume from Peter’s reference to the disobedient people before the flood that they were the only ones offered the blessed opportunities provided through Christ’s ministry in the spirit realm; rather, we can reasonably conclude that all those whose wickedness in life led their spirits into imprisonment shared in the possibilities of atonement, repentance, and liberation. Justice required that the gospel be preached to the dead just as it had been, and would continue to be, preached to the living. Let us consider Peter's further affirmation, as part of his pastoral message to the members of the early Church: "Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."[1345]
That Jesus knew, while yet in the body, that His mission as the universal Redeemer and Savior of the race would not be complete when He came to die is sufficiently demonstrated by His words to the casuistical Jews, following the Sabbath day healing at Bethesda: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."[1346] The solemn truth, that through[Pg 674] the atonement of Christ salvation would be made possible to the dead as well as to the living, was revealed to the prophets centuries before the meridian of time. Isaiah was permitted to foresee the fate of the ungodly, and the state prepared for haughty and rebellious offenders against righteousness; but the dread vision was in part brightened by the deliverance that had been provided. "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited."[1347] To the same mighty prophet was shown the universality of the Savior's atoning victory, as comprizing the redemption of Jew and Gentile, living and dead; and convincingly he voiced the word of revelation: "Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house."[1348]
That Jesus knew, even while in the body, that His role as the universal Redeemer and Savior of humanity wouldn't be finished when He came to die is clearly shown by His words to the questioning Jews after the healing on the Sabbath at Bethesda: "Truly, I tell you, the time is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. Just as the Father has life in Himself, He has given the Son life in Himself; and He has given Him authority to judge because He is the Son of Man. Do not be surprised at this; for the time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out; those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." The serious truth, that through Christ's atonement, salvation would be available to both the dead and the living, was revealed to the prophets centuries before Christ's coming. Isaiah was allowed to see the fate of the wicked and the consequences awaiting proud and rebellious sinners; yet this terrifying vision was brightened by the hope of deliverance. "And it will come to pass in that day, that the Lord will punish the hosts of the lofty ones in the heights, and the kings of the earth on the earth. They will be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and will be confined in prison, and after many days they will be visited." To this great prophet was revealed the universal nature of the Savior's atoning victory, which includes the redemption of both Jew and Gentile, living and dead; and he confidently proclaimed the word of revelation: "Thus says God the Lord, He who created the heavens and stretched them out; He who spread the earth and what comes out of it; He who gives breath to the people on it, and spirit to those who walk in it: I the Lord have called you in righteousness, will hold your hand, will keep you, and will give you as a covenant to the people, a light to the Gentiles; to open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from the prison, and those who sit in darkness from the prison house."
David, singing the praises of the Redeemer whose dominion should extend even to the souls in hell, shouted in joy at the prospect of deliverance: "Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."[1349]
David, praising the Savior whose reign should reach even the souls in hell, shouted with joy at the hope of being saved: "So my heart is glad, and I rejoice in my glory; my body will also rest in hope. For you won’t leave my soul in hell; nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You will show me the path to life; in your presence is complete joy; at your right hand there are pleasures forevermore."[1349]
From these and other scriptures it is evident that the ministry of Christ among the disembodied was foreseen, predicted, and accomplished. The fact that the gospel was preached to the dead necessarily implies the possibility of the dead accepting the same and availing themselves of the saving opportunities thereof. In the merciful providence of the Almighty, provision has been made for vicarious service by the living for the dead, in the ordinances essential to salvation; so that all who in the spirit-world accept the word of God as preached to them, develop true faith in Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior, and contritely repent of their transgressions, shall be brought under the saving effect of baptism by water for the remission of sins, and be recipients of the baptism of the Spirit or the bestowal of the Holy Ghost.[1350] Paul cites the principle and practise of baptism by the living for the dead as proof of the actuality of the resurrection: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"[1351] Free agency, the divine birthright of every human soul, will not be annulled by death. Only as the spirits of the dead become penitent and faithful will they be benefited by the vicarious service rendered in their behalf on earth.
From these and other scriptures, it's clear that Christ's ministry among the disembodied was anticipated, predicted, and fulfilled. The fact that the gospel was preached to the dead suggests that the dead can accept it and take advantage of the salvation it offers. In the merciful plan of the Almighty, there is a provision for the living to perform vicarious service for the dead through essential ordinances for salvation. This means that anyone in the spirit world who accepts the word of God as preached to them, develops genuine faith in Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior, and sincerely repents of their sins, will be able to receive the saving effects of water baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the baptism of the Spirit, or the gift of the Holy Ghost.[1350] Paul references the principle and practice of baptism by the living for the dead as evidence of the reality of the resurrection: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"[1351] Free will, the divine right of every human being, will not be taken away by death. Only when the spirits of the dead become repentant and faithful will they benefit from the vicarious service performed on their behalf on earth.
Missionary labor among the dead was inaugurated by the Christ; who of us can doubt that it has been continued by His authorized servants, the disembodied, who while in the flesh had been commissioned to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof through ordination in the Holy Priesthood? That the faithful apostles who were left to build up the Church on earth following the departure of its divine Founder, that other ministers of the word of God ordained to the Priesthood by authority in the Primitive as well as in the Latter-day Church, have passed from ministerial[Pg 676] service among mortals to a continuation of such labor among the disembodied, is so abundantly implied in scripture as to be made a certainty. They are called to follow in the footsteps of the Master, ministering here among the living, and beyond among the dead.
Missionary work among the dead started with Christ; who among us can doubt that it has continued with His authorized servants, the disembodied, who while they were alive had been given the mission to preach the gospel and perform the related ordinances through ordination in the Holy Priesthood? That the faithful apostles who remained to build up the Church on earth after the departure of its divine Founder, along with other ministers of God's word ordained to the Priesthood by authority in both the early and the Latter-day Church, have moved from serving among mortals to carrying on that work among the disembodied, is clearly supported by scripture. They are called to follow in the footsteps of the Master, ministering here among the living and continuing their work among the dead.
The victory of Christ over death and sin would be incomplete were its effects confined to the small minority who have heard, accepted, and lived the gospel of salvation in the flesh. Compliance with the laws and ordinances of the gospel is essential to salvation. Nowhere in scripture is a distinction made in this regard between the living and the dead. The dead are those who have lived in mortality upon earth; the living are mortals who yet shall pass through the ordained change which we call death. All are children of the same Father, all to be judged and rewarded or punished by the same unerring justice, with the same interposition of benign mercy. Christ's atoning sacrifice was offered, not alone for the few who lived upon the earth while He was in the flesh, nor for those who were to be born in mortality after His death, but for all inhabitants of earth then past, present, and future. He was ordained of the Father to be a judge of both quick and dead;[1352] He is Lord alike of living and dead,[1353] as men speak of dead and living, though all are to be placed in the same position before Him; there will be but a single class, for all live unto Him.[1354] While His body reposed in the tomb, Christ was actively engaged in the further accomplishment of the Father's purposes, by offering the boon of salvation to the dead, both in paradise and in hell.
The victory of Christ over death and sin would be incomplete if its effects were limited to the small minority who have heard, accepted, and lived the gospel of salvation in the flesh. Following the laws and ordinances of the gospel is essential for salvation. Nowhere in scripture is there a distinction made between the living and the dead in this regard. The dead are those who have lived their lives on earth; the living are mortals who will eventually go through the change known as death. All are children of the same Father, all to be judged and rewarded or punished by the same unerring justice, with the same act of kind mercy. Christ's atoning sacrifice was offered, not just for the few who lived on earth while He was in the flesh, nor just for those who would be born after His death, but for all people of earth—past, present, and future. He was ordained by the Father to be a judge of both the living and the dead; He is Lord of both the living and the dead, as humans refer to the dead and the living, though all will stand in the same position before Him; there will only be one group, for all live unto Him. While His body rested in the tomb, Christ was actively engaged in furthering the Father's purposes by providing the gift of salvation to the dead, both in paradise and in hell.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 36.
1. Paradise.—The scriptures prove that at the time of the final judgment every man will stand before the bar of God, clothed in his resurrected body, and this, irrespective of his condition of righteousness or guilt. While awaiting resurrection,[Pg 677] disembodied spirits exist in an intermediate state, of happiness and rest or of suffering and suspense, according to the course they have elected to follow in mortality. Reference to paradise as the abode of righteous spirits between the time of death and that of the resurrection is made by the prophet Nephi (2 Nephi 9:13), by a later prophet of the same name (4 Nephi 14), by Moroni (Moroni 10:34); as also by Alma whose words are quoted in the text (Alma 40:12, 14). New Testament scripture is of analogous import (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7). The word "paradise" by its derivation through the Greek from the Persian, signifies a pleasant place, or a place of restful enjoyment. (See The Articles of Faith, xxi, note 5). By many the terms "hades" and "sheol" are understood to designate the place of departed spirits, comprizing both paradise and the prison realm; by others the terms are applied only to the latter, the place of the wicked, which is apart from paradise, the abode of the just.
1. Paradise.—The scriptures show that at the time of the final judgment, everyone will stand before God, dressed in their resurrected bodies, regardless of whether they are righteous or guilty. While waiting for resurrection,[Pg 677] disembodied spirits exist in a temporary state of either happiness and rest or suffering and uncertainty, based on the choices they made during their lives. The prophet Nephi refers to paradise as the home for righteous spirits between death and resurrection (2 Nephi 9:13), as do another prophet named Nephi (4 Nephi 14), Moroni (Moroni 10:34), and Alma, whose words are cited in the text (Alma 40:12, 14). New Testament scriptures express similar ideas (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7). The word "paradise," derived from Greek and originally from Persian, means a pleasant place or a place of restful enjoyment. (See The Articles of Faith, xxi, note 5). Many people understand the terms "hades" and "sheol" to refer to the location of departed spirits, which includes both paradise and the realm of the imprisoned; others restrict these terms to the latter, the place for the wicked, which is separate from paradise, the dwelling of the just.
The assumption that the gracious assurance given by Christ to the penitent sinner on the cross was a remission of the man's sins, and a passport into heaven, is wholly contrary to both the letter and spirit of scripture, reason, and justice. Confidence in the efficacy of death-bed professions and confessions on the basis of this incident is of the most insecure foundation. The crucified malefactor manifested both faith and repentance; his promised blessing was that he should that day hear the gospel preached in paradise; in the acceptance or rejection of the word of life he would be an agent unto himself. The requirement of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel as an essential to salvation was not waived, suspended, or superseded in his case.
The idea that the kind assurance Christ gave to the repentant sinner on the cross meant a free pass for his sins and entry into heaven goes against the essence and teachings of scripture, reason, and justice. Relying on the effectiveness of last-minute confessions based on this event is built on a very shaky foundation. The condemned man showed both faith and repentance; the promised blessing was that he would hear the gospel preached in paradise that very day. In accepting or rejecting the message of life, he had agency over his own choice. The requirement to follow the laws and ordinances of the gospel as essential for salvation was not ignored, delayed, or replaced in his situation.
2. The Scripture Relating to Christ Among the Spirits in Prison.—The revised version of 1 Peter 3:18-20 reads: "Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved through water." This is regarded by scholars as a closer approach to accuracy in translation than the common version. Certain important differences between the two versions will appear to the studious reader. The common version of the latter part of verse 18 and the whole of verse 19 reads: "being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." The revised text expresses the true thought that Christ was quickened, that is to say, was active, in His own spirit state, although His body was inert and in reality dead at the time; and that in that disembodied state He went and preached to the disobedient spirits. The later reading fixes the time of our Lord's ministry among the departed as the interval between His death and resurrection.[Pg 678]
2. The Scripture Relating to Christ Among the Spirits in Prison.—The updated version of 1 Peter 3:18-20 says: "Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that he could bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which he also went and preached to the spirits in prison, who were disobedient in the past, when God's patience waited during the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water." Scholars see this as a more accurate translation than the common version. Certain key differences between the two versions will be clear to the attentive reader. The common version of the latter part of verse 18 and all of verse 19 states: "being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." The revised text conveys the idea that Christ was made alive, meaning He was active, in His own spiritual state, even though His body was lifeless and truly dead at that time; and that in that disembodied state He went and preached to the disobedient spirits. The later reading establishes the time of our Lord's ministry among the departed as the period between His death and resurrection.[Pg 678]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1343] B. of M., Alma 40:11-14.
[1347] Isa. 24:21, 22.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Isa. 24:21, 22.
[1348] Isa. 42:5-7.
[1349] Psalm 16:9-11.
[1353] Rom. 14:9.
CHAPTER 37.
THE RESURRECTION AND THE ASCENSION.
CHRIST IS RISEN.
Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, had passed, and the night preceding the dawn of the most memorable Sunday in history was well nigh spent, while the Roman guard kept watch over the sealed sepulchre wherein lay the body of the Lord Jesus. While it was yet dark, the earth began to quake; an angel of the Lord descended in glory, rolled back the massive stone from the portal of the tomb, and sat upon it. His countenance was brilliant as the lightning, and his raiment was as the driven snow for whiteness. The soldiers, paralyzed with fear, fell to the earth as dead men. When they had partially recovered from their fright, they fled from the place in terror. Even the rigor of Roman discipline, which decreed summary death to every soldier who deserted his post, could not deter them. Moreover, there was nothing left for them to guard; the seal of authority had been broken, the sepulchre was open, and empty.[1355]
Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, had passed, and the night before the most significant Sunday in history was almost over, while the Roman guard watched over the sealed tomb where the body of Jesus lay. While it was still dark, the ground started to shake; an angel of the Lord came down in glory, rolled away the huge stone from the entrance of the tomb, and sat on it. His face was as bright as lightning, and his clothes were as white as freshly fallen snow. The soldiers, frozen with fear, fell to the ground as if they were dead. Once they partially regained their composure, they ran away in terror. Even the strict Roman rules, which mandated death for any soldier who abandoned his post, couldn’t stop them. Besides, there was nothing left for them to guard; the seal of authority had been broken, the tomb was open, and empty.[1355]
At the earliest indication of dawn, the devoted Mary Magdalene and other faithful women set out for the tomb, bearing spices and ointments which they had prepared for the further anointing of the body of Jesus. Some of them had been witnesses of the burial, and were conscious of the necessary haste with which the corpse had been wrapped with spicery and laid away by Joseph and Nicodemus, just before the beginning of the Sabbath; and now these adoring women came early to render loving service in a more thorough anointing and external embalmment of the body.[Pg 679] On the way as they sorrowfully conversed, they seemingly for the first time thought of the difficulty of entering the tomb. "Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?" they asked one of another. Evidently they knew nothing of the seal and the guard of soldiery. At the tomb they saw the angel, and were afraid; but he said unto them: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And 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: lo, I have told you."[1356]
At the first light of dawn, the devoted Mary Magdalene and other faithful women headed to the tomb, bringing spices and ointments they had prepared to anoint Jesus' body properly. Some of them had witnessed the burial and were aware of the rushed way Joseph and Nicodemus had wrapped the body with spices and laid it to rest just before the Sabbath began. Now these loving women had come early to offer their heartfelt service with a more thorough anointing and external embalming of the body.[Pg 679] On their way, as they talked sorrowfully, they realized for the first time that they would have trouble getting into the tomb. "Who will roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb?" they asked each other. Clearly, they had no idea about the seal and the guard of soldiers. At the tomb, they saw an angel and were frightened, but he said to them: "Don't be afraid; I know you're looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He isn't here; he has risen, just as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead; and look, he is going ahead of you into Galilee; there you will see him: I have told you."[1356]
The women, though favored by angelic visitation and assurance, left the place amazed and frightened. Mary Magdalene appears to have been the first to carry word to the disciples concerning the empty tomb. She had failed to comprehend the gladsome meaning of the angel's proclamation "He is risen, as he said"; in her agony of love and grief she remembered only the words "He is not here," the truth of which had been so forcefully impressed by her own hasty glance at the open and tenantless tomb. "Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."
The women, even after being visited by angels and reassured, left the place feeling amazed and scared. Mary Magdalene seems to have been the first to tell the disciples about the empty tomb. She couldn't grasp the joyful meaning of the angel's message, "He is risen, as he said"; in her deep love and grief, she could only remember the words "He is not here," a truth that was made all too clear by her quick glance at the open, empty tomb. "Then she ran to Simon Peter and the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, 'They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they've laid him.'"
Peter, and "that other disciple" who, doubtless, was John, set forth in haste, running together toward the sepulchre. John outran his companion, and on reaching the tomb stooped to look in, and so caught a glimpse of the linen cerements lying on the floor; but the bold and impetuous Peter rushed into the sepulchre, and was followed by the younger apostle. The two observed the linen grave-clothes, and lying by itself, the napkin that had been placed about the head of the corpse. John frankly affirms that having seen[Pg 680] these things, he believed, and explains in behalf of himself and his fellow apostles, "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."[1357]
Peter and "that other disciple," who was definitely John, took off quickly, running together to the tomb. John got ahead of Peter and, when he reached the tomb, leaned in to take a look, catching sight of the linen strips lying on the ground. But the bold and impulsive Peter charged into the tomb, followed closely by the younger apostle. They both saw the linen burial cloths and the napkin that had been wrapped around the head of the body, lying separately. John clearly states that after seeing these things, he believed, and explains on behalf of himself and the other apostles, "For they still didn’t understand the scripture that he had to rise from the dead."[Pg 680][1357]
The sorrowful Magdalene had followed the two apostles back to the garden of the burial. No thought of the Lord's restoration to life appears to have found place in her griefstricken heart; she knew only that the body of her beloved Master had disappeared. While Peter and John were within the sepulchre, she had stood without, weeping. After the men had left she stooped and looked into the rock-hewn cavern. There she saw two personages, angels in white; one sat "at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain." In accents of tenderness they asked of her: "Woman, why weepest thou?" In reply she could but voice anew her overwhelming sorrow: "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." The absence of the body, which she thought to be all that was left on earth of Him whom she loved so deeply, was a personal bereavement. There is a volume of pathos and affection in her words, "They have taken away my Lord."
The sorrowful Magdalene had followed the two apostles back to the burial garden. In her grief, she didn’t think about the Lord being brought back to life; all she knew was that the body of her beloved Master was missing. While Peter and John were inside the tomb, she stayed outside, crying. After the men left, she bent down to look into the rock-cut cave. Inside, she saw two figures, angels in white; one was sitting at the head and the other at the feet, where Jesus’ body had been. With gentle voices, they asked her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” In response, she could only express her deep sorrow: “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I don’t know where they have laid him.” The absence of the body, which she believed was all that remained of the one she loved so much, felt like a personal loss. There’s a deep sense of emotion and love in her words, “They have taken away my Lord.”
Turning from the vault, which, though at that moment illumined by angelic presence, was to her void and desolate, she became aware of another Personage, standing near. She heard His sympathizing inquiry: "Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?" Scarcely lifting her tearful countenance to look at the Questioner, but vaguely supposing that He was the caretaker of the garden, and that He might have knowledge of what had been done with the body of her Lord, she exclaimed: "Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." She knew that Jesus had been interred in a borrowed tomb; and if the body had been dispossessed of that resting place, she was prepared to provide another. "Tell me where thou hast laid him," she pleaded.[Pg 681]
Turning away from the tomb, which, although lit by an angelic presence at that moment, felt empty and desolate to her, she noticed another person standing nearby. She heard His sympathetic question: "Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?" Barely raising her tear-streaked face to see the questioner, and thinking he was the gardener, she vaguely supposed he might know what had happened to her Lord's body. She said, "Sir, if you've taken him away, please tell me where you've laid him, and I will take him." She understood that Jesus had been laid to rest in a borrowed tomb, and if His body had been removed from that resting place, she was ready to find another. "Please tell me where you've laid him," she urged.[Pg 681]
It was Jesus to whom she spake, her beloved Lord, though she knew it not. One word from His living lips changed her agonized grief into ecstatic joy. "Jesus saith unto her, Mary." The voice, the tone, the tender accent she had heard and loved in the earlier days lifted her from the despairing depths into which she had sunk. She turned, and saw the Lord. In a transport of joy she reached out her arms to embrace Him, uttering only the endearing and worshipful word, "Rabboni," meaning My beloved Master. Jesus, restrained her impulsive manifestation of reverent love, saying, "Touch me not[1358] for I am not yet ascended to my Father," and adding, "but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."[1359]
It was Jesus she was talking to, her beloved Lord, even though she didn't realize it. One word from His living lips transformed her deep sorrow into overwhelming joy. "Jesus said to her, Mary." The voice, the tone, the gentle accent she had cherished in earlier times brought her up from the depths of despair. She turned and saw the Lord. Overflowing with joy, she reached out to embrace Him, simply saying the loving and worshipful word, "Rabboni," which means My beloved Master. Jesus held back her eager expression of reverent love, saying, "Don't touch me[1358] for I have not yet ascended to my Father," and added, "but go to my brothers and tell them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father; to my God and your God."[1359]
To a woman, to Mary of Magdala, was given the honor of being the first among mortals to behold a resurrected Soul, and that Soul, the Lord Jesus.[1360] To other favored women did the risen Lord next manifest Himself, including Mary the mother of Joses, Joanna, and Salome the mother of the apostles James and John. These and the other women with them had been affrighted by the presence of the angel at the tomb, and had departed with mingled fear and joy. They were not present when Peter and John entered the vault, nor afterward when the Lord made Himself known to Mary Magdalene. They may have returned later, for some of them appear to have entered the sepulchre, and to have seen that the Lord's body was not there. As they stood wondering in perplexity and astonishment, they became aware of the presence of two men in shining garments, and as the women "bowed down their faces to the earth" the angels said unto them: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man[Pg 682] must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words."[1361] As they were returning to the city to deliver the message to the disciples, "Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me."[1362]
To a woman, Mary of Magdala, was given the honor of being the first person to see a resurrected Soul, and that Soul was the Lord Jesus.[1360] The risen Lord then revealed Himself to other favored women, including Mary the mother of Joses, Joanna, and Salome the mother of the apostles James and John. These women had been frightened by the presence of the angel at the tomb and left with a mix of fear and joy. They were not there when Peter and John entered the tomb, nor afterward when the Lord revealed Himself to Mary Magdalene. They might have returned later, as some of them seem to have entered the tomb and saw that the Lord's body was missing. As they stood there filled with confusion and astonishment, they noticed two men in shining clothes, and as the women "bowed down their faces to the earth," the angels said to them: "Why are you looking for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen: remember what He told you when He was still in Galilee, saying, The Son of Man must be handed over to sinful men, be crucified, and on the third day rise again. And they remembered His words."[1361] As they were on their way back to the city to tell the disciples, "Jesus met them, saying, Greetings! And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said to them, Do not be afraid: go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me."[1362]
One may wonder why Jesus had forbidden Mary Magdalene to touch Him, and then, so soon after, had permitted other women to hold Him by the feet as they bowed in reverence. We may assume that Mary's emotional approach had been prompted more by a feeling of personal yet holy affection than by an impulse of devotional worship such as the other women evinced. Though the resurrected Christ manifested the same friendly and intimate regard as He had shown in the mortal state toward those with whom He had been closely associated, He was no longer one of them in the literal sense. There was about Him a divine dignity that forbade close personal familiarity. To Mary Magdalene Christ had said: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." If the second clause was spoken in explanation of the first, we have to infer that no human hand was to be permitted to touch the Lord's resurrected and immortalized body until after He had presented Himself to the Father. It appears reasonable and probable that between Mary's impulsive attempt to touch the Lord, and the action of the other women who held Him by the feet as they bowed in worshipful reverence, Christ did ascend to the Father, and that later He returned to earth to continue His ministry in the resurrected state.
One might wonder why Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to touch Him, yet soon afterwards allowed other women to hold His feet in reverence. We can assume that Mary's emotional reaction was driven more by a personal but holy affection than by the kind of devotional worship shown by the other women. Although the resurrected Christ displayed the same friendly and close bond with those He had been close to during His life, He was no longer one of them in a literal sense. There was a divine dignity about Him that made close personal familiarity inappropriate. To Mary Magdalene, Christ said: "Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to my Father." If the second part was meant to clarify the first, it suggests that no human hand was to touch the Lord's resurrected and immortal body until after He had presented Himself to the Father. It seems reasonable and likely that between Mary's impulsive attempt to touch the Lord and the other women's act of holding His feet in worshipful reverence, Christ did ascend to the Father, and later returned to Earth to continue His ministry in the resurrected state.
Mary Magdalene and the other women told the wonderful story of their several experiences to the disciples, but[Pg 683] the brethren could not credit their words, which "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not."[1363] After all that Christ had taught concerning His rising from the dead on that third day,[1364] the apostles were unable to accept the actuality of the occurrence; to their minds the resurrection was some mysterious and remote event, not a present possibility. There was neither precedent nor analogy for the stories these women told—of a dead person returning to life, with a body of flesh and bones, such as could be seen and felt—except the instances of the young man of Nain, the daughter of Jairus, and the beloved Lazarus of Bethany, between whose cases of restoration to a renewal of mortal life and the reported resurrection of Jesus they recognized essential differences. The grief and the sense of irreparable loss which had characterized the yesterday Sabbath, were replaced by profound perplexity and contending doubts on this first day of the week. But while the apostles hesitated to believe that Christ had actually risen, the women, less skeptical, more trustful, knew, for they had both seen Him and heard His voice, and some of them had touched His feet.
Mary Magdalene and the other women shared their incredible experiences with the disciples, but[Pg 683] the brothers couldn't believe what they were saying, which "sounded like nonsense to them, and they didn't believe it."[1363] Despite everything Christ had taught about His resurrection on the third day,[1364] the apostles struggled to accept that it had actually happened; to them, resurrection felt like a strange and distant concept, not something that could happen right now. There was no precedent or comparison for the stories these women shared—of a dead person coming back to life, with a body made of flesh and bones that could be seen and touched—except for the cases of the young man from Nain, the daughter of Jairus, and the beloved Lazarus of Bethany, where they saw significant differences between those resurrections and Jesus's reported revival. The sorrow and sense of unbearable loss that had filled the previous Sabbath were replaced by deep confusion and conflicting doubts on this first day of the week. But while the apostles were unsure about believing that Christ had truly risen, the women, who were less skeptical and more trusting, knew for certain because they had seen Him, heard His voice, and some had even touched His feet.
A PRIESTLY CONSPIRACY OF FALSEHOOD.[1365]
When the Roman guardsmen had sufficiently recovered from fright to make their precipitate departure from the sepulchre, they went to the chief priests, under whose orders they had been placed by Pilate,[1366] and reported the supernatural occurrences they had witnessed. The chief priests were Sadducees, of which sect or party a distinguishing feature was the denial of the possibility of resurrection from the dead. A session of the Sanhedrin was called, and the disturbing report of the guard was considered. In the spirit[Pg 684] in which these deceiving hierarchs had tried to kill Lazarus for the purpose of quelling popular interest in the miracle of his restoration to life, they now conspired to discredit the truth of Christ's resurrection by bribing the soldiers to lie. These were told to say "His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept"; and for the falsehood they were offered large sums of money. The soldiers accepted the tempting bribe, and did as they were instructed; for this course appeared to them the best way out of a critical situation. If they were found guilty of sleeping at their posts, immediate death would be their doom;[1367] but the Jews encouraged them by the promise: "If this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him and secure you." It must be remembered that the soldiers had been put at the disposal of the chief priests, and presumably therefore were not required to report the details of their doings to the Roman authorities.
When the Roman guards had calmed down enough from their shock to leave the tomb in a hurry, they went to the chief priests, who had been given orders by Pilate,[1366] and reported the supernatural events they had seen. The chief priests were Sadducees, a group known for denying the possibility of resurrection from the dead. A session of the Sanhedrin was called to discuss the alarming report from the guards. In the same way these deceptive leaders had previously tried to kill Lazarus to suppress the public's interest in his miraculous return to life, they now plotted to discredit the truth of Christ's resurrection by bribing the soldiers to lie. They were instructed to say, "His disciples came at night and stole him away while we were sleeping," and they were offered large sums of money for this falsehood. The soldiers accepted the tempting bribe and followed orders; this seemed to them the best way to handle a tricky situation. If they were found guilty of falling asleep on duty, they would face immediate death;[1367] but the Jews reassured them with the promise, "If this gets back to the governor, we will convince him and protect you." It's important to note that the soldiers had been assigned to the chief priests and therefore likely were not expected to report their actions to the Roman authorities.
The recorder adds that until the day of his writing, the falsehood of Christ's body having been stolen from the tomb by the disciples was current among the Jews. The utter untenability of the false report is apparent. If all the soldiers were asleep—a most unlikely occurrence inasmuch as such neglect was a capital offense—how could they possibly know that any one had approached the tomb? And, more particularly, how could they substantiate their statement even if it were true, that the body was stolen and that the disciples were the grave-robbers?[1368] The mendacious fiction was framed by the chief priests and elders of the people. Not all the priestly circle were parties to it however. Some, who perhaps had been among the secret disciples of Jesus before His death, were not afraid to openly ally themselves with the Church, when, through the evidence of the Lord's resurrection, they had become thoroughly converted. We read[Pg 685] that but a few months later "a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith."[1369]
The recorder notes that up until the day he was writing, the belief that Christ's body had been stolen from the tomb by the disciples was still believed among the Jews. The sheer implausibility of this false claim is obvious. If all the soldiers were asleep—a highly unlikely scenario since such neglect could result in execution—how could they possibly know if anyone approached the tomb? And more importantly, how could they prove their claim, even if it were true, that the body was taken and that the disciples were the ones who robbed the grave? This dishonest story was created by the chief priests and the elders of the people. However, not all in the priestly circle were involved in it. Some, who may have been secret followers of Jesus before His death, were unafraid to openly support the Church after they were fully convinced by the evidence of the Lord's resurrection. We read that just a few months later, "a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith."
CHRIST WALKS AND TALKS WITH TWO OF THE DISCIPLES.[1370]
During the afternoon of that same Sunday, two disciples, not of the apostles, left the little band of believers in Jerusalem and set out for Emmaus, a village between seven and eight miles from the city. There could be but one topic of conversation between them, and on this they communed as they walked, citing incidents in the Lord's life, dwelling particularly upon the fact of His death through which their hopes of a Messianic reign had been so sadly blighted, and marveling deeply over the incomprehensible testimony of the women concerning His reappearance as a living Soul. As they went, engrossed in sorrowful and profound discourse, another Wayfarer joined them; it was the Lord Jesus, "but their eyes were holden that they should not know him." In courteous interest, He asked: "What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?" One of the disciples, Cleopas by name, replied with surprize tinged with commiseration for the Stranger's seeming ignorance: "Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?" Intent on drawing from the men a full statement of the matter by which they were so plainly agitated, the unrecognized Christ asked, "What things?" They could not be reticent. "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth" they explained, "which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him." In sorrowful mood they went on to tell how they had trusted that the now crucified Jesus would have proved to be the Messiah sent to redeem Israel; but alas![Pg 686] this was the third day since He had been slain. Then, with brightening countenances, yet still perplexed, they told of certain women of their company who had astonished them that morning by saying that they had visited the sepulchre early and had discovered that the Lord's body was not there, but, "that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive." Moreover, others beside the women had gone to the tomb, and had verified the absence of the body but had not seen the Lord.
On that same Sunday afternoon, two disciples, not part of the apostles, left the small group of believers in Jerusalem and headed to Emmaus, a village about seven to eight miles away from the city. They had only one topic to discuss, and as they walked, they talked about events in the Lord's life, focusing particularly on His death, which had crushed their hopes for a Messianic rule. They were also deeply puzzled by the women's strange report of His miraculous return as a living being. As they walked, consumed by their sorrowful and intense conversation, another traveler joined them; it was the Lord Jesus, but they were unable to recognize Him. With polite curiosity, He asked, "What are you talking about as you walk along? Why are you so sad?" One of the disciples, named Cleopas, replied with surprise mixed with pity for the Stranger’s apparent lack of knowledge: "Are you only a visitor in Jerusalem and haven't heard about the things that have happened there in these days?" Trying to get them to explain fully what had distressed them, the unrecognized Christ asked, "What things?" They couldn’t hold back. "About Jesus of Nazareth," they explained, "who was a powerful prophet in word and deed before God and all the people. And how our chief priests and rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death and crucified Him." In a sorrowful tone, they continued to say how they had hoped that the now-crucified Jesus would be the Messiah meant to redeem Israel; but sadly, this was now the third day since He had been killed. Then, with their faces lighting up yet still confused, they shared how certain women from their group had shocked them that morning by saying that they had gone to the tomb early and found that the Lord's body wasn’t there, but that "they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive." Furthermore, others besides the women had gone to the tomb and confirmed that the body was gone but hadn’t seen the Lord.
Then Jesus, gently chiding His fellow travelers as foolish men and slow of heart in their hesitating acceptance of what the prophets had spoken, asked impressively, "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" Beginning with the inspired predictions of Moses, He expounded to them the scriptures, touching upon all the prophetic utterances concerning the Savior's mission. Having continued with the two men to their destination Jesus "made as though he would have gone further," but they urged Him to tarry with them, for the day was already far spent. He so far acceded to their hospitable entreaty as to enter the house, and, as soon as their simple meal was prepared, to seat Himself with them at the table. As the Guest of honor, He took the loaf, "blessed it and brake, and gave to them." There may have been something in the fervency of the blessing, or in the manner of breaking and distributing the bread, that revived memories of former days; or, possibly, they caught sight of the pierced hands; but, whatever the immediate cause, they looked intently upon their Guest, "and their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight." In a fulness of joyful wonderment they rose from the table, surprized at themselves for not having recognized Him sooner. One said to the other, "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" Straightway they started to retrace their steps and hastened[Pg 687] back to Jerusalem to confirm by their witness what, before, the brethren had been slow to believe.
Then Jesus gently scolded His fellow travelers for being foolish and slow to understand as they hesitated to accept what the prophets had said. He asked, "Shouldn't Christ have suffered these things before entering His glory?" Starting with the predictions of Moses, He explained the scriptures to them, covering all the prophetic messages about the Savior's mission. After continuing with the two men to their destination, Jesus acted as if He would go further, but they urged Him to stay with them since the day was almost over. He agreed to their invitation and entered the house. Once their simple meal was ready, He sat down with them at the table. As the honored Guest, He took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them. There was perhaps something in the intensity of the blessing, or the way He broke and distributed the bread, that brought back memories; or maybe they noticed His pierced hands. Whatever the reason, they looked closely at their Guest, "and their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight." Filled with joyful amazement, they got up from the table, surprised they hadn't recognized Him sooner. One said to the other, "Did our hearts not burn within us while He spoke with us on the road and opened the scriptures to us?" Immediately, they started to retrace their steps and hurried back to Jerusalem to share their testimony about what the brothers had previously been slow to believe.
RISEN LORD APPEARS TO THE DISCIPLES IN JERUSALEM AND EATS IN THEIR PRESENCE.[1371]
When Cleopas and his companion reached Jerusalem that night, they found the apostles and other devoted believers assembled in solemn and worshipful discourse within closed doors. Precautions of secrecy had been taken "for fear of the Jews." Even the apostles had been scattered by the arrest, arraignment, and judicial murder of their Master; but they and the disciples in general rallied anew at the word of His resurrection, as the nucleus of an army soon to sweep the world. The two returning disciples were received with the joyous announcement, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." This is the sole mention made by the Gospel-writers of Christ's personal appearance to Simon Peter on that day. The interview between the Lord and His once recreant but now repentant apostle must have been affecting in the extreme. Peter's remorseful penitence over his denial of Christ in the palace of the high priest was deep and pitiful; he may have doubted that ever again would the Master call him His servant; but hope must have been engendered through the message from the tomb brought by the women, in which the Lord sent greetings to the apostles, whom for the first time He designated as His brethren,[1372] and from this honorable and affectionate characterization Peter had not been excluded; moreover, the angel's commission to the women had given prominence to Peter by particular mention.[1373] To the repentant Peter came the Lord, doubtless with forgiveness and loving assurance. The apostle himself maintains a reverent silence respecting the visitation, but the[Pg 688] fact thereof is attested by Paul as one of the definite proofs of the Lord's resurrection.[1374]
When Cleopas and his companion got to Jerusalem that night, they found the apostles and other devoted followers gathered together in serious and worshipful discussion behind locked doors. They had taken precautions for secrecy "for fear of the Jews." Even the apostles had scattered after their Master was arrested, put on trial, and executed; but they and the other disciples regrouped at the news of His resurrection, forming the core of a movement that would soon spread worldwide. The two returning disciples were welcomed with the joyful news, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon." This is the only mention by the Gospel writers of Christ's personal appearance to Simon Peter that day. The meeting between the Lord and His once-failing but now repentant apostle must have been incredibly moving. Peter's deep remorse for denying Christ in the high priest’s palace was painful to witness; he may have doubted that the Master would ever consider him a servant again. However, hope must have been sparked by the message from the tomb brought by the women, in which the Lord sent his greetings to the apostles, for the first time calling them His brothers,[1372] and Peter was included in this honorable and affectionate designation. Additionally, the angel's message to the women highlighted Peter by specifically mentioning him.[1373] To the repentant Peter, the Lord approached, surely with forgiveness and loving reassurance. The apostle himself remains silent about the encounter, but the[Pg 688] fact of it is confirmed by Paul as one of the clear proofs of the Lord's resurrection.[1374]
Following the jubilant testimony of the assembled believers, Cleopas and his fellow traveler told of the Lord's companionship with them on the Emmaus road, of the things He had taught them, and of the manner in which He had become known unto them in the breaking of bread. As the little company communed together, "Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." They were affrighted, supposing with superstitious dread that a ghost had intruded amongst them. But the Lord comforted them, saying "Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Then He showed them the wounds in His hands and feet and side. "They yet believed not for joy," which is to say, they thought the reality, to which they all were witnesses, too good, too glorious, to be true. To further assure them that He was no shadowy form, no immaterial being of tenuous substance, but a living Personage with bodily organs internal as well as outward, He asked "Have ye here any meat?" They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and other food,[1375] which He took "and did eat before them."
Following the joyful testimony of the gathered believers, Cleopas and his companion shared how the Lord had been with them on the Emmaus road, what He had taught them, and how He became known to them when they broke bread. As the small group shared together, "Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, Peace be with you." They were frightened, thinking that a ghost had appeared among them. But the Lord comforted them, asking, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet; it is I myself. Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." Then He showed them the wounds in His hands, feet, and side. "They still did not believe it because of their joy," which means they thought the reality they were witnessing was too good, too glorious, to be true. To further reassure them that He was not some shadowy figure or an immaterial being, but a living person with both internal and external bodily organs, He asked, "Do you have any food here?" They gave Him a piece of broiled fish and other food,[1375] which He took "and ate in front of them."
These unquestionable evidences of their Visitant's corporeity calmed and made rational the minds of the disciples; and now that they were composed and receptive the Lord reminded them that all things that had happened to Him were in accordance with what He had told them while He had lived amongst them. In His divine presence their understanding was quickened and enlarged so that they comprehended as never before the scriptures—the Law of[Pg 689] Moses, the books of the prophets and the psalms—concerning Him. That His now accomplished death was a necessity, He attested as fully as He had predicted and affirmed the same aforetime. Then He said unto them: "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things." Then were the disciples glad. As He was about to depart the Lord gave them His blessing, saying "Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." This specification of men sent by authority points directly to the apostles; "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained,"[1376]
These undeniable signs of their Visitor's physical presence reassured and rationalized the minds of the disciples. Now that they were calm and open to understanding, the Lord reminded them that everything that had happened to Him was in line with what He had told them while He was with them. In His divine presence, their understanding was awakened and expanded, allowing them to grasp the scriptures—the Law of[Pg 689]Moses, the writings of the prophets, and the psalms—like never before in relation to Him. He affirmed that His completed death was necessary, just as He had predicted before. Then He said to them: "This is what is written, and this is why Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day: and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all nations, starting in Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things." The disciples were filled with joy. As He was about to leave, the Lord blessed them, saying, "Peace be with you: just as my Father has sent me, so I am sending you." This command underscores the authority given specifically to the apostles; "And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"[1376]
DOUBTING THOMAS.[1377]
When the Lord Jesus appeared in the midst of the disciples on the evening of the Resurrection Sunday, one of the apostles, Thomas, was absent. He was informed of what the others had witnessed, but was unconvinced; even their solemn testimony, "We have seen the Lord," failed to awaken an echo of faith in his heart. In his state of mental skepticism he exclaimed: "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." Caution and charity must attend our judgment in any conclusion as to the incredulous attitude of this man. He could scarcely have doubted the well attested circumstance of the empty sepulchre, nor the veracity of Mary Magdalene and the other women as to the presence of angels and the Lord's appearing, nor Peter's testimony nor that of the assembled[Pg 690] company; but he may have regarded the reported manifestations as a series of subjective visions; and the absence of the Lord's body may have been vaguely considered as a result of Christ's supernatural restoration to life followed by a bodily and final departure from earth. It was the corporeal manifestation of the risen Lord, the exhibition of the wounds incident to crucifixion, the invitation to touch and feel the resurrected body of flesh and bones, to which Thomas demurred. He had no such definite conception of the resurrection as would accord with a literal acceptance of the testimony of his brethren and sisters who had seen, heard, and felt.
When Jesus appeared to the disciples on the evening of Resurrection Sunday, one of the apostles, Thomas, was not there. He heard what the others had seen, but he wasn’t convinced; even their serious declaration, "We have seen the Lord," didn’t spark any belief in him. In his skeptical mindset, he exclaimed, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands, put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." We should approach our judgment about his disbelief with caution and kindness. It’s unlikely he doubted the well-known fact of the empty tomb, nor the honesty of Mary Magdalene and the other women about the angels’ presence and the Lord’s appearance, nor Peter’s testimony, or that of the other assembled people; he may have thought the reported visions were just subjective experiences. He might have considered the absence of Jesus' body as a result of Christ’s miraculous return to life, followed by a final departure from Earth. It was the physical presence of the risen Jesus, showing the wounds from the crucifixion and the invitation to touch his living body, that Thomas struggled with. He didn’t have a clear understanding of the resurrection that aligned with a straightforward acceptance of what his fellow believers had seen, heard, and felt.
A week later, for so the Jewish designation, "after eight days," is to be understood, therefore on the next Sunday, which day of the week afterward came to be known to the Church as the "Lord's Day" and to be observed as the Sabbath in place of Saturday, the Mosaic Sabbath,[1378] the disciples were again assembled, and Thomas was with them. The meeting was held within closed and, presumably, guarded doors, for there was danger of interference by the Jewish officers. "Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."
A week later, meaning "after eight days" in Jewish terms, which refers to the next Sunday—the day that later became known to the Church as the "Lord's Day" and was observed as the Sabbath instead of Saturday, the traditional Mosaic Sabbath,[1378] the disciples gathered again, and Thomas was with them. They met behind closed and likely guarded doors because there was a risk of being interrupted by Jewish authorities. "Then Jesus came, even though the doors were locked, and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you.' Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here and see my hands; reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.'"
The skeptical mind of Thomas was instantly cleansed, his doubting heart was purified; and a conviction of the glorious truth flooded his soul. In contrite reverence he bowed before his Savior, the while exclaiming in worshipful acknowledgment of Christ's Deity: "My Lord and my God." His adoration was accepted, and the Savior said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."[Pg 691]
The skeptical mind of Thomas was instantly cleared, his doubting heart was purified; and a conviction of the glorious truth filled his soul. In humble reverence, he bowed before his Savior, exclaiming in worshipful acknowledgment of Christ's divinity: "My Lord and my God." His adoration was accepted, and the Savior said: "Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."[Pg 691]
AT THE SEA OF GALILEE.[1379]
The angel at the sepulchre and the risen Christ Himself had severally sent word to the apostles to go into Galilee, where the Lord would meet them as He had said before His death.[1380] They deferred their departure until after the week following the resurrection, and then once again in their native province, they awaited further developments. In the afternoon of one of those days of waiting, Peter said to six of his fellow apostles, "I go a fishing"; and the others replied, "We also go with thee." Without delay they embarked on a fishing boat; and though they toiled through the night, the net had been drawn in empty after every cast. As morning approached they drew near the land, disappointed and disheartened. In the early dawn they were hailed from the shore by One who asked: "Children, have ye any meat?"[1381] They answered "No." It was Jesus who made the inquiry, though none in the boat recognized Him. He called to them again, saying: "Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes." They did as directed and the result was so surprizing as to appear to them miraculous; it must have aroused memories of that other remarkable draught of fishes, in the taking of which their fishermen's skill had been superseded; and at least three witnesses of the earlier miracle were now in the boat.[1382]
The angel at the tomb and the risen Christ Himself had separately sent word to the apostles to go to Galilee, where the Lord would meet them just as He had said before His death.[1380] They waited to leave until after the week following the resurrection, and then, back in their home region, they looked for what would happen next. One afternoon during this waiting period, Peter said to six of his fellow apostles, "I'm going fishing," and the others replied, "We'll go with you." Without hesitation, they got into a fishing boat; and although they worked hard through the night, they pulled in empty nets every time they cast them. As morning drew near, they approached the shore, feeling disappointed and discouraged. In the early dawn, someone from the shore called out to them, asking, "Friends, have you caught anything?"[1381] They answered, "No." It was Jesus who asked, but none of them recognized Him. He called out to them again, saying, "Throw the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some." So they did, and now they couldn't haul it in because of the huge number of fish. They followed His instructions, and the outcome was so surprising that it felt miraculous to them; it surely reminded them of that other incredible catch of fish, when their fishing skills were overshadowed; and at least three witnesses of the earlier miracle were now in the boat.[1382]
John, quick to discern, said to Peter, "It is the Lord"; and Peter, impulsive as ever, hastily girt his fisher's coat about him and sprang into the sea, the sooner to reach land and prostrate himself at his Master's feet. The others left[Pg 692] the vessel and entered a small boat in which they rowed to shore, towing the heavily laden net. On the land they saw a fire of coals, with fish broiling thereon, and alongside a supply of bread. Jesus told them to bring of the fish they had just caught, to which instruction the stalwart Peter responded by dashing into the shallows and dragging the net to shore. When counted, the haul was found to consist of a hundred and fifty-three great fishes; and the narrator is careful to note that "for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken."
John, quick to understand, said to Peter, "It’s the Lord"; and Peter, ever impulsive, quickly put on his fishing coat and jumped into the sea, eager to reach land and fall at his Master’s feet. The others left the boat and climbed into a small boat, rowing to shore while towing the heavy net. Once on land, they saw a fire with glowing coals and fish cooking on it, along with some bread. Jesus told them to bring the fish they had just caught, to which the strong Peter responded by rushing into the shallow water and pulling the net to shore. When they counted the catch, it turned out to be one hundred and fifty-three large fish; and the narrator makes sure to mention that "despite the large number, the net was not torn."
Then Jesus said "Come and dine"; and as the Host at the meal, He divided and distributed the bread and fish. We are not told that He ate with His guests. Everyone knew that it was the Lord who so hospitably served; yet on this, as on all other occasions of His appearing in the resurrected state, there was about Him an awe-inspiring and restraining demeanor. They would have liked to question Him, but durst not. John tells us that this was the "third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead"; by which we understand the occasion to have been the third on which Christ had manifested Himself to the apostles, in complete or partial assembly; for, including also the appearing to Mary Magdalene, to the other women, to Peter, and to the two disciples on the country road, this was the seventh recorded appearance of the risen Lord.
Then Jesus said, "Come and eat"; and as the host of the meal, He broke and handed out the bread and fish. We're not told that He ate with His guests. Everyone knew it was the Lord who served them so generously; yet, in this moment, as in all other times He appeared after His resurrection, there was an awe-inspiring and commanding presence about Him. They wanted to ask Him questions but didn’t dare. John mentions that this was the "third time that Jesus showed Himself to his disciples after He had risen from the dead"; so we understand this to be the third occasion when Christ revealed Himself to the apostles, whether fully present or partially. Including His appearances to Mary Magdalene, the other women, Peter, and the two disciples on the road, this was the seventh recorded appearance of the risen Lord.
When the meal was finished, "Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" The question, however tenderly put, must have wrung Peter's heart, coupled as it was with the reminder of his bold but undependable protestation, "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended",[1383] followed by his denial that he had ever known the Man.[1384] To the Lord's inquiry Peter answered humbly, "Yea, Lord;[Pg 693] thou knowest that I love thee." Then said Jesus, "Feed my lambs." The question was repeated; and Peter replied in identical words, to which the Lord responded, "Feed my sheep." And yet the third time Jesus asked, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Peter was pained and grieved at this reiteration, thinking perhaps that the Lord mistrusted him; but as the man had three times denied, so now was he given opportunity for a triple confession. To the thrice repeated question, Peter answered: "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him. Feed my sheep."
When the meal was over, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonas, do you love me more than these?" The question, no matter how kindly asked, must have hurt Peter deeply, especially since it reminded him of his bold yet unreliable claim, "Even if everyone else falls away because of you, I will never fall away," followed by his denial that he even knew the Man. To the Lord’s question, Peter replied humbly, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Then Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." The question was asked again, and Peter gave the same answer, to which the Lord replied, "Feed my sheep." Then Jesus asked a third time, "Simon, son of Jonas, do you love me?" Peter was hurt and upset by this repetition, perhaps thinking that the Lord didn’t trust him; but just as he had denied Him three times, he was now given the chance for a threefold confession. To the repeated question, Peter replied, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."
The commission "Feed my sheep" was an assurance of the Lord's confidence, and of the reality of Peter's presidency among the apostles. He had emphatically announced his readiness to follow his Master even to prison and death. Now, the Lord who had died said unto him: "Verily, verily; I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldst: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldst not." John informs us that the Lord so spake signifying the death by which Peter should find a place among the martyrs; the analogy points to crucifixion, and traditional history is without contradiction as to this being the death by which Peter sealed his testimony of the Christ.
The commission "Feed my sheep" was a sign of the Lord's trust and confirmed Peter's leadership among the apostles. He had boldly stated he was ready to follow his Master even to prison and death. Now, the Lord who had died said to him: "Truly, truly; I say to you, When you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and carry you where you don’t want to go." John tells us that the Lord spoke this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would become a martyr; the comparison refers to crucifixion, and traditional history consistently shows that this was the death by which Peter affirmed his testimony of Christ.
Then said the Lord to Peter, "Follow me." The command had both immediate and future significance. The man followed as Jesus drew apart from the others on the shore; yet a few years and Peter would follow his Lord to the cross. Without doubt Peter comprehended the reference to his martyrdom, as his writings, years later, indicate.[1385] As Christ and Peter walked together, the latter, looking backward, saw that John was following, and inquired: "Lord, and what shall this man do?" Peter wished to peer into the[Pg 694] future as to his companion's fate—was John also to die for the faith? The Lord replied: "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." It was an admonition to Peter to look to his own course of duty, and to follow the Master, wherever the road should lead.
Then the Lord said to Peter, "Follow me." This command had both immediate and future importance. Peter followed as Jesus separated himself from the others on the shore; yet in a few years, Peter would follow his Lord to the cross. Without a doubt, Peter understood the reference to his martyrdom, as his writings years later show.[1385] As Christ and Peter walked together, Peter looked back and saw that John was following and asked, "Lord, what will happen to this man?" Peter wanted to know about his companion’s future—was John also going to die for the faith? The Lord replied, "If I want him to stay until I come, what does that matter to you? You follow me." It was a reminder for Peter to focus on his own path and to follow the Master, no matter where it might lead.
Concerning himself, John adds: "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" That John still lives in the embodied state, and shall remain in the flesh until the Lord's yet future advent, is attested by later revelation.[1386] In company with his martyred and resurrected companions, Peter and James, the "disciple whom Jesus loved" has officiated in the restoration of the Holy Apostleship in this the dispensation of the fulness of times.
Concerning himself, John adds: "Then this saying spread among the brothers that this disciple wouldn't die: yet Jesus didn't say to him, 'He won’t die'; but, 'If I want him to stay until I come, what does that matter to you?'" That John is still alive in the flesh and will remain in his body until the Lord's future return is confirmed by later revelation.[1386] Along with his martyred and resurrected companions, Peter and James, the "disciple whom Jesus loved" has played a role in restoring the Holy Apostleship in this final dispensation.
OTHER MANIFESTATIONS OF THE RISEN LORD IN GALILEE.[1387]
Jesus had designated a mountain in Galilee whereon He would meet the apostles; and thither the Eleven went. When they saw Him at the appointed place, they worshiped Him. The record adds "but some doubted," by which may be implied that others beside the apostles were present, among whom were some who were unconvinced of the actual corporeity of the resurrected Christ. This occasion may have been that of which Paul wrote a quarter of a century later, concerning which he affirms that Christ "was seen of above five hundred brethren at once," of whom, though some had died, the majority remained at the time of Paul's writing, living witnesses to his testimony.[1388]
Jesus had chosen a mountain in Galilee to meet the apostles, and the Eleven went there. When they saw Him at the meeting spot, they worshiped Him. The record also says, "but some doubted," suggesting that others besides the apostles were there, some of whom were unsure about the physical reality of the resurrected Christ. This might have been the event Paul referred to about twenty-five years later, where he stated that Christ "was seen by more than five hundred people at once," most of whom were still alive when Paul wrote this, serving as living witnesses to his claim.[1388]
To those assembled on the mount Jesus declared: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." This could be understood as nothing less than an affirmation of His absolute[Pg 695] Godship. His authority was supreme, and those who were commissioned of Him were to minister in His name, and by a power such as no man could give or take away.
To the people gathered on the mountain, Jesus announced: "All power has been given to me in heaven and on earth." This can be understood as nothing less than a confirmation of His complete[Pg 695] divinity. His authority was unmatched, and those who were sent by Him were to serve in His name, with a power that no one could grant or take away.
FINAL COMMISSION AND THE ASCENSION.
Throughout the forty days following His resurrection, the Lord manifested Himself at intervals to the apostles, to some individually and to all as a body,[1389] and instructed them in "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God."[1390] The record is not always specific and definite as to time and place of particular events; but as to the purport of the Lord's instructions during this period there exists no cause for doubt. Much that He said and did is not written,[1391] but such things as are of record, John assures his readers, "are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."[1392]
Throughout the forty days after His resurrection, the Lord appeared at different times to the apostles, sometimes to individuals and other times to the group as a whole,[1389] and taught them about "the things related to the kingdom of God."[1390] The details regarding the timing and location of specific events aren’t always clear; however, there’s no doubt about the content of the Lord's teachings during this time. Much of what He said and did isn’t documented,[1391] but for what is recorded, John assures his readers, "are written, so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name."[1392]
As the time of His ascension drew nigh, the Lord said unto the eleven apostles: "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. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."[1393] In contrast with their earlier commission, under which they were sent only "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,"[1394] they were now to go to Jew and Gentile, bond and free, to mankind at large, of whatever nation, country, or tongue. Salvation, through[Pg 696] faith in Jesus the Christ, followed by repentance and baptism, was to be freely offered to all; the rejection of the offer thenceforth would bring condemnation. Signs and miracles were promised to "follow them that believe," thus confirming their faith in the power divine; but no intimation was given that such manifestations were to precede belief, as baits to catch the credulous wonder-seeker.
As the time for His ascension approached, the Lord said to the eleven apostles: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe; in my name, they will cast out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will handle snakes; and if they drink anything poisonous, it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well." [1393] Unlike their previous mission, where they were sent only "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,"[1394] they were now to reach out to both Jews and Gentiles, enslaved and free, to all of humanity, no matter their nation, country, or language. Salvation, through faith in Jesus Christ, followed by repentance and baptism, was to be freely offered to everyone; rejecting this offer would lead to condemnation. Signs and miracles were promised to "follow those who believe," thereby confirming their faith in divine power; however, there was no indication that such displays were to precede belief as a way to entice those who are easily swayed by spectacle.
Assuring the apostles anew that the promise of the Father would be realized in the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Lord instructed them to remain in Jerusalem, whither they had now returned from Galilee, until they would be "endued with power from on high";[1395] and He added: "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."[1396]
Assuring the apostles once again that the Father's promise would be fulfilled with the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Lord told them to stay in Jerusalem, where they had just returned from Galilee, until they would be "endued with power from on high";[1395] and He added: "For John truly baptized with water; but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit in just a few days."[1396]
In that last solemn interview, probably as the risen Savior led the mortal Eleven away from the city toward the old familiar resort on the Mount of Olives, the brethren, still imbued with their conception of the kingdom of God as an earthly establishment of power and dominion, asked of Him, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Jesus answered, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."[1397] Their duty was thus defined and emphasized: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."[1398]
In that final serious meeting, as the risen Savior guided the Eleven away from the city toward the familiar spot on the Mount of Olives, the brothers, still caught up in their idea of the kingdom of God as a worldly establishment of power, asked Him, "Lord, are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel now?" Jesus replied, "It's not for you to know the times or the seasons that the Father has set by His own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."[1397] He clearly defined and emphasized their responsibility: "Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the age. Amen."[1398]
When Christ and the disciples had gone "as far as to Bethany," the Lord lifted up His hands, and blessed them; and while yet He spake, He rose from their midst, and they looked upon Him as He ascended until a cloud received Him out of their sight. While the apostles stood gazing steadfastly upward, two personages, clothed in white apparel, appeared by them; these spake unto the Eleven, saying: "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."[1399]
When Christ and the disciples reached "Bethany," the Lord raised His hands and blessed them. While He was still speaking, He rose up from their midst, and they watched Him ascend until a cloud took Him out of their sight. As the apostles stood there, staring up into the sky, two figures dressed in white appeared beside them. They said to the Eleven, "Men of Galilee, why are you standing here looking up at the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken up into heaven, will return in the same way you saw Him go into heaven."[1399]
Worshipfully and with great joy the apostles returned to Jerusalem, there to await the coming of the Comforter. The Lord's ascension was accomplished; it was as truly a literal departure of a material Being as His resurrection had been an actual return of His spirit to His own corporeal body, theretofore dead. With the world abode and yet abides the glorious promise, that Jesus the Christ, the same Being who ascended from Olivet in His immortalized body of flesh and bones, shall return, descending from the heavens, in similarly material form and substance.
Worshipfully and with great joy, the apostles returned to Jerusalem to wait for the coming of the Comforter. The Lord's ascension was complete; it was indeed a physical departure of a material Being, just as His resurrection had been a real return of His spirit to His own physical body, which had previously been dead. The world continues to hold the glorious promise that Jesus the Christ, the same Being who ascended from Olivet in His immortal body of flesh and bones, will return, coming down from the heavens in a similarly physical form and substance.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 37.
1. Precise Time and Manner of Christ's Emergence from the Tomb Not Known.—Our Lord definitely predicted His resurrection from the dead on the third day, (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 13:32; 18:33), and the angels at the tomb (Luke 24:7), and the risen Lord in Person (Luke 24:46) verified the fulfilment of the prophecies; and apostles so testified in later years (Acts 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:4). This specification of the third day must not be understood as meaning after three full days. The Jews began their counting of the daily hours with sunset; therefore the hour before sunset and the hour following belonged to different days. Jesus died and was interred during Friday afternoon. His body lay in the tomb, dead, during part of Friday (first day), throughout Saturday, or as we divide the days, from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, (second day), and part of Sunday (third day). We know not at what hour between Saturday sunset and Sunday dawn He rose.[Pg 698]
1. Exact Time and Way of Christ's Resurrection from the Tomb Unknown.—Our Lord clearly predicted His resurrection from the dead on the third day (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 13:32; 18:33), and the angels at the tomb (Luke 24:7) and the risen Lord Himself (Luke 24:46) confirmed that the prophecies were fulfilled; the apostles also testified to this in later years (Acts 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:4). This mention of the third day shouldn’t be interpreted to mean after three complete days. The Jews began counting daily hours at sunset; therefore, the hour just before sunset and the hour right after belong to different days. Jesus died and was buried on Friday afternoon. His body remained in the tomb, dead, for part of Friday (first day), all of Saturday, or as we break down the days, from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday (second day), and part of Sunday (third day). We do not know the exact hour between Saturday sunset and Sunday dawn when He rose.[Pg 698]
The fact that an earthquake occurred, and that the angel of the Lord descended and rolled the stone from the portal of the tomb in the early dawn of Sunday—for so we infer from Matt. 28:1, 2—does not prove that Christ had not already risen. The great stone was rolled back and the inside of the sepulchre exposed to view, so that those who came could see for themselves that the Lord's body was no longer there; it was not necessary to open the portal in order to afford an exit to the resurrected Christ. In His immortalized state He appeared in and disappeared from closed rooms. A resurrected body, though of tangible substance, and possessing all the organs of the mortal tabernacle, is not bound to earth by gravitation, nor can it be hindered in its movements by material barriers. To us who conceive of motion only in the directions incident to the three dimensions of space, the passing of a solid, such as a living body of flesh and bones, through stone walls, is necessarily incomprehensible. But that resurrected beings move in accordance with laws making such passage possible and to them natural, is evidenced not only by the instance of the risen Christ, but by the movements of other resurrected personages. Thus, in September, 1823, Moroni, the Nephite prophet who had died about 400 A.D., appeared to Joseph Smith in his chamber, three times during one night, coming and going without hindrance incident to walls or roof, (see P. of G.P., Joseph Smith 2:43; also The Articles of Faith, i:15-17). That Moroni was a resurrected man is shown by his corporeity manifested in his handling of the metallic plates on which was inscribed the record known to us as the Book of Mormon. So also resurrected beings possess the power of rendering themselves visible or invisible to the physical vision of mortals.
The fact that an earthquake happened and that the angel of the Lord came down to roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb early on Sunday—this is what we gather from Matt. 28:1, 2—doesn't prove that Christ hadn't already risen. The large stone was moved aside, allowing those who came to see for themselves that the Lord's body was no longer there; it wasn't necessary to open the entrance for the resurrected Christ to leave. In His glorified state, He could appear and disappear from locked rooms. A resurrected body, while still having substance and all the organs of a mortal body, isn't limited by gravity or blocked by physical barriers. To us, who only understand movement in the three dimensions of space, the idea of a solid body, like one made of flesh and bones, passing through stone walls is difficult to grasp. However, the fact that resurrected beings move by laws that make such actions possible and natural to them is demonstrated not only by the example of the risen Christ but also by other resurrected individuals. For instance, in September 1823, Moroni, the Nephite prophet who died around 400 A.D., appeared to Joseph Smith in his room three times in one night, coming and going without any obstacles from walls or ceilings (see P. of G.P., Joseph Smith 2:43; also The Articles of Faith, i:15-17). The fact that Moroni was a resurrected being is evident from his physical presence when he handled the metallic plates that contained what we know as the Book of Mormon. Similarly, resurrected beings have the ability to make themselves visible or invisible to the physical sight of mortals.
2. Attempts to Discredit the Resurrection Through Falsehood.—The inconsistent assertion that Christ had not risen but that His body had been stolen from the tomb by the disciples, has been sufficiently treated in the text. The falsehood is its own refutation. Unbelievers of later date, recognizing the palpable absurdity of this gross attempt at misrepresentation, have not hesitated to suggest other hypotheses, each of which is conclusively untenable. Thus, the theory based upon the impossible assumption that Christ was not dead when taken from the cross, but was in a state of coma or swoon, and that He was afterward resuscitated, disproves itself when considered in connection with recorded facts. The spear-thrust of the Roman soldier would have been fatal, even if death had not already occurred. The body was taken down, handled, wrapped and buried by members of the Jewish council, who cannot be thought of as actors in the burial of a living man; and so far as subsequent resuscitation is concerned, Edersheim (vol. 2, p. 626) trenchantly remarks: "Not to speak of the many absurdities which this theory involves, it really shifts—if we acquit the disciples of complicity—the fraud upon Christ Himself." A crucified person, removed from the cross before death and subsequently revived, could not have walked with pierced and mangled[Pg 699] feet on the very day of his resuscitation, as Jesus did on the road to Emmaus. Another theory that has had its day is that of unconscious deception on the part of those who claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ, such persons having been victims of subjective but unreal visions conjured up by their own excited and imaginative condition. The independence and marked individuality of the several recorded appearings of the Lord disprove the vision theory. Such subjective visual illusions as are predicated by this hypothesis, presuppose a state of expectancy on the part of those who think they see; but all the incidents connected with the manifestations of Jesus after His resurrection were directly opposed to the expectations of those who were made witnesses of His resurrected state.
2. Attempts to Discredit the Resurrection Through Falsehood.—The inconsistent claim that Christ didn’t rise but that His body was stolen from the tomb by the disciples has been addressed in the text. The falsehood is self-refuting. Later skeptics, seeing the obvious absurdity of this blatant distortion, have even proposed other theories, each of which is clearly untenable. For example, the theory that Christ was not dead when taken from the cross but was simply in a coma or fainted, and that He was later revived, falls apart when viewed alongside documented facts. The Roman soldier’s spear thrust would have been fatal, even if death hadn’t already happened. The body was taken down, handled, wrapped, and buried by members of the Jewish council—people who wouldn’t be involved in burying a living man; and as for any subsequent revival, Edersheim (vol. 2, p. 626) sharply observes: "Apart from the numerous absurdities this theory presents, it essentially shifts the deception onto Christ Himself, if we absolve the disciples of complicity." A crucified person taken down from the cross before dying and later revived could not have walked with pierced and mangled[Pg 699] feet on the very day of revival, as Jesus did on the road to Emmaus. Another theory that has lost traction is that of unconscious deception by those who claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ, suggesting they were victims of subjective but unreal visions stirred up by their own heightened emotional state. The independence and distinctiveness of the various recorded appearances of the Lord disprove the vision theory. Such subjective visual illusions, as suggested by this hypothesis, rely on a state of expectation from those who believe they see; however, all the events surrounding Jesus' appearances after His resurrection went directly against the expectations of those who witnessed His risen state.
The foregoing instances of false and untenable theories regarding the resurrection of our Lord are cited as examples of the numerous abortive attempts to explain away the greatest miracle and the most glorious fact of history. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is attested by evidence more conclusive than that upon which rests our acceptance of historical events in general. Yet the testimony of our Lord's rising from the dead is not founded on written pages. To him who seeks in faith and sincerity shall be given an individual conviction which shall enable him to reverently confess as exclaimed the enlightened apostle of old: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus, who is God the Son, is not dead. "I know that my Redeemer liveth." (Job 19:25.)
The examples given of false and flawed theories about the resurrection of our Lord are meant to show the many unsuccessful attempts to dismiss the greatest miracle and the most glorious fact of history. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is supported by more solid evidence than what we rely on for other historical events. However, the testimony of our Lord’s rising from the dead isn’t just based on written documents. Those who seek with faith and sincerity will receive a personal conviction that will allow them to respectfully declare, as the enlightened apostle once did: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus, who is God the Son, is alive. "I know that my Redeemer lives." (Job 19:25.)
1. To Mary Magdalene, near the sepulchre (Mark 16:9, 10; John 20:14).
1. To Mary Magdalene, close to the tomb (Mark 16:9, 10; John 20:14).
2. To other women, somewhere between the sepulchre and Jerusalem (Matt. 28:9).
2. To other women, somewhere between the tomb and Jerusalem (Matt. 28:9).
3. To two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13).
3. To two followers on the way to Emmaus (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13).
4. To Peter, in or near Jerusalem (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5).
4. To Peter, in or around Jerusalem (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5).
5. To ten of the apostles and others at Jerusalem (Luke 24:36; John 20:19).
5. To ten of the apostles and others in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36; John 20:19).
6. To the eleven apostles at Jerusalem (Mark 16:14; John 20:26).
6. To the eleven apostles in Jerusalem (Mark 16:14; John 20:26).
7. To the apostles at the Sea of Tiberias, Galilee, (John 21).
7. To the apostles at the Sea of Tiberias, Galilee, (John 21).
8. To the eleven apostles on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16).
8. To the eleven apostles on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16).
9. To five hundred brethren at once (1 Cor. 15:6); locality not specified, but probably in Galilee.
9. To five hundred brothers at once (1 Cor. 15:6); location not specified, but likely in Galilee.
10. To James (1 Cor. 15:7). Note that no record of this manifestation is made by the Gospel-writers.
10. To James (1 Cor. 15:7). Note that the Gospel writers do not record this appearance.
11. To the eleven apostles at the time of the ascension, Mount of Olives, near Bethany (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50, 51).
11. To the eleven apostles during the ascension, Mount of Olives, near Bethany (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50, 51).
The Lord's manifestations of Himself to men subsequent to the ascension will be considered later.[Pg 700]
The Lord's appearances to people after the ascension will be discussed later.[Pg 700]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1357] John 20:1-10.
[1359] John 20:11-17.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 20:11-17.
[1360] Mark 16:9.
[1361] Luke 24:3-8.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luke 24:3-8.
[1362] Matt. 28:9, 10.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 28:9, 10.
[1363] Luke 24:9-11; compare Mark 16:9-13.
[1365] Matt. 28:11-15.
[1367] Compare Acts 12:19.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Compare Acts 12:19.
[1371] Luke 24:33-48; John 20:19-23.
[1372] Matt. 28:10; John 20:17.
[1373] Mark 16:7.
[1374] 1 Cor. 15:5.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Cor. 15:5.
[1375] The words "and of an honeycomb" (Luke 24:42) are omitted from the revised version, and by many authorities are declared to be a spurious addition to the original text.
[1375] The phrase "and of a honeycomb" (Luke 24:42) is left out of the updated version, and many experts say it's a false addition to the original text.
[1376] John 20:21-23.
[1377] John 20:24-29; compare Mark 16:14.
[1379] John 21:1-23.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ John 21:1-23.
[1381] The noun of address, "Children" is equivalent to our modern use of "Sirs," "Men" or "Lads." It was quite in harmony with the vernacular.
[1381] The term "Children" used as a form of address is similar to how we would say "Sirs," "Gentlemen," or "Guys" today. It was perfectly aligned with the everyday language of the time.
[1385] Peter 1:14.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Peter 1:14.
[1387] Matt. 28:16-18.
[1388] 1 Cor. 15:6.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Cor. 15:6.
[1390] Acts 1:3.
[1392] John 20:31.
[1393] Mark 16:15-18.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Mark 16:15-18.
[1394] Matt. 10:5, 6.
[1398] Matt. 28:19, 20.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 28:19, 20.
CHAPTER 38.
THE APOSTOLIC MINISTRY.
MATTHIAS ORDAINED TO THE APOSTLESHIP.[1400]
After witnessing the Lord's ascension from Olivet, the eleven apostles returned to Jerusalem filled with joy and thoroughly suffused with the spirit of adoring worship. Both in the temple and in a certain upper room, which was their usual place of meeting, they continued in prayer and supplication, often in association with other disciples, including Mary the mother of the Lord, some of her sons, and the little sisterhood of faithful women who had ministered to Jesus in Galilee and had followed Him thence to Jerusalem and to Calvary.[1401] The disciples, most of whom had been dispersed by the tragic events of that last and fateful Passover, had gathered again, with renewed and fortified faith, about the great fact of the Lord's resurrection. Christ had become "the firstfruits of them that slept," "the first begotten of the dead," and "the firstborn" of the race to rise from death to immortality.[1402] They knew that not only had the grave been compelled to give up the body of their Lord, but that a way had been provided for the striking of the fetters of death from every soul. Immediately following the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, many righteous ones who had slept in the tomb had been resurrected, and had appeared in Jerusalem, revealing themselves unto many.[1403] The universality of the resurrection of the dead was soon to become a prominent feature of apostolic teaching.
After seeing the Lord ascend from Olivet, the eleven apostles returned to Jerusalem filled with joy and totally immersed in worship. Both in the temple and in a certain upper room, which was their usual meeting spot, they kept praying and appealing, often alongside other disciples, including Mary, the mother of the Lord, some of her sons, and the small group of faithful women who had supported Jesus in Galilee and followed Him to Jerusalem and Calvary.[1401] The disciples, most of whom had scattered due to the tragic events of that last and fateful Passover, had come back together with renewed and strengthened faith about the great fact of the Lord's resurrection. Christ had become "the firstfruits of them that slept," "the first begotten of the dead," and "the firstborn" of the race to rise from death to immortality.[1402] They knew that not only had the grave been forced to give up the body of their Lord, but that a way had been provided for breaking the chains of death from every soul. Right after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, many righteous people who had been in the tomb were resurrected and appeared in Jerusalem, showing themselves to many.[1403] The universality of the resurrection of the dead was soon to become a key aspect of apostolic teaching.
The first official act undertaken by the apostles was the[Pg 701] filling of the vacancy in the council of the Twelve, occasioned by the apostasy and suicide of Judas Iscariot. Sometime between the ascension of Christ and the feast of Pentecost, when the Eleven and other disciples, in all about a hundred and twenty, were together "with one accord in prayer and supplication," Peter laid the matter before the assembled Church, pointing out that the fall of Judas had been foreseen,[1404] and citing the psalmist's invocation: "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take,"[1405] Peter affirmed the necessity of completing the apostolic quorum; and he thus set forth the qualifications essential in the one who should be ordained to the Holy Apostleship: "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." Two faithful disciples were nominated by the Eleven, Joseph Barsabas and Matthias. In earnest supplication the assembly besought the Lord to indicate whether either of these men, and if so which, was to be chosen for the exalted office; then, "they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
The first official action taken by the apostles was to fill the vacancy in the council of the Twelve, caused by the betrayal and suicide of Judas Iscariot. Sometime between Christ's ascension and the Pentecost feast, when the Eleven and about a hundred and twenty other disciples were gathered "with one accord in prayer and supplication," Peter brought up the issue to the assembled Church, noting that Judas's fall had been predicted, and referencing the psalmist's words: "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no one dwell there: and let another take his position." Peter emphasized the need to complete the apostolic group and outlined the qualifications necessary for the person who would be ordained to the Holy Apostleship: "Therefore, of these men who have been with us throughout the time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, starting from the baptism of John until the day he was taken up from us, one must be appointed to be a witness with us of his resurrection." The Eleven nominated two faithful disciples, Joseph Barsabas and Matthias. In fervent prayer, the assembly requested the Lord to show whether either man should be chosen for the important position; then, "they cast lots, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was counted among the eleven apostles."
The proceeding throughout is deeply significant and instructive. The Eleven fully realized that on them lay the responsibility, and in them was vested the authority, to organize and develop the Church of Christ; that the council or quorum of the apostles was limited to a membership of twelve; and that the new apostle, like themselves, must be competent to testify in special and personal witness concerning the earthly ministry, death, and resurrection of the Lord[Pg 702] Jesus. The selection of Matthias was accomplished in a general assembly of the Primitive Church; and while the nominations were made by the apostles, all present appear by implication to have had a voice in the matter of installation. The principle of authoritative administration through common consent of the membership, so impressively exemplified in the choosing of Matthias, was followed, a few weeks later, by the selection of "seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom," who having been sustained by the vote of the Church, were set apart to a special ministry by the laying-on of the apostles' hands.[1406]
The whole process is really important and informative. The Eleven understood that they were responsible for organizing and developing the Church of Christ; the council or group of apostles was limited to twelve members; and the new apostle, like them, had to be able to testify with a special and personal witness about the earthly ministry, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Matthias was chosen during a general assembly of the Primitive Church; although the apostles made the nominations, it seems everyone present had a say in the installation. The principle of authoritative leadership through the common consent of the members, clearly shown in Matthias's selection, was later followed by the choice of "seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom," who, after being supported by the Church's vote, were set apart for a special ministry through the laying-on of the apostles' hands.[Pg 702]
THE BESTOWAL OF THE HOLY GHOST.[1407]
At the time of Pentecost, which fell on the fiftieth day after the Passover,[1408] and therefore, at this particular recurrence, about nine days after Christ's ascension, the apostles "were all with one accord in one place," engaged in their customary devotions, and waiting, as instructed, until they would be endowed with a particular bestowal of power from on high.[1409] The promised baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost befell them on that day. "Suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
At Pentecost, which was the fiftieth day after Passover,[1408] and at this specific time, about nine days after Christ's ascension, the apostles "were all together in one place," participating in their usual prayers and waiting, as instructed, until they would receive a special gift of power from above.[1409] The promised baptism by fire and the Holy Spirit occurred on that day. "Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like a rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. Then, they saw what looked like tongues of fire that rested on each of them. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them."
The "sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind" was heard abroad;[1410] and a multitude gathered about the place. The visible manifestation of "cloven tongues like as of fire," by which each of the Twelve was invested, was seen[Pg 703] by those within the house, but apparently not by the gathering crowds. The apostles spoke to the multitude, and a great miracle was wrought, by which "every man heard them speak in his own language"; for the apostles, now richly gifted, spake in many tongues, as the Holy Ghost, by whom they had been endowed, gave them utterance. There were present men from many lands and of many nations, and their languages were diverse. In amazement some of them said: "Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" While many were impressed by the preternatural ability of the brethren, others in mocking tones said the men were drunken. This instance of Satanic prompting to inconsiderate speech is especially illustrative of inconsistency and rash ineptitude. Strong drink gives to no man wisdom; it steals away his senses and makes of him a fool.
The "sound from heaven like a powerful rushing wind" was heard everywhere;[1410] and a crowd gathered around the place. The visible sign of "divided tongues like fire," which rested on each of the Twelve, was seen[Pg 703] by those inside the house, but apparently not by the crowd outside. The apostles spoke to the crowd, and a great miracle happened, where "each person heard them speak in their own language"; for the apostles, now greatly empowered, spoke in many languages as the Holy Spirit, who had filled them, enabled them. There were men from various countries and nations present, and their languages were different. Some of them, amazed, said: "Look, aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? How is it that we hear each of us in our own native language?" While many were astonished by the apostles' extraordinary ability, others mocked and claimed the men were drunk. This urge to speak foolishly, prompted by evil, shows the inconsistency and rashness of such behavior. Strong drink does not bring wisdom; it robs a person of their senses and turns them into a fool.
Then Peter, as the president of the Twelve, stood up and proclaimed in behalf of himself and his brethren: "Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day." It was the Jewish custom, particularly on festival days, to abstain from food and drink until after the morning service in synagog, which was held about the third hour, or nine o'clock in the forenoon. The apostle cited ancient prophecy embodying the promise of Jehovah that He would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh, so that wonders would be wrought, even as those there present witnessed.[1411] Then boldly did Peter testify of Jesus of Nazareth, whom he characterized as "a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know;" and, reminding them, in accusing earnestness, of the awful crime to which they had been in some degree parties, he continued: "Him, being[Pg 704] delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it." Citing the inspired outburst of the psalmist, who had sung in jubilant measure of the soul that should not be left in hell, and of the flesh that should not see corruption, he showed the application of these scriptures to the Christ; and fearlessly affirmed: "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." With increasing fervency, fearing neither derision nor violence, and driving home to the hearts of his enthralled listeners the fearful fact of their guilt, Peter proclaimed as in voice of thunder: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Then Peter, as the leader of the Twelve, stood up and declared on behalf of himself and his fellow apostles: "People of Judea, and everyone living in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and pay attention to my words: these people are not drunk, as you think, since it’s only the third hour of the day." It was customary for Jews, especially on festival days, to fast until after the morning service in the synagogue, which took place around the third hour, or nine o'clock in the morning. The apostle referred to an ancient prophecy that promised Jehovah would pour out His Spirit on all people, leading to wonders, just as those present were witnessing.[1411] Peter then boldly testified about Jesus of Nazareth, whom he described as "a man approved by God among you through miracles, wonders, and signs that God performed through him in your midst, as you yourselves know;" and, with serious intent, reminded them of their part in the terrible crime, continuing: "This man, delivered by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and killed. But God raised him up, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to hold him." He quoted a psalm that celebrated the soul not being abandoned in hell, and the body not seeing decay, showing how these scriptures applied to Christ; and boldly affirmed: "This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of this. Therefore, being exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out what you now see and hear." With increasing passion, unafraid of mockery or violence, and driving the serious message of their guilt home to his captivated audience, Peter thundered: "Therefore let all Israel know for sure that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
The power of the Holy Ghost could not be resisted; to every earnest soul it carried conviction. They that heard were pricked in their hearts, and in contrition cried out to the apostles: "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Now that they were prepared for the message of salvation, it was given without reserve. "Repent," answered Peter, "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
The power of the Holy Spirit was undeniable; it convinced every sincere person. Those who listened felt a deep emotional response and, filled with regret, called out to the apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?" Now that they were ready for the message of salvation, it was shared openly. "Repent," Peter replied, "and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For this promise is for you, your children, and everyone far away, as many as the Lord our God will call."
To the apostles' testimony, to the exhortation and warning, the people responded with profession of faith and repentance. Their joy was comparable to that of the spirits in prison, to whom the disembodied Christ had borne the authoritative word of redemption and salvation. Those who repented and confessed their belief in Christ at that memorable[Pg 705] Pentecost were received into the Church by baptism, to the number of about three thousand. That their conversion was genuine and not the effect of a passing enthusiasm, that they were literally born again through baptism into a newness of life, is evidenced by the fact that they endured in the faith—"and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." So devoted were these early converts, so richly blessed with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost was the Church in those days, that the members voluntarily disposed of their individual possessions and had all things in common. To them faith in the Lord Jesus Christ was of greater worth than the wealth of earth.[1412] Among them, there was nothing called "mine" or "thine," but all things were theirs in the Lord.[1413] Signs and wonders followed the apostles, "and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."
To the apostles' testimony, and through their encouragement and warnings, the people responded with faith and repentance. Their joy was like that of the spirits in prison, to whom the disembodied Christ had delivered the powerful message of redemption and salvation. Those who repented and declared their belief in Christ on that unforgettable[Pg 705] Pentecost were welcomed into the Church through baptism, totaling about three thousand. The genuineness of their conversion, which was not simply a fleeting enthusiasm, and the fact they were truly born again through baptism into a new life, is shown by their perseverance in faith—"and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teachings and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." These early converts were so dedicated, and the Church was so richly blessed with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit during that time, that members willingly sold their individual possessions and shared everything in common. For them, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ was more valuable than any earthly wealth.[1412] Among them, there was no concept of "mine" or "yours;" everything belonged to them in the Lord.[1413] Signs and wonders accompanied the apostles, "and the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved."
Through the bestowal of the Holy Ghost the apostles had become changed men. As made clear to them by the Spirit of Truth, the scriptures constituted a record of preparation for the events to which they were special and ordained witnesses. Peter, who but a few weeks earlier had quailed before a serving-maid, now spoke openly, fearing none. Seeing once a lame beggar at the Gate Beautiful which led into the temple court, he took the afflicted one by the hand, saying: "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."[1414] The man was healed and leaped in the exuberance of his newly found strength; then he went with Peter and John into the temple, praising God aloud. An amazed crowd, which grew to include about five thousand men, gathered around the apostles in Solomon's Porch; and Peter, observing their wonderment, seized on the occasion to preach to them Jesus the Crucified. He ascribed all praise[Pg 706] for the miracle to the Christ whom the Jews had delivered up to be slain, and in unambiguous accusation declared: "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses." In merciful recognition of the ignorance in which they had sinned, he exhorted them to expiatory penitence, crying: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." There was no encouragement to a belief that their sins could be annulled by wordy profession; a due season of repentance was their privilege, if so be they would believe.
Through the gift of the Holy Spirit, the apostles had become transformed individuals. The Spirit of Truth clarified for them that the scriptures were a record of preparation for the events where they were chosen witnesses. Peter, who just a few weeks earlier had trembled before a servant girl, now spoke boldly, fearing no one. He once saw a lame beggar at the Gate Beautiful leading into the temple court, and he took the man's hand, saying: "I don't have any silver or gold, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, get up and walk." The man was healed and jumped up in the joy of his newfound strength; then he went with Peter and John into the temple, loudly praising God. A crowd, amazed and numbering about five thousand men, gathered around the apostles in Solomon's Porch; and noticing their amazement, Peter took the opportunity to preach to them about Jesus the Crucified. He attributed all credit for the miracle to the Christ whom the Jews had handed over to be killed, and in clear accusation stated: "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has glorified His Son Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in front of Pilate, even though he wanted to release Him. But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be released to you, and you killed the Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead; we are witnesses to that." Acknowledging their ignorance in their sins, he urged them to sincerely repent, saying: "Repent therefore, and turn back, so your sins may be wiped out, when times of refreshing come from the presence of the Lord; and He will send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before: whom heaven must receive until the time comes for the restoration of all things, which God has spoken through the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." There was no assurance that their sins could be erased by mere words; a genuine period of repentance was their opportunity, if they were willing to believe.
As Peter and John thus testified, the priests and the captain of the temple, together with the ruling Sadducees, came upon them toward evening, and put them in prison to await the action of the judges next day.[1415] On the morrow they were arraigned before Annas, Caiaphas, and other officials, who demanded of them by what power or in whose name they had healed the lame man. Peter, impelled by the power of the Holy Ghost, answered: "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none[Pg 707] other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."[1416]
As Peter and John were giving their testimony, the priests and the temple captain, along with the ruling Sadducees, approached them in the evening and imprisoned them to wait for the judges' decision the next day.[1415] The following morning, they were brought before Annas, Caiaphas, and other officials, who questioned them about the power or name in which they had healed the lame man. Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, replied: "Let everyone know, including all the people of Israel, that it is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified and whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved."[1416]
The hierarchy learned to their consternation that the work they had sought to destroy through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was spreading now as it had never spread before. In desperation they commanded the apostles, "Not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus." But Peter and John answered boldly: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." This rejoinder of righteous defiance the priestly rulers dared not openly resent; they had to content themselves with threats.
The leaders were shocked to discover that the movement they had tried to eliminate by crucifying Jesus Christ was now spreading more than ever. In their frustration, they ordered the apostles, "Do not speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus." But Peter and John replied boldly, "You decide whether it’s right in God’s eyes to listen to you rather than to God. We can’t help but speak about what we have seen and heard." The religious leaders were too afraid to openly retaliate against this defiant response; they could only resort to threats.
The Church grew with surprizing rapidity; "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." So abundantly was the gift of healing manifest through the ministrations of the apostles that as formerly to Christ, now to them, the people flocked, bringing their sick folk and those possessed of evil spirits; and all were healed. So great was the faith of the believers that they laid their afflicted ones on couches in the streets, "that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them."[1417]
The Church grew astonishingly fast; "more and more people came to believe in the Lord, both men and women." The apostles demonstrated such a strong gift of healing that just like people once flocked to Christ, they now crowded around the apostles, bringing their sick and those troubled by evil spirits; and everyone was healed. The faith of the believers was so strong that they laid their sick on couches in the streets, "just so that the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them."[1417]
The high priest and his haughty Sadducean associates caused the apostles to be again arrested and thrown into the common prison. But that night the angel of the Lord opened the dungeon doors and brought the prisoners forth, telling them to go into the temple and further proclaim their testimony of the Christ. This the apostles did, and were so engaged when the Sanhedrin assembled to put them on trial. The officers who were sent to bring the prisoners to the judgment hall returned, saying: "The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without[Pg 708] before the doors; but when we had opened, we found no man within." As the judges sat in impotent consternation, an informer appeared with the word that the men they wanted were at that moment preaching in the courts. The captain and his guard arrested the apostles a third time, and brought them in, but without violence, for they feared the people. The high priest accused the prisoners by question and affirmation: "Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." Yet, how recently had those same rulers led the rabble in the awful imprecation, "His blood be on us, and on our children."[1418]
The high priest and his arrogant Sadducean associates had the apostles arrested again and thrown into jail. But that night, an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought the prisoners out, telling them to go to the temple and continue sharing their testimony about Christ. The apostles did this, and were engaged in their work when the Sanhedrin gathered to put them on trial. The officers sent to bring the prisoners to the court returned, reporting, "We found the prison securely locked, with the guards standing outside the doors; but when we opened it, we found no one inside." As the judges sat there in helpless confusion, an informant came with the news that the men they were searching for were preaching in the temple courts. The captain and his guards arrested the apostles for the third time and brought them in, but they did so gently because they were afraid of the people. The high priest questioned the prisoners, saying, "Didn’t we strictly order you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are trying to bring this man’s blood upon us." Yet, how recently had those same leaders led the crowd in the terrible chant, "His blood be on us and on our children."
Peter and the other apostles, undaunted by the august presence, and undeterred by threatening words or actions, answered with the direct counter-charge that they who sat there to judge were the slayers of the Son of God. Ponder well the solemn affirmation: "We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."
Peter and the other apostles, unshaken by the impressive presence and not swayed by threatening words or actions, boldly responded with the direct accusation that those judging them were the murderers of the Son of God. Reflect on this serious statement: "We must obey God rather than human authorities. The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you killed and hung on a tree. God has lifted Him up with His right hand to be a Leader and a Savior, to offer repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. We are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."
Closing, locking, bolting their hearts against the testimony of the Lord's own, the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people counseled together as to how they could put these men to death. There was at least one honorable exception among the murderously inclined councilors. Gamaliel, who was a Pharisee and a noted doctor of the law, the teacher of Saul of Tarsus afterward known through conversion, works, and divine commission, as Paul the apostle,[1419] rose in the council, and having directed that the apostles be removed from the hall, warned his colleagues against the injustice they[Pg 709] had in mind. He cited the cases of men falsely claiming to have been sent of God, everyone of whom had come to grief with utter and most ignominious failure of his seditious plans; so would these men come to nought if the work they professed proved to be of men; "But," added the dispassionate and learned doctor, "if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."[1420] Gamaliel's advice prevailed for the time being, to the extent of causing the apostles' lives to be spared; but the council, in contravention of justice and propriety, had the prisoners beaten. Then the brethren were discharged with the renewed injunction that they speak not in the name of Jesus. They went out rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer stripes and humiliation in defense of the Lord's name; and daily, both in the temple, and by house to house visitation, they valiantly taught and preached Jesus the Christ. Converts to the Church were not confined to the laity; a great company of the priests swelled the number of the disciples, who multiplied greatly in Jerusalem.[1421]
Closing, locking, and securing their hearts against the testimony of the Lord’s own, the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people gathered together to discuss how they could have these men put to death. There was at least one honorable exception among the murderous councilors. Gamaliel, a Pharisee and well-respected teacher of the law, who later taught Saul of Tarsus, known after his conversion and divine mission as Paul the apostle,[1419] stood up in the council, had the apostles removed from the hall, and warned his colleagues against the unfairness of their plan. He referenced past cases of men falsely claiming to be sent by God, all of whom met with disgraceful failure in their rebellious efforts; so these men would fail if their work turned out to be of human origin. "But," added the calm and knowledgeable teacher, "if it is from God, you cannot stop it; otherwise, you might find yourselves fighting against God."[1420] Gamaliel's advice was followed for the moment, enough to spare the apostles' lives; however, the council unjustly ordered the prisoners to be beaten. Then the apostles were released with a renewed command not to speak in the name of Jesus. They left rejoicing that they were considered worthy to endure punishment and humiliation for the Lord’s name; and every day, both in the temple and from house to house, they boldly taught and preached Jesus the Christ. Converts to the Church were not limited to the laypeople; many priests joined the growing number of disciples, who multiplied greatly in Jerusalem.[1421]
STEPHEN THE MARTYR; HIS VISION OF THE LORD.[1422]
First among the "seven men of honest report" who were set apart under the hands of the apostles to administer the common store of the Church community, was Stephen, a man eminent in faith and good works, through whom the Lord wrought many miracles. He was zealous in service, aggressive in doctrine, and fearless as a minister of Christ. Some of the foreign Jews, who maintained a synagog in Jerusalem, engaged Stephen in disputation, and being unable "to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake," conspired to have him charged with heresy and blasphemy. He was brought before the council on the word of men suborned to witness against him; and these averred that they had[Pg 710] "heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God." The perjured accusers further testified that he had repeatedly spoken blasphemously against the temple, and the law, and had even declared that Jesus of Nazareth would some day destroy the temple, and change the Mosaic ceremonies. The charge was utterly false in spirit and fact, though possibly in a sense partly true in form; for, judging by what we have of record concerning Stephen's character and works, he was a zealous preacher of the word as a world religion, through which the exclusiveness and alleged sanctity of Jerusalem as the holy city and of the now desecrated temple as the earthly abiding-place of Jehovah, would be abrogated; furthermore he seems to have realized that the law of Moses had been fulfilled in the mission of the Messiah.
First among the "seven men of good reputation" who were chosen by the apostles to manage the Church's resources was Stephen, a man known for his strong faith and good deeds, through whom the Lord performed many miracles. He was passionate in his service, assertive in his teachings, and fearless as a minister of Christ. Some of the foreign Jews who had a synagogue in Jerusalem confronted Stephen in debate, and when they were unable "to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke," they plotted to accuse him of heresy and blasphemy. He was brought before the council based on the testimony of men who were bribed to witness against him; they claimed that they had[Pg 710] "heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God." The false witnesses further testified that he had repeatedly spoken insults against the temple and the law, and had even said that Jesus of Nazareth would someday destroy the temple and change the Mosaic laws. The charge was completely false in spirit and fact, though it might have been partially true in appearance; because, based on what we know about Stephen's character and actions, he was a devoted preacher of a universal faith, which suggested that the exclusivity and supposed holiness of Jerusalem as the sacred city and of the now defiled temple as the earthly dwelling place of God would be abolished; moreover, he seems to have understood that the law of Moses had been fulfilled in the mission of the Messiah.
When the Sanhedrists looked upon him, his face was illumined, and they saw it "as it had been the face of an angel." In answer to the charge, he delivered an address, which on critical analysis appears to have been extemporaneous, nevertheless it is strikingly logical and impressive in argument. The delivery was abruptly terminated, however, by a murderous assault.[1423] In effective epitome Stephen traced the history of the covenant people from the time of Abraham down, showing that the patriarchs, and in turn Moses and the prophets, had lived and ministered in progressive preparation for the development of which those present were witnesses. He pointed out that Moses had foretold the coming of a Prophet, who was none other than Jehovah, whom their fathers had worshipped in the wilderness, before the tabernacle, and later in the temple; but, he affirmed, "the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands," the most gorgeous of which could be but small to Him who said: "Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool."[1424]
When the members of the Sanhedrin looked at him, his face was glowing, and they saw it "as if it had been the face of an angel." In response to the accusation, he gave a speech that, upon closer examination, seems to have been improvised; however, it is notably logical and compelling in its arguments. The delivery was abruptly interrupted, though, by a violent attack.[1423] In a concise summary, Stephen outlined the history of the covenant people from the time of Abraham, demonstrating that the patriarchs, and then Moses and the prophets, had lived and acted in progressive preparation for the development that those present were witnessing. He pointed out that Moses had predicted the arrival of a Prophet, who was none other than Jehovah, whom their ancestors had worshipped in the wilderness, before the tabernacle, and later in the temple; but he insisted, "the most High does not dwell in temples made by human hands," the most magnificent of which could only be small compared to Him who said: "Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool."[1424]
It is plain to be seen that Stephen's speech was not one of vindication, and far from a plea in his own defense; it was a proclamation of the word and purposes of God by a devoted servant who had no thought for personal consequences. In forceful arraignment he thus addressed his judges: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers." Maddened at this direct accusation, the Sanhedrists "gnashed on him with their teeth." He knew that they thirsted for his blood; but, energized by the Holy Ghost, he looked steadfastly upward, and exclaimed in rapture: "Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."[1425] This is the first New Testament record of a manifestation of Christ to mortal eyes by vision or otherwise, subsequent to His ascension. The priestly rulers cried aloud, and stopped their ears to what they chose to regard as blasphemous utterances; and, rushing upon the prisoner with one accord, they hurried him outside the city walls and stoned him to death. True to his Master, he prayed: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit"; and then, crushed to earth, he cried with a loud voice: "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep."
It’s obvious that Stephen's speech wasn’t about defending himself; it was a declaration of God's word and intentions by a devoted servant who didn’t care about the personal risks. He forcefully addressed his judges: "You stubborn and hard-hearted people, you always oppose the Holy Spirit; just like your ancestors did, so do you. Which of the prophets have your ancestors not persecuted? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One; and now you are the ones who have betrayed and murdered him." Furious at this direct accusation, the members of the Sanhedrin "gnashed their teeth at him." He knew they wanted him dead; but filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed up and exclaimed in awe: "Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." [1425] This is the first New Testament account of Christ being seen by human eyes, either by vision or otherwise, after His ascension. The religious leaders shouted loudly and covered their ears to what they considered blasphemy; then, in a furious rush, they dragged the prisoner outside the city and stoned him to death. Staying true to his Master, he prayed: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit"; and then, as he was being crushed to the ground, he shouted loudly: "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." After saying this, he fell asleep.
So died the first martyr for the testimony of the risen Christ. He was slain by a mob comprizing chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people. What cared they that no sentence had been pronounced against him, or that they were acting in reckless defiance of Roman law? Devout men bore the mangled body to its burial; and all the disciples lamented greatly. Persecution increased, and members of the Church[Pg 712] were scattered through many lands, wherein they preached the gospel and won many to the Lord. The blood of Stephen the martyr proved to be rich and virile seed, from which sprang a great harvest of souls.[1426]
So died the first martyr for the testimony of the risen Christ. He was killed by a mob made up of chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people. They didn’t care that no official sentence had been given against him, or that they were acting in blatant disregard of Roman law. Devout men took the mangled body for burial, and all the disciples mourned deeply. Persecution increased, and members of the Church[Pg 712] were scattered across many lands, where they preached the gospel and brought many to the Lord. The blood of Stephen the martyr turned out to be a rich and powerful seed, leading to a great harvest of souls.[1426]
CHRIST MANIFESTS HIMSELF TO SAUL OF TARSUS, LATER KNOWN AS PAUL, THE APOSTLE.
Among the disputants who, when defeated in discussion, conspired against Stephen and brought about his death, were Jews from Cilicia.[1427] Associated with them was a young man named Saul, a native of the Cilician city of Tarsus. This man was an able scholar, a forceful controversialist, an ardent defender of what he regarded as the right, and a vigorous assailant of what to him was wrong. Though born in Tarsus he had been brought to Jerusalem in early youth and had there grown up a strict Pharisee and an aggressive supporter of Judaism. He was a student of the law under the tutelage of Gamaliel, one of the most eminent masters of the time[1428] and had the confidence of the high priest.[1429] His father, or perhaps an earlier progenitor, had acquired the rank of Roman citizenship, and Saul was a born heir to that distinction. Saul was a violent opponent of the apostles and the Church, and had made himself a party to the death of Stephen by openly consenting thereunto and by holding in personal custody the garments of the false witnesses while they stoned the martyr.
Among the debaters who, when they lost the argument, conspired against Stephen and caused his death, were Jews from Cilicia.[1427] One of them was a young man named Saul, who was from the Cilician city of Tarsus. He was a talented scholar, a strong debater, a passionate defender of what he believed was right, and an aggressive opponent of what he saw as wrong. Although he was born in Tarsus, he was brought to Jerusalem as a child and grew up to be a strict Pharisee and a strong supporter of Judaism. He studied the law under Gamaliel, one of the most respected teachers of the time[1428] and was trusted by the high priest.[1429] His father, or possibly an ancestor, had obtained Roman citizenship, so Saul was born with that privilege. Saul was a fierce opponent of the apostles and the Church, and he played a role in Stephen's death by openly approving of it and by keeping the clothes of the false witnesses while they stoned the martyr.
He wrought havoc in the Church by entering private houses and haling thence men and women suspected of belief in the Christ, and these he caused to be cast into prison.[1430] The persecution in which he took so prominent a part caused[Pg 713] a scattering of the disciples throughout Judea, Samaria, and other lands; though the apostles remained and continued their ministry in Jerusalem.[1431] Not content with local activity against the Church, "Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem."[1432]
He caused chaos in the Church by breaking into private homes and dragging out men and women who were suspected of believing in Christ, and he had them thrown into prison.[1430] The persecution in which he played such a significant role led to a scattering of the disciples throughout Judea, Samaria, and other regions; however, the apostles stayed and continued their ministry in Jerusalem.[1431] Not satisfied with just local actions against the Church, "Saul, still breathing threats and violence against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and requested letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to this way, whether men or women, he could bring them bound to Jerusalem."[1432]
As Saul and his attendants neared Damascus they were halted by an occurrence of awe-inspiring grandeur.[1433] At noontide there suddenly appeared a light far exceeding the brightness of the sun, and in this dazzling splendor the whole party was enveloped, so that they fell to the ground in terror. In the midst of the unearthly glory, a sound was heard, which to Saul alone was intelligible as an articulate voice; he heard and understood the reproving question spoken in the Hebrew tongue: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" In trepidation he inquired: "Who art thou, Lord?" The reply sounded the heart of Saul to its depths: "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest"; and continued, as in sympathetic consideration of the persecutor's situation and the renunciation that would be required of him: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."[1434] The enormity of his hostility and enmity against the Lord and His people filled the man's soul with horror, and in trembling contrition he asked: "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" The reply was: "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." The brilliancy of the heavenly light had blinded Saul. His companions led him into Damascus, where,[Pg 714] at the house of Judas, in the street called Straight, he sat in darkness for three days, during which period he neither ate nor drank.
As Saul and his companions approached Damascus, they were suddenly stopped by an awe-inspiring event.[1433] At noon, a light appeared that was much brighter than the sun, enveloping the entire group, causing them to fall to the ground in fear. In the midst of this otherworldly brightness, a sound was heard, which only Saul understood as a distinct voice; he heard and recognized the challenging question spoken in Hebrew: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Trembling, he asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The response penetrated Saul's heart: "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting"; it continued, showing an understanding of the persecutor’s situation and the sacrifice that would be required of him: "It is hard for you to kick against the goads."[1434] The weight of his hostility and hatred toward the Lord and His followers filled Saul with horror, and in trembling humility, he asked, "Lord, what do you want me to do?" The answer was: "Get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." The brilliance of the heavenly light had blinded Saul. His companions led him into Damascus, where,[Pg 714] at the house of Judas on the street called Straight, he sat in darkness for three days, during which he neither ate nor drank.
There lived in that city a faithful disciple named Ananias, to whom the Lord spake, instructing him to visit Saul and minister unto him that he might be healed of his blindness. Ananias was astonished at the commission, and ventured to remind the Lord that Saul was a notorious persecutor of the saints, and had come at that time to Damascus to arrest and put in bonds all believers. But the Lord answered: "Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." Ananias went to Saul, laid his hands upon the penitent sufferer, saying: "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." The physical obstruction to vision was removed; scaly particles fell from the eyes of Saul, and his sight was restored. Without delay or hesitation, he was baptized. When strengthened by food he communed with the disciples at Damascus and straightway began to preach in the synagogs, declaring Jesus to be the Son of God.[1435]
There was a devoted follower named Ananias living in that city. The Lord spoke to him, instructing him to visit Saul and help him so he could be healed of his blindness. Ananias was shocked by this task and reminded the Lord that Saul was a well-known persecutor of the believers and had come to Damascus to arrest all the followers of Christ. But the Lord replied, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to proclaim my name to the Gentiles, to kings, and to the people of Israel; I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." Ananias approached Saul, laid his hands on him, and said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." The barrier to his vision was lifted; scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He was baptized right away. Once he had eaten and regained his strength, he joined the disciples in Damascus and immediately began preaching in the synagogues, proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God.[1435]
When Saul returned to Jerusalem, the disciples were doubtful of his sincerity, they having known of him as a violent persecutor; but Barnabas, a trusted disciple, brought him to the apostles, told of his miraculous conversion and testified of his valiant service in preaching the word of God. He was received into fellowship, and afterward was ordained under the hands of the apostles.[1436] His Hebrew name, Saul, was in time substituted by the Latin Paulus, or as to us, Paul.[1437] In view of his commission to carry the Gospel to the[Pg 715] Gentiles, the use of his Roman name may have been of advantage, and particularly so as he was a Roman citizen and therefore could claim the rights and exemptions attaching to the status of citizenship.[1438]
When Saul came back to Jerusalem, the disciples were skeptical about his sincerity because they knew him as a fierce persecutor. However, Barnabas, a trusted disciple, took him to the apostles, shared about his miraculous conversion, and vouched for his courageous preaching of the word of God. He was accepted into their community and later ordained by the apostles.[1436] His Hebrew name, Saul, was eventually replaced by the Latin name Paulus, or as we know him, Paul.[1437] Considering his mission to spread the Gospel to the[Pg 715] Gentiles, using his Roman name might have been beneficial, especially since he was a Roman citizen and could therefore claim the rights and privileges that came with citizenship.[1438]
It is no part of our present purpose to follow even in outline the labors of the man thus peremptorily and miraculously called into the ministry; the fact of Christ's personal manifestations to him is the sole subject of present consideration. While in Jerusalem Paul was blessed with a visual manifestation of the Lord Jesus, accompanied by the giving of specific instructions. His own testimony is to this effect: "While I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me." In explanation of his rejection by the people, Paul confessed his evil past, saying, "Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: and when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him." To this the Lord replied: "Depart; for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles."[1439] Once again, as he lay a prisoner in the Roman castle, the Lord stood by him in the night, and said: "Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome."[1440]
It’s not our intention right now to outline the work of the man who was called to the ministry in such a decisive and miraculous way; the only focus here is on Christ’s personal appearances to him. While in Jerusalem, Paul had a vision of the Lord Jesus, along with specific instructions. He shared his experience this way: “While I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw him saying to me, ‘Hurry up and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they won’t accept your testimony about me.’” To explain why the people rejected him, Paul admitted his troubling past, saying, “Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you in every synagogue; and when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I was there, giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who killed him.” The Lord responded: “Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.”[1439] Later, while he was a prisoner in the Roman fortress, the Lord appeared to him at night and said: “Take courage, Paul: just as you have witnessed about me in Jerusalem, you must also testify in Rome.”[1440]
Paul's personal witness that he had seen the resurrected Christ is explicit and emphatic. With his enumeration of some of the risen Lord's appearances he associates his own testimony, as addressed to the Corinthian saints, in this wise: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was[Pg 716] seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."[1441]
Paul's personal witness that he saw the resurrected Christ is clear and strong. In detailing some of the risen Lord's appearances, he connects his own testimony to the Corinthian believers, saying: "I passed on to you what I first received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still alive, but some have died. Then he was seen by James; then by all the apostles. And last of all, he was seen by me also, as someone born out of time. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God."
CLOSE OF THE APOSTOLIC MINISTRY—THE REVELATION THROUGH JOHN.
The period of apostolic ministry continued until near the close of the first century of our era, approximately sixty to seventy years from the time of the Lord's ascension. In the course of that epoch the Church experienced both prosperity and vicissitude. At first the organized body increased in membership and influence in a manner regarded as phenomenal, if not miraculous.[1442] The apostles and the many other ministers who labored under their direction in graded positions of authority strove so effectively to spread the word of God, that Paul writing approximately thirty years after the ascension affirmed that the gospel had already been carried to every nation, or, to use his words, "preached to every creature under heaven."[1443] Through the agency of the Holy Ghost Christ continued to direct the affairs of His Church on the earth; and His mortal representatives, the apostles, traveled and taught, healed the afflicted, rebuked evil spirits, and raised the dead to a renewal of life.[1444]
The time of apostolic ministry lasted until the end of the first century, about sixty to seventy years after the Lord's ascension. During this period, the Church faced both growth and challenges. Initially, the organized community grew in size and influence in a way that seemed exceptional, if not miraculous.[1442] The apostles and many other leaders who worked under their guidance in various levels of authority effectively spread the message of God, so much so that Paul, writing around thirty years after the ascension, stated that the gospel had already reached every nation, or as he put it, "preached to every creature under heaven."[1443] Through the work of the Holy Spirit, Christ continued to oversee the affairs of His Church on earth; His earthly representatives, the apostles, traveled, taught, healed the sick, cast out evil spirits, and brought the dead back to life.[1444]
We are without record of any direct or personal appearance of Christ to mortals between the manifestations to Paul and the revelation to John on the isle of Patmos. Tradition confirms John's implication that he had been banished thither[Pg 717] "for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."[1445] He avers that what he wrote, now known as the book of Revelation, is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John."[1446] The apostle gives a vivid description of the glorified Christ as seen by him: and of the Lord's words he made record as follows: "Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."[1447] John was commanded to write to each of the seven churches, or branches of the Church of Christ, then existing in Asia, administering reproof, admonition and encouragement, as the condition of each required.
We have no record of any direct or personal appearance of Christ to people between the encounters with Paul and the revelation to John on the island of Patmos. Tradition supports John's suggestion that he was exiled there[Pg 717] "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."[1445] He claims that what he wrote, now known as the book of Revelation, is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things that must soon happen; and he sent and communicated it through his angel to his servant John."[1446] The apostle provides a vivid description of the glorified Christ as he saw him, and he recorded the Lord's words as follows: "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last: I am the one who lives, and was dead; and, look, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and I hold the keys of hell and death."[1447] John was instructed to write to each of the seven churches, or branches of the Church of Christ, that existed in Asia at the time, providing reproof, counsel, and encouragement as needed for each situation.
The final ministry of John marked the close of the apostolic administration in the Primitive Church. His fellow apostles had gone to their rest, most of them having entered through the gates of martyrdom, and although it was his special privilege to tarry in the flesh until the Lord's advent in glory,[1448] he was not to continue his service as an acknowledged minister, known to and accepted by the Church. Even while many of the apostles lived and labored, the seed of apostasy had taken root in the Church and had grown with the rankness of pernicious weeds. This condition had been predicted, both by Old Testament prophets[1449] and by the Lord Jesus.[1450] The apostles also spake in plain prediction of the growth of the apostasy all too grievously apparent to them as then in progress.[1451] Personal manifestations of the Lord Jesus to mortals appear to have ceased with the passing of[Pg 718] the apostles of old, and were not again witnessed until the dawn of the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.
The final ministry of John marked the end of the apostolic leadership in the early Church. His fellow apostles had passed away, most of them having died as martyrs. While it was his unique privilege to remain alive until the Lord's glorious return,[1448] he was not meant to continue his role as an acknowledged minister, recognized and accepted by the Church. Even while many of the apostles were living and working, the roots of apostasy had taken hold in the Church, spreading like harmful weeds. This situation had been forecasted by both Old Testament prophets[1449] and by the Lord Jesus.[1450] The apostles had also clearly predicted the growth of the apostasy, which was painfully obvious to them as it unfolded.[1451] Personal appearances of the Lord Jesus to people seem to have stopped with the death of the ancient apostles, and were not seen again until the beginning of the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 38.
1. Presiding Authority and Common Consent.—"Another instance of official action in choosing and setting apart men to special office in the Church arose soon after the ordination of Matthias. It appears that one feature of the Church organization in early apostolic days was a common ownership of material things, distribution being made according to need. As the members increased, it was found impracticable for the apostles to devote the necessary attention and time to these temporal matters, so they called upon the members to select seven men of honest report, whom the apostles would appoint to take special charge of these affairs. These men were set apart by prayer and by the laying on of hands. The instance is instructive as showing that the apostles realized their possession of authority to direct in the affairs of the Church, and that they observed with strictness the principle of common consent in the administration of their high office. They exercized their priestly powers in the spirit of love, and with due regard to the rights of the people over whom they were placed to preside."—The author, The Great Apostasy, 1:19.
1. Presiding Authority and Common Consent.—"Another example of official action in choosing and setting apart individuals for specific roles in the Church came soon after Matthias was ordained. It seems that one aspect of the Church's organization in the early days of the apostles was a shared ownership of material possessions, with distribution based on need. As the number of members grew, it became impractical for the apostles to dedicate the necessary time and attention to these everyday matters, so they asked the members to select seven trustworthy men, whom the apostles would appoint to oversee these responsibilities. These men were set apart through prayer and the laying on of hands. This instance is instructive as it shows that the apostles recognized their authority to manage Church affairs and adhered strictly to the principle of common consent in their administration of such a significant office. They exercised their priestly powers with love and with respect for the rights of the people they were called to lead."—The author, The Great Apostasy, 1:19.
2. Pentecost.—The name means "fiftieth" and was applied to the Jewish feast that was celebrated fifty days after the second day of unleavened bread, or the Passover day. It is also known as "the feast of weeks" (Exo. 34:22; Deut. 16:10), because according to the Hebrew style, it fell seven weeks, or a week of weeks, after the Passover; as "the feast of harvest" (Exo. 23:16); and as "the day of the first-fruits" (Numb. 28:26). Pentecost was one of the great feasts in Israel, and was of mandatory observance. Special sacrifices were appointed for the day, as was also an offering suitable to the harvest season, comprizing two leavened loaves made of the new wheat; these were to be waved before the altar and then given to the priests (Lev. 23:15-20). Because of the unprecedented events that characterized the first Pentecost after our Lord's ascension, the name has become current in Christian literature as expressive of any great spiritual awakening or unusual manifestation of divine grace.
2. Pentecost.—The name means "fiftieth" and refers to the Jewish feast celebrated fifty days after the second day of unleavened bread, or Passover. It's also called "the feast of weeks" (Exo. 34:22; Deut. 16:10) because, in the Hebrew calendar, it occurs seven weeks or a week of weeks after Passover; "the feast of harvest" (Exo. 23:16); and "the day of the first-fruits" (Numb. 28:26). Pentecost was one of the major feasts in Israel and had to be observed. Special sacrifices were designated for the day, along with an offering appropriate for the harvest season, which included two leavened loaves made from the new wheat; these were to be waved before the altar and then given to the priests (Lev. 23:15-20). Due to the extraordinary events that marked the first Pentecost after our Lord's ascension, the name has become widely used in Christian literature to describe any significant spiritual awakening or unusual manifestation of divine grace.
3. Having All Things in Common.—No condition recorded of the early apostolic ministry expresses more forcefully the unity and devotion of the Church in those days than does the fact of the members establishing a system of common ownership of property (Acts 2:44, 46; 4:32-37; 6:1-4). One result of this community of interest in temporal things was a marked unity in spiritual matters; they "were of one heart and of one soul." Lacking nothing, they lived in contentment and godliness. Over thirty centuries earlier the people of Enoch had rejoiced in a similar condition of oneness, and their attainments[Pg 719] in spiritual excellence were so effective that "the Lord came and dwelt with his people ... And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." (P. of G.P., Moses 7:16-18.) The Nephite disciples grew in holiness, as "they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another." (B. of M., 3 Nephi 26:19; see also 4 Nephi 1:2-3.) A system of unity in material affairs has been revealed to the Church in this current dispensation, (Doc. and Cov. 82:17, 18; 51:10-13, 18; 104:70-77), to the blessings of which the people may attain as they learn to replace selfish concern by altruism, and individual advantage by devotion to the general welfare.—See The Articles of Faith, xxiv:13-15.
3. Having All Things in Common.—No aspect of the early apostolic ministry illustrates the unity and commitment of the Church during that time more powerfully than the fact that members created a system of shared property (Acts 2:44, 46; 4:32-37; 6:1-4). One outcome of this shared interest in material possessions was a noticeable unity in spiritual matters; they "were of one heart and of one soul." Lacking nothing, they lived in satisfaction and righteousness. Over thirty centuries earlier, the people of Enoch experienced a similar state of oneness, and their spiritual achievements were so remarkable that "the Lord came and dwelt with his people... And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." (P. of G.P., Moses 7:16-18.) The Nephite disciples grew in holiness, as "they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another." (B. of M., 3 Nephi 26:19; see also 4 Nephi 1:2-3.) A system of unity in material affairs has been revealed to the Church in this current dispensation, (Doc. and Cov. 82:17, 18; 51:10-13, 18; 104:70-77), and the blessings of this can be realized as people learn to replace selfishness with selflessness, and personal gain with dedication to the common good.—See The Articles of Faith, xxiv:13-15.
4. Saul's Conversion.—The sudden change of heart by which an ardent persecutor of the saints was so transformed as to become a true disciple, is to the average mind a miracle. Saul of Tarsus was a devoted student and observer of the law, a strict Pharisee. We find no intimation that he ever met or saw Jesus during the Lord's life in the flesh; and his contact with the Christian movement appears to have been brought about through disputation with Stephen. In determining what he would call right and what wrong the young enthusiast was guided too much by mind and too little by heart. His learning, which should have been his servant, was instead his master. He was a leading spirit in the cruel persecution of the first converts to Christianity; yet none can doubt his belief that even in such he was rendering service to Jehovah (compare John 16:2). His unusual energy and superb ability were misdirected. As soon as he realized the error of his course, he turned about, without counting risk, cost, or the certainty of persecution and probable martyrdom. His repentance was as genuine as had been his persecuting zeal. All through his ministry he was tortured by the past (Acts 22:4, 19, 20; 1 Cor. 15:9; 2 Cor. 12:7; Gal. 1:13); yet he found a measure of relief in the knowledge that he had acted in good conscience (Acts 26:9-11). It was "hard for him to kick against the pricks" (revised version "goad," Acts 9:5; 26:14) of tradition, training, and education; yet he hesitated not. He was a chosen instrument for the work of the Lord (Acts 9:15); and promptly he responded to the Master's will. Whatever of error Saul of Tarsus had committed through youthful zeal, Paul the apostle gave his all—his time, talent, and life—to expiate. He was preeminently the Lord's apostle to the Gentiles; and this opening of the doors to others than Jews was the main contention between himself and Stephen. In accordance with the divine and fateful purpose, Paul was called to do the work, in opposition to which he had been a participant in the martyrdom of Stephen. At the Lord's word of direction Paul was ready to preach Christ to the Gentiles; only by a miracle could the Jewish exclusiveness of Peter and the Church generally be overcome (Acts 10; and 11:1-18).
4. Saul's Conversion.—The sudden change of heart that transformed a passionate persecutor of the saints into a true disciple is, to most people, a miracle. Saul of Tarsus was a dedicated student and follower of the law, a strict Pharisee. There’s no evidence that he ever met or saw Jesus during the Lord's life on Earth, and his involvement with the Christian movement seems to have started through debates with Stephen. In deciding what was right and wrong, the young enthusiast relied too much on his intellect and too little on his emotions. His knowledge, which should have served him, instead controlled him. He was a key figure in the brutal persecution of the first Christians; yet he genuinely believed that he was serving Jehovah (see John 16:2). His exceptional energy and talent were misused. As soon as he realized he was wrong, he changed direction without considering the risks, the costs, or the certainty of persecution and potential martyrdom. His repentance was as sincere as his previous zeal for persecution. Throughout his ministry, he struggled with his past (Acts 22:4, 19, 20; 1 Cor. 15:9; 2 Cor. 12:7; Gal. 1:13); however, he found some comfort in knowing he had acted with a clear conscience (Acts 26:9-11). It was "hard for him to kick against the pricks" (revised version "goad," Acts 9:5; 26:14) of tradition, training, and education; yet he did not hesitate. He was a chosen instrument for the Lord's work (Acts 9:15), and he quickly responded to the Master's calling. Despite any mistakes Saul of Tarsus had made in his youthful enthusiasm, Paul the apostle dedicated his whole life—his time, talents, and energy—to making amends. He was undoubtedly the Lord's apostle to the Gentiles, and the issue of opening the doors to non-Jews was the main dispute between him and Stephen. According to divine purpose, Paul was called to do the very work in which he had previously participated in the martyrdom of Stephen. At the Lord's command, Paul was ready to preach Christ to the Gentiles; it would take a miracle to break through the Jewish exclusiveness of Peter and the Church in general (Acts 10; and 11:1-18).
5. Rapid Growth of the Primitive Church.—Eusebius, who wrote in the early part of the fourth century, speaking of the[Pg 720] first decade after the Savior's ascension, says: "Thus, then, under a celestial influence and cooperation, the doctrine of the Savior, like the rays of the sun, quickly irradiated the whole world. Presently, in accordance with divine prophecy, the sound of His inspired evangelists and apostles had gone throughout all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. Throughout every city and village, like a replenished barn floor, churches were rapidly abounding and filled with members from every people. Those who, in consequence of the delusions that had descended to them from their ancestors, had been fettered by the ancient disease of idolatrous superstition, were now liberated by the power of Christ, through the teachings and miracles of His messengers."—(Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., Book I, ch. 3.)
5. Rapid Growth of the Primitive Church.—Eusebius, who wrote in the early fourth century, described the first decade after the Savior's ascension by saying, "In this way, under divine influence and cooperation, the teachings of the Savior quickly spread across the entire world like rays of sunlight. Soon, as prophesied, the message of His inspired evangelists and apostles reached all corners of the earth, their words traveling to the ends of the world. In every city and village, churches were rapidly multiplying and filling up with members from all nations. Those who had been trapped by the old superstitions passed down from their ancestors were now freed through the power of Christ, thanks to the teachings and miracles of His messengers."—(Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., Book I, ch. 3.)
6. Patmos.—A small island in the Icarian section of the Aegean Sea. Dr. John R. Sterret writes of it in the Standard Bible Dictionary as follows: "A volcanic island of the Sporades group, now nearly treeless. It is characterized by an indented coast and has a safe harbor. By the Romans it was made a place of exile for the lower class of criminals. John, the author of 'Revelation' was banished thither by Domitian, 94 A.D. According to tradition he lived there at hard labor for eighteen months."
6. Patmos.—A small island in the Icarian section of the Aegean Sea. Dr. John R. Sterret describes it in the Standard Bible Dictionary as follows: "A volcanic island in the Sporades group, now almost completely barren of trees. It features a rugged coastline and has a safe harbor. The Romans used it as a place of exile for lower-class criminals. John, the author of 'Revelation,' was banished there by Domitian in 94 A.D. According to tradition, he lived there under hard labor for eighteen months."
7. The Holy Ghost Given.—In answer to a question as to whether the Holy Ghost was received by the apostles at or before Pentecost, a statement was published by the First Presidency of the Church on February 5, 1916 (see Deseret News of that date), from which statement the following excerpts are taken: "The answer to this question depends upon what is meant by 'receiving' the Holy Ghost. If reference is made to the promise of Jesus to His apostles about the endowment or gift of the Holy Ghost by the presence and ministration of the 'personage of Spirit,' called the Holy Ghost by revelation (Doc. and Cov. 130:22), then the answer is, it was not until the day of Pentecost that the promise was fulfilled. But the divine essence called the Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, by which God created or organized all things, and by which the prophets wrote and spoke, was bestowed in former ages, and inspired the apostles in their ministry long before the day of Pentecost.... We read that Jesus, after His resurrection, breathed upon His disciples and said, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' But we also read that He said, 'Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high' (John 20:22; Luke 24:49). We read further: 'For the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.' (John 7:39.) Thus the promise was made, but the fulfilment came after, so that the Holy Ghost sent by Jesus from the Father did not come in person until the day of Pentecost, and the cloven tongues of fire were the sign of His coming."[Pg 721]
7. The Holy Ghost Given.—In response to a question about whether the apostles received the Holy Ghost at or before Pentecost, a statement was published by the First Presidency of the Church on February 5, 1916 (see Deseret News of that date), from which the following excerpts are taken: "The answer to this question depends on what is meant by 'receiving' the Holy Ghost. If it refers to the promise Jesus made to His apostles about the gift of the Holy Ghost through the presence and ministry of the 'personage of Spirit,' identified as the Holy Ghost by revelation (Doc. and Cov. 130:22), then the answer is that it was not until the day of Pentecost that the promise was fulfilled. However, the divine essence known as the Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, by which God created or organized all things, and through which the prophets wrote and spoke, was given in earlier times, inspiring the apostles in their ministry long before Pentecost.... We read that after His resurrection, Jesus breathed on His disciples and said, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' But we also read that He said, 'Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but wait in the city of Jerusalem until you receive power from on high' (John 20:22; Luke 24:49). Furthermore, it says: 'For the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.' (John 7:39.) Thus the promise was made, but the fulfillment came later, so that the Holy Ghost sent by Jesus from the Father did not come in person until the day of Pentecost, and the cloven tongues of fire were the sign of His coming."[Pg 721]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1400] Acts 1:15-26.
[1401] Luke 24:52,53; Acts 1:12-14.
[1403] Matt. 27:52, 53.
[1405] Acts 1:20. The revised version substitutes on a preponderance of authority "office" or, (marginal reading), "overseership," for the erroneous rendering "bishoprick" in the common version. Compare Psalm 109:8.
[1405] Acts 1:20. The updated version replaces "bishoprick" in the traditional text with "office" or, in the margin, "oversight," based on a stronger authority. See Psalm 109:8 for comparison.
[1410] Acts 2:6, in a better rendering than that of the common text (see revised version) reads: "And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together."
[1410] Acts 2:6, in a clearer translation than the usual text (see revised version) reads: "And when this sound was heard, the crowd gathered."
[1413] Acts 2:44-46; 4:32-37; 6:1-4.
[1415] Acts 4:1-22.
[1417] Acts 5:12-17.
[1419] Acts 22:3.
[1420] Acts 5:33-40.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 5:33-40.
[1421] Acts 6:7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 6:7.
[1422] Acts 6:8-15; and 7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 6:8-15; and 7.
[1423] Acts 7:1-53.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 7:1-53.
[1426] Acts 8:4; 11:19.
[1427] Acts 6:9.
[1429] In view of Saul's social status and recognized ability, many believe him to have been a member of the Sanhedrin; but for this assumption we find no definite warrant in scripture.
[1429] Given Saul's social status and acknowledged skills, many think he was part of the Sanhedrin; however, there is no clear evidence for this in scripture.
[1430] Acts 7:58; 8:1-3.
[1431] Acts 8:1.
[1432] Acts 9:1, 2. Observe that "way" here used for the first time to connote the gospel or religion of Christ, occurs frequently in Acts (16:17; 18:25, 26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).
[1432] Acts 9:1, 2. Notice that "way," used here for the first time to refer to the gospel or religion of Christ, is mentioned frequently in Acts (16:17; 18:25, 26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).
[1433] Three versions of this manifestation and its immediate results appear in Acts (9:3-29; 22:6-16; and 26:12-18): the first is the historian's narrative, while the others are given as reports of Saul's own words.
[1433] Three accounts of this event and its immediate outcomes can be found in Acts (9:3-29; 22:6-16; and 26:12-18): the first is the historian's account, while the others are presented as reports of Saul's own statements.
[1436] Acts 9:26-28; 13:2, 3.
[1437] Acts 13:9.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 13:9.
[1439] Acts 22:17-21.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 22:17-21.
[1440] Acts 23:11.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Acts 23:11.
[1441] 1 Cor. 15:3-9.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Cor. 15:3-9.
[1444] Acts 9:36-43.
[1447] Rev. 1:10-20.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Rev. 1:10-20.
[1449] Isa. 24:1-6; Amos. 8:11, 12.
[1450] Matt. 24:4, 5, 10-13, 23-26.
[1451] Acts 20:17-31, particularly 29, 30; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, 7, 8; 2 Peter 2:1-3, read the entire chapter and observe its application to conditions in the world today; Jude 3, 4, 17-19; Rev. 13:4, 6-9; 14:6, 7. See "The Great Apostasy," chapter 2.
[1451] Acts 20:17-31, especially verses 29 and 30; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, 7, 8; 2 Peter 2:1-3, read the whole chapter and consider how it relates to the current situation in the world; Jude 3, 4, 17-19; Rev. 13:4, 6-9; 14:6, 7. See "The Great Apostasy," chapter 2.
CHAPTER 39.
MINISTRY OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.
By considering the apostolic ministry in immediate sequence to our study of the Lord's ascension from the Mount of Olives, we have departed from the chronological order of the several personal manifestations of the risen Savior to mortals; for very soon after His final farewell to the apostles in Judea He visited His "other sheep," not of the eastern fold, whose existence He had affirmed in that impressive sermon concerning the Good Shepherd and His sheep.[1452] Those other sheep who were to hear the Shepherd's voice and eventually be made part of the united fold, were the descendants of Lehi who, with his family and a few others, had left Jerusalem 600 B.C. and had crossed the great deep to what we now know as the American continent, whereon they had grown to be a mighty though a divided people.[1453]
By looking at the apostolic ministry right after studying the Lord's ascension from the Mount of Olives, we’ve stepped outside the chronological order of the different times the risen Savior appeared to people. Because shortly after His final goodbye to the apostles in Judea, He went to visit His "other sheep," who were not part of the eastern fold, whose existence He had mentioned in that powerful sermon about the Good Shepherd and His sheep.[1452] Those other sheep who would hear the Shepherd's voice and eventually join the united fold were the descendants of Lehi, who, with his family and a few others, left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and crossed the great ocean to what we now call the American continent, where they became a great although divided people.[1453]
THE LORD'S DEATH SIGNALIZED BY GREAT CALAMITIES ON THE AMERICAN CONTINENT.
As already set forth in these pages, the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem had been made known to the Nephite nation on the western hemisphere by divine revelation; and the glad event had been marked by the appearance of a new star, by a night devoid of darkness so that two days and the night between had been as one day, and by other wonderful occurrences, all of which had been predicted through the prophets of the western world.[1454] Samuel the Lamanite, who through[Pg 722] faithfulness and good works had become a prophet, mighty in word and deed, duly chosen and commissioned of God, had coupled with his predictions of the glorious occurrences that were to mark the birth of Christ, prophecies of other signs—of darkness, terror, and destruction—by which the Savior's death on the cross would be signalized.[1455] Every prophetic word concerning the phenomena that were to attend the Lord's birth had been fulfilled; and many people had been brought thereby to believe in Christ as the promised Redeemer; but, as is usual with those whose belief rests on miracles, many among the Nephites "began to forget those signs and wonders which they had heard, and began to be less and less astonished at a sign or a wonder from heaven, insomuch that they began to be hard in their hearts, and blind in their minds, and began to disbelieve all which they had heard and seen."[1456]
As already mentioned in these pages, the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem was revealed to the Nephite nation in the western hemisphere through divine revelation; this joyful event was marked by the appearance of a new star, a night without darkness where two days and the night in between felt like one day, and by other miraculous occurrences, all of which were foretold by the prophets of the western world.[1454] Samuel the Lamanite, who, through faithfulness and good deeds, became a powerful prophet chosen and commissioned by God, had associated his predictions of the glorious events surrounding Christ's birth with prophecies of other signs—darkness, fear, and destruction—that would signal the Savior's death on the cross.[1455] Every prophetic word regarding the events accompanying the Lord’s birth had been fulfilled; as a result, many people came to believe in Christ as the promised Redeemer. However, as often happens when beliefs are based on miracles, many among the Nephites "began to forget those signs and wonders which they had heard, and began to be less and less astonished at a sign or a wonder from heaven, so much so that they began to harden their hearts, and become blind in their minds, and started to disbelieve everything they had heard and seen."[1456]
Thirty and three years had sped their course since the illumined night and the other signs of Messiah's advent; then, on the fourth day of the first month, or, according to our calendar, during the first week of April, in the thirty-fourth year, there arose a great and terrible tempest, with thunderings, lightnings, and both elevations and depressions of the earth's surface, so that the highways were broken up, mountains were sundered, and many cities were utterly destroyed by earthquake, fire, and the inrush of the sea. For three hours the unprecedented holocaust continued; and then thick darkness fell, in the which it was found impossible to kindle a fire; the awful gloom was like unto the darkness of Egypt[1457] in that its clammy vapors could be felt. This condition lasted until the third day, so that a night a day and a night were as one unbroken night, and the impenetrable blackness was rendered the more terrible by the wailing of the people, whose heart-rending refrain was everywhere the[Pg 723] same, "O that we had repented before this great and terrible day."[1458]
Thirty-three years had passed since that memorable night and the other signs of the Messiah's arrival; then, on the fourth day of the first month, or, according to our calendar, during the first week of April in the thirty-fourth year, a great and terrible storm struck. There were thunder, lightning, and both upheavals and depressions of the earth’s surface, which caused the roads to break apart, mountains to split, and many cities to be entirely destroyed by earthquakes, fire, and the sea rushing in. The unprecedented destruction lasted for three hours; then thick darkness descended, rendering it impossible to light a fire. The terrible gloom felt like the darkness of Egypt, with its cold, suffocating mists. This situation lasted until the third day, making one night, a day, and another night feel like one continuous night, and the overwhelming darkness was made even more horrifying by the cries of the people, whose heartbreaking refrain echoed everywhere, “Oh, that we had repented before this great and terrible day.”
Then, piercing the darkness, came a Voice,[1459] before which the frightful chorus of human lamentation was silenced; "Wo, wo, wo unto this people" resounded throughout the land. The Voice proclaimed increasing woes except the people should repent. Destruction had befallen because of wickedness, and the devil was then laughing over the number of the dead and the retributive cause of their destruction. The extent of the dread calamity was detailed; cities that had been burned with their inhabitants, others that had sunk into the sea, yet others buried in the earth, were enumerated; and the divine reason for this widespread destruction was plainly set forth—that the wickedness and abominations of the people might be hidden from the face of the earth. Those who had lived to hear were declared to be the more righteous of the inhabitants; and to them hope was offered on conditions of more thorough repentance and reformation.
Then, cutting through the darkness, came a Voice,[1459] that silenced the terrifying chorus of human grief; "Woe, woe, woe to this people" echoed throughout the land. The Voice announced increasing hardships unless the people repented. Destruction had come because of wickedness, and the devil was now rejoicing over the number of the dead and the reasons for their demise. The extent of the horrifying disaster was laid out; cities that had burned with their residents, others that had sunk into the sea, and still others buried in the ground were listed; and the divine reason for this widespread destruction was clearly explained—that the wickedness and abominations of the people might be removed from the earth. Those who survived to hear were said to be the most righteous of the inhabitants; and to them, hope was offered if they would fully repent and reform.
The identity of the Voice was thus made known: "Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name." The Lord commanded that the people should no longer serve Him with bloody sacrifices and burnt offerings; for the law of Moses was fulfilled; and thenceforth the only acceptable sacrifice would be the broken heart and the contrite spirit; and such should never be rejected. The humble and repentant the Lord would receive as His own. "Behold," He said, "for such I have laid down my life, and have taken it up again; therefore repent, and come unto me ye ends of the earth, and be saved."
The identity of the Voice was revealed: "Look, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and everything in them. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father is in me; and through me, the Father has glorified His name." The Lord commanded that the people should no longer serve Him with animal sacrifices and burnt offerings; for the law of Moses has been fulfilled; from now on, the only acceptable sacrifice will be a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and such offerings will never be rejected. The humble and repentant He will accept as His own. "Look," He said, "for these are the ones for whom I laid down my life and took it back again; therefore, repent and come to me, you who are distant, and be saved."
The Voice ceased; and through the space of many hours[Pg 724] of continuing darkness vociferous lamentations were hushed, for the people were convicted of their guilt and silently wept in astonishment over what they had heard, and in hopeful anticipation of the salvation that had been offered. A second time the Voice was heard, as in sorrow over those who had refused to accept the Savior's succor; for often had He protected them, more often would He have so done had they been willing, and yet in the future would He cherish them, "as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings" if they would repent and live in righteousness. On the morning of the third day the darkness dispersed, seismic disturbances ceased, and the storms abated. As the pall was lifted from the land the people saw how profound had been the convulsions of earth, and how great had been their loss of kindred and friends. In their contrition and humiliation they remembered the predictions of the prophets, and knew that the mandate of the Lord had been executed upon them.[1460]
The Voice stopped; and for many hours[Pg 724] of ongoing darkness, loud cries of grief were silenced, as the people were filled with guilt and silently wept in shock over what they had heard, and in hopeful anticipation of the salvation that had been offered. A second time, the Voice was heard, lamenting for those who had refused the Savior's help; for He had often protected them, and would have done so even more if they had been willing, and yet in the future He would care for them, "like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings" if they would repent and live righteously. On the morning of the third day, the darkness lifted, the earthquakes stopped, and the storms calmed down. As the gloom cleared from the land, the people realized how severe the upheavals had been, and how great their loss of family and friends. In their sorrow and humility, they recalled the prophecies of the prophets and understood that the Lord's command had been fulfilled upon them.[1460]
Christ had risen; and following Him many of the righteous dead on the western continent rose from their graves, and appeared as resurrected, immortalized beings among the survivors of the land-wide destruction; even as in Judea many of the saints had been raised immediately after the resurrection of Christ.[1461]
Christ had risen, and many of the righteous dead on the western continent came back to life from their graves, appearing as resurrected, immortal beings among the survivors of the widespread destruction. This was similar to how many of the saints in Judea were raised right after Christ's resurrection.[1461]
FIRST VISITATION OF JESUS CHRIST TO THE NEPHITES.[1462]
About six weeks or more after the events last considered,[1463] a great multitude of the Nephites had assembled at the temple in the land called Bountiful,[1464] and were earnestly discoursing with one another over the great changes that had been wrought in the land, and particularly concerning Jesus Christ, of whose atoning death the predicted signs had been[Pg 725] witnessed in all their tragic details. The prevailing spirit of the assembly was that of contrition and reverence. While thus congregated they heard a sound as of a Voice from above; but both a first and a second utterance were to them unintelligible. As they listened with rapt intentness, the Voice was heard a third time, and it said unto them: "Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name: hear ye him."[1465]
About six weeks or more after the last events discussed,[1463] a large crowd of Nephites gathered at the temple in a place called Bountiful,[1464] and were deeply conversing with each other about the significant changes that had occurred in the land, especially regarding Jesus Christ, whose atoning death had been accompanied by foretold signs that were witnessed in all their tragic detail. The dominant feeling in the gathering was one of humility and respect. While they were assembled, they heard a sound that seemed like a Voice from above; however, both the first and the second utterances were unclear to them. As they listened intently, the Voice was heard a third time, saying: "Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name: hear ye him."[1465]
While gazing upward in reverent expectation, the people beheld a Man, clothed in a white robe, who descended and stood among them. He spake, saying: "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world; and behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning." The multitude prostrated themselves in adoration for they remembered that their prophets had foretold that the Lord would appear among them after His resurrection and ascension.[1466]
While looking up in awe, the people saw a Man dressed in a white robe who came down and stood among them. He spoke, saying: "Look, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets said would come into the world; and I am the light and the life of the world; I have taken on the bitter cup that the Father gave me, and I have honored the Father by taking on the sins of the world, suffering the Father's will in everything from the beginning." The crowd fell to the ground in worship, remembering that their prophets had predicted that the Lord would appear among them after His resurrection and ascension.[1466]
As He directed, the people arose, and one by one came to Him, and did see and feel the prints of the nails in His hands and feet, and the spear-wound in His side. Moved to adoring utterance, with one accord they cried: "Hosanna! blessed be the name of the Most High God!" then, falling at the feet of Jesus, they worshiped Him.
As He directed, the people got up and came to Him one by one, seeing and feeling the marks of the nails in His hands and feet, and the wound from the spear in His side. Overcome with reverence, they all shouted in unison: "Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God!" Then, falling at the feet of Jesus, they worshiped Him.
Summoning Nephi and eleven others to approach, the Lord gave them authority to baptize the people after His departure, and prescribed the mode of baptism with particular injunction against disputation in the matter or alteration of the given form, as witness the Lord's words:
Summoning Nephi and eleven others to come forward, the Lord gave them the authority to baptize people after He left and specified how baptism should be done, with a clear instruction against arguing about it or changing the established process, as shown by the Lord's words:
"Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them: behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them. And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying, Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water. And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name, for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one. And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there hath hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there hath hitherto been."[1467]
"Truly, I tell you, anyone who repents of their sins through your words and wants to be baptized in my name should be baptized this way: look, you shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name, you shall baptize them. And now, these are the words you shall say, calling them by name: 'Having the authority given to me by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.' Then you shall immerse them in the water and bring them back up again. This is how you shall baptize in my name, for truly, I tell you, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one; I am in the Father, the Father is in me, and the Father and I are one. You shall baptize as I have commanded you. There shall be no arguments among you as there have been before; nor shall there be arguments among you about my teachings as there have been until now."[1467]
The people in general, and particularly the Twelve, chosen as stated, were impressively warned against contention over matters of doctrine, the spirit of which was declared to be of the devil, "who is the father of contention." The doctrine of Jesus Christ was set forth in simple yet comprehensive summary in these words:
The people in general, and especially the Twelve, who were chosen as mentioned, were strongly cautioned against arguing over doctrinal issues, which was said to be influenced by the devil, "who is the father of contention." The teachings of Jesus Christ were presented in a clear but thorough summary in these words:
"Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine. And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me, and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men: everywhere, to repent and believe in me; And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned."[1468]
"Listen, truly, I say to you, I will share with you my teachings. This is my teaching, given to me by the Father; I testify of the Father, and the Father testifies of me, and the Holy Spirit testifies of both the Father and me. I affirm that the Father commands everyone everywhere to repent and have faith in me. Anyone who believes in me and is baptized will be saved, and they will inherit the kingdom of God. But anyone who does not believe in me and is not baptized will be condemned."[1468]
Repentance, and humility akin to that of the innocent trusting child were the prerequisites for baptism, without[Pg 727] which none could inherit the kingdom of God. With the incisiveness and simplicity that had characterized His teachings in Palestine, the Lord thus instructed His newly chosen Twelve:
Repentance and humility like that of a trusting child were necessary for baptism, without[Pg 727] which no one could inherit the kingdom of God. With the clarity and simplicity that defined His teachings in Palestine, the Lord instructed His newly chosen Twelve:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this, buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock, but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell standeth open to receive such, when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken unto the ends of the earth."[1469]
"Truly, I tell you that this is my teaching, and anyone who builds their life on this foundation is building on my rock, and the gates of hell will not overcome them. But anyone who teaches anything more or less than this, and tries to make it my teaching, comes from evil and is not building on my rock; instead, they're building on a shaky foundation, and the gates of hell are wide open to accept them when the floods come and the winds strike them. So go out to this people and share the words I have spoken to the ends of the earth."[1469]
Then, turning to the multitude, Jesus admonished them to give heed to the teachings of the Twelve, and continued with a discourse embodying the sublime principles He had taught among the Jews in the Sermon on the Mount.[1470] The Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, and the same splendid array of ennobling precepts are set forth, and the same wealth of effective comparison and apt illustration appear, in both Matthew's and Nephi's versions of this unparalleled address; but a significant difference is observed in every reference to the fulfilment of the Mosaic law; for where the Jewish scriptures record the Lord's words as pointing to a fulfilment then incomplete, the corresponding expressions in the Nephite account are in the past tense, the law having been already fulfilled in its entirety through the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, to the Jews Jesus had said: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"; but to the Nephites: "For verily I say unto you, one jot nor one tittle hath not passed away from the law, but in me it hath all been fulfilled."[1471]
Then, turning to the crowd, Jesus urged them to pay attention to the teachings of the Twelve and continued with a discussion that included the essential principles He had taught among the Jews in the Sermon on the Mount.[1470] The Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, and the same impressive array of uplifting principles are presented, along with the same wealth of effective comparisons and fitting illustrations, in both Matthew's and Nephi's versions of this unique address; however, a significant difference is noted in every mention of the fulfillment of the Mosaic law. While the Jewish scriptures record the Lord's words as referring to a fulfillment that was not yet complete, the corresponding expressions in the Nephite account are in the past tense, as the law had already been entirely fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Christ. Therefore, to the Jews, Jesus said: "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until everything is fulfilled"; but to the Nephites, He said: "For truly I say to you, not one jot nor one tittle has passed away from the law, but in me, it has all been fulfilled."[1471]
Many marveled over this matter, wondering what the Lord would have them do concerning the law of Moses; "for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new." Jesus, conscious of their perplexity, proclaimed in plainness that He was the Giver of the law, and that by Him had it been fulfilled and therefore abrogated. His affirmation is particularly explicit:
Many were amazed by this issue, questioning what the Lord wanted them to do about the law of Moses; "for they did not understand that the old ways had ended, and everything had become new." Jesus, aware of their confusion, clearly stated that He was the Giver of the law, and that it had been fulfilled and therefore canceled through Him. His statement is especially clear:
"Behold I say unto you, that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel: therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end. Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled. And because I said unto you, that old things hath passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come. For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses, hath an end in me."[1472]
"Look, I’m telling you that the law given to Moses is now complete. I am the one who gave the law and made a covenant with my people Israel; therefore, the law is fulfilled in me because I have come to complete it; that’s why it comes to an end. Look, I do not negate the prophets, because everything that hasn’t been fulfilled in me will definitely be fulfilled. And because I told you that old things have passed away, I do not negate what has been said about future events. For look, the covenant I made with my people is not entirely fulfilled; but the law that was given to Moses ends in me."[1472]
Addressing Himself to the Twelve He affirmed that never had the Father commanded Him to inform the Jews concerning the existence of the Nephites, except indirectly by mention of other sheep not of the Jewish fold; and as, "because of stiffneckedness and unbelief," they had failed to comprehend His words, the Father had commanded Him to say no more with reference either to the Nephites or to the third fold—comprizing "the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land." To the Nephite disciples Jesus taught many other matters that had been withheld from the Jews, who through unfitness to receive had been left in ignorance. Even the Jewish apostles had wrongly supposed that those "other sheep" were the Gentile nations, not realizing that the carrying of the gospel to the Gentiles was part of their particular mission,[Pg 729] and oblivious to the fact that never would Christ manifest Himself in person to those who were not of the house of Israel. Through the promptings of the Holy Ghost and under the ministrations of men commissioned and sent would the Gentiles hear the word of God; but to the personal manifestation of the Messiah they were ineligible.[1473] Great, however, will be the Lord's mercies and blessings to the Gentiles who accept the truth, for unto them the Holy Ghost shall bear witness of the Father and of the Son; and all of them who comply with the laws and ordinances of the gospel shall be numbered in the house of Israel. Their conversion and enfoldment with the Lord's own will be as individuals, and not as nations, tribes, or peoples.[1474]
Addressing the Twelve, He stated that the Father never commanded Him to tell the Jews about the Nephites, except indirectly by mentioning other sheep not of the Jewish fold. Because of their stubbornness and disbelief, they failed to understand His words, so the Father told Him to say no more about the Nephites or the third fold, which includes "the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father has led away from the land." To the Nephite disciples, Jesus taught many other things that had been kept from the Jews, who, because they were not ready to receive it, were left in ignorance. Even the Jewish apostles mistakenly thought that those "other sheep" were the Gentile nations, not realizing that reaching out to the Gentiles was part of their specific mission, and unaware that Christ would never appear in person to anyone not from the house of Israel. The Gentiles would hear the word of God through the Holy Ghost's promptings and through men who were appointed and sent, but they were not eligible for a personal appearance of the Messiah. However, the Lord's mercies and blessings will be great for the Gentiles who accept the truth, as the Holy Ghost will bear witness of the Father and the Son to them; and all who follow the laws and ordinances of the gospel will be counted among the house of Israel. Their conversion and inclusion with the Lord will be as individuals, not as nations, tribes, or peoples.
The adoring multitude, numbering about two thousand five hundred souls, thought that Jesus was about to depart; and they tearfully yearned to have Him remain. He comforted them with the assurance that He would return on the morrow, and admonished them to ponder upon the things He had taught, and to pray in His name to the Father for understanding. He had already informed the Twelve, and now stated to the people, that He would show Himself and minister "unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them." Voicing the compassion He felt, the Lord directed the people to fetch their afflicted ones, the lame, halt, maimed, blind and deaf, the leprous, and the withered; and when these were brought He healed them, every one. Then, as He commanded, parents brought their little children, and placed them in a circle around Him. The multitude bowed in prayer; and Jesus prayed for them; "And," wrote Nephi, "no tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvellous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak;[Pg 730] and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father." The prayer being ended, Jesus bade the multitude arise; and joyfully He exclaimed: "Blessed are ye because of your faith. And now behold, my joy is full." Jesus wept. Then He took the children, one by one, and blessed them, praying unto the Father for each.
The loving crowd, around two thousand five hundred people, thought Jesus was about to leave; and they tearfully wished for Him to stay. He reassured them that He would return the next day and urged them to reflect on what He had taught and to pray in His name to the Father for understanding. He had already told the Twelve and now informed the people that He would show Himself and minister "to the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost to the Father, for He knows where He has taken them." Expressing His compassion, the Lord instructed the people to bring their troubled ones—the lame, the crippled, the maimed, the blind, and the deaf, as well as those with leprosy and the withered; and when they were brought to Him, He healed every single one. Then, as He instructed, parents brought their little children and placed them in a circle around Him. The crowd bowed in prayer, and Jesus prayed for them; "And," wrote Nephi, "no tongue can speak, nor can any man write, neither can the hearts of men imagine such great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus say; and no one can understand the joy that filled our souls when we heard Him pray for us to the Father." After the prayer, Jesus told the crowd to stand up; and joyfully He exclaimed, "Blessed are you because of your faith. And now look, my joy is complete." Jesus cried. Then He took the children, one by one, and blessed them, praying to the Father for each.
"And when he had done this he wept again, and he spake unto the multitude, and saith unto them, behold your little ones. And as they looked to behold, they cast their eyes towards heaven, and they saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it were, in the midst of fire; and they came down and encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them."[1475]
"And after he did this, he cried again, and he spoke to the crowd, saying to them, 'Look at your little ones.' And as they looked, they turned their eyes towards heaven, and they saw the heavens open, and they watched angels descending from heaven as if surrounded by fire; they came down and surrounded those little ones, and they were surrounded by fire; and the angels ministered to them."[1475]
The Lord Jesus sent for bread and wine, and caused the people to sit down. The bread He brake and blessed, and gave thereof to the Twelve; these, having eaten, distributed bread to the multitude. The wine was blessed, and all partook, the Twelve first, and afterward the people. With impressiveness similar to that attending the institution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper among the apostles in Jerusalem, Jesus made plain the sanctity and significance of the ordinance, saying that authority for its future administration would be given; and that it was to be participated in by all who had been baptized into fellowship with Christ, and was always to be observed in remembrance of Him, the bread being the sacred emblem of His body, the wine the token of His blood that had been shed. By express commandment, the Lord forbade the sacrament of bread and wine to all but the worthy; "For," He explained, "whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood, ye shall[Pg 731] forbid him." But the people were forbidden to cast out from their assemblies those from whom the Sacrament was to be withheld, if so be they would but repent and seek fellowship through baptism.[1476]
The Lord Jesus called for bread and wine and asked the people to sit down. He broke the bread, blessed it, and gave it to the Twelve; they, after eating, shared the bread with the crowd. The wine was blessed, and everyone partook, starting with the Twelve and then the rest of the people. With the same seriousness as when the apostles instituted the Lord's Supper in Jerusalem, Jesus highlighted the holiness and importance of the ritual, stating that authority for its future administration would be granted, and that everyone baptized into fellowship with Christ should participate, always remembering Him. The bread symbolizes His body, while the wine represents His shed blood. By specific command, the Lord restricted the sacrament of bread and wine to only those who are worthy: "For," He said, "anyone who eats and drinks my flesh and blood unworthily brings condemnation upon themselves; therefore, if you know someone is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood, you should forbid them." However, the people were told not to expel from their gatherings those who were denied the Sacrament, provided they would repent and seek fellowship through baptism.[Pg 731]
The necessity of prayer was explicitly emphasized by the Lord, the commandment to pray being given to the Twelve and to the multitude separately. Individual supplication, family devotions, and congregational worship were thus enjoined:
The importance of prayer was clearly highlighted by the Lord, who instructed both the Twelve and the crowd separately to pray. Personal requests, family prayers, and group worship were therefore encouraged:
"Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name; and whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you. Pray in your families unto the Father, always in my name, that your wives and your children may be blessed. And behold, ye shall meet together oft, and ye shall not forbid any man from coming unto you when ye shall meet together, but suffer them that they may come unto you, and forbid them not; but ye shall pray for them, and shall not cast them out; and if it so be that they come unto you oft, ye shall pray for them unto the Father, in my name."[1477]
"Therefore, you should always pray to the Father in my name; and whatever you ask the Father in my name, as long as it's right and you believe you will receive it, it will be given to you. Pray in your families to the Father, always in my name, so that your wives and children may be blessed. And indeed, you should meet together often, and you should not prevent anyone from coming to you when you meet, but let them come to you and don't turn them away; instead, pray for them and do not push them out; and if they come to you often, you should pray for them to the Father in my name." [1477]
The Lord then touched with His hand each of the Twelve, investing them, in words unheard by others, with power to confer the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands upon all repentant and baptized believers.[1478] As he finished the ordination of the Twelve, a cloud overshadowed the people, so that the Lord was hidden from their sight; but the twelve disciples "saw and did bear record that he ascended again into heaven."
The Lord then touched each of the Twelve with His hand, giving them the ability to grant the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands for all who repent and are baptized. [1478] As He completed the ordination of the Twelve, a cloud covered the people, hiding the Lord from their view; but the twelve disciples "saw and testified that He ascended back into heaven."
CHRIST'S SECOND VISITATION TO THE NEPHITES.[1479]
On the morrow a yet greater multitude assembled in expectation of the Savior's return. Throughout the night messengers[Pg 732] had spread the glorious tidings of the Lord's appearing, and of His promise to again visit His people. So great was the assembly that Nephi and his associates caused the people to separate into twelve bodies, to each of which one of the disciples was assigned to impart instruction and to lead in prayer. The burden of supplication was that the Holy Ghost should be given unto them. Led by the chosen disciples the whole vast concourse approached the water's edge, and Nephi, going first, was baptized by immersion; he then baptized the eleven others whom Jesus had chosen. When the Twelve had come forth out of the water, "they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. And behold, they were encircled about as if it were fire; and it came down from heaven, and the multitude did witness it, and do bear record; and angels did come down out of heaven, and did minister unto them. And it came to pass that while the angels were ministering unto the disciples, behold, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and ministered unto them."[1480]
On the next day, an even larger crowd gathered, eagerly awaiting the Savior's return. Throughout the night, messengers had spread the exciting news about the Lord's appearance and his promise to visit his people again. The gathering was so huge that Nephi and his associates had the people split into twelve groups, with one of the disciples assigned to each group to teach and lead in prayer. Their main prayer was for the Holy Ghost to be given to them. Led by the chosen disciples, the entire crowd approached the water's edge, and Nephi went first to be baptized by immersion; he then baptized the other eleven disciples chosen by Jesus. Once the Twelve came out of the water, "they were filled with the Holy Ghost and with fire. And behold, they were surrounded as if by fire; it came down from heaven, and the crowd witnessed it and bears record of it; angels came down from heaven and ministered to them. While the angels were ministering to the disciples, behold, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and ministered to them."[1480]
Thus Jesus appeared in the midst of the disciples and ministering angels. At His command the Twelve and the multitude knelt in prayer; and they prayed unto Jesus, calling Him their Lord and their God. Jesus separated Himself by a little space, and in humble attitude prayed, saying in part: "Father, I thank thee that thou hast given the Holy Ghost unto these whom I have chosen; and it is because of their belief in me, that I have chosen them out of the world. Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words." The disciples were yet fervently praying to Jesus when He returned to them; and as He looked upon them with merciful and approving smile, they were glorified in His presence, so that their countenances and their apparel shone with a brilliancy like unto that of the face and garments of the Lord, even so that "there could be nothing on earth so white as the whiteness[Pg 733] thereof." A second and a third time Jesus retired and prayed unto the Father; and while the people comprehended the meaning of His prayer, they confessed and bare record that "so great and marvellous were the words which he prayed, that they cannot be written, neither can they be uttered by man." The Lord rejoiced in the faith of the people, and to the disciples He said: "So great faith have I never seen among all the Jews; wherefore I could not shew unto them so great miracles, because of their unbelief. Verily I say unto you, there are none of them that have seen so great things as ye have seen; neither have they heard so great things as ye have heard."[1481] Then the Lord administered the Sacrament in manner as on the yesterday; but both the bread and the wine were provided without human aid. The sanctity of the ordinance was thus expressed: "He that eateth this bread, eateth of my body to his soul, and he that drinketh of this wine, drinketh of my blood to his soul, and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled."
Thus, Jesus appeared among the disciples and ministering angels. At His command, the Twelve and the crowd knelt in prayer, calling Him their Lord and God. Jesus stepped back a bit and humbly prayed, saying in part: "Father, I thank You for giving the Holy Spirit to those I have chosen; it is because of their faith in me that I selected them out of the world. Father, I ask You to give the Holy Spirit to all who believe in their words." The disciples were still fervently praying to Jesus when He returned to them; as He looked at them with a merciful and approving smile, they felt glorified in His presence, their faces and clothing shining brightly, as if nothing on earth could be as white as they were. A second and a third time, Jesus withdrew to pray to the Father; while the people understood the meaning of His prayer, they confessed and bore witness that "the words He prayed were so great and marvelous that they cannot be written or spoken by man." The Lord rejoiced in the people's faith and said to the disciples: "I have never seen such great faith among all the Jews; therefore I could not show them such great miracles because of their unbelief. Truly, I tell you, none of them have seen such great things as you have seen; nor have they heard such great things as you have heard." Then the Lord administered the Sacrament as He did the previous day, but both the bread and the wine were provided without any human help. The sanctity of the ordinance was expressed this way: "Whoever eats this bread eats of my body, and whoever drinks this wine drinks of my blood, and their soul will never hunger or thirst, but will be fulfilled."
This was followed by instructions concerning the covenant people, Israel, of whom the Nephites were a part, and of the relation they would bear to the Gentile nations in the future development of the divine purpose. Jesus declared Himself to be that Prophet whose coming Moses had foretold, and the Christ of whom all the prophets had testified. The temporary supremacy of the Gentiles, whereby the further scattering of Israel would be accomplished, and the eventual gathering of the covenant people, were predicted, with frequent reference to the inspired utterances of Isaiah bearing thereon.[1482] The future of Lehi's descendants was pictured as a dwindling in unbelief through iniquity; in consequence of which the Gentiles would grow to be a mighty people on the western continent, even though that land had been given as an ultimate inheritance to the house of Israel.[Pg 734] The establishment of the then future but now existent American nation, characterized as "a free people," was thus foretold and God's purpose therein explained: "For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth from them unto a remnant of your seed, that the covenant of the Father may be fulfilled which he hath covenanted with his people, O house of Israel."[1483]
This was followed by instructions regarding the covenant people, Israel, of whom the Nephites were a part, and their role in relation to the Gentile nations in the future development of God's plan. Jesus identified Himself as that Prophet whom Moses had predicted, and the Christ that all the prophets had spoken about. The temporary dominance of the Gentiles, which would lead to the further scattering of Israel and the eventual gathering of the covenant people, was foretold, often referencing the inspired words of Isaiah. The future of Lehi's descendants was described as a decline in faith due to wrongdoing, as a result of which the Gentiles would become a powerful nation on the western continent, even though that land had been given as the final inheritance to the house of Israel. The establishment of the future but now existing American nation, described as "a free people," was thus predicted, and God's purpose in this was explained: "For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth from them unto a remnant of your seed, that the covenant of the Father may be fulfilled which he hath covenanted with his people, O house of Israel."
As a sign of the time in which the gathering of the several branches of Israel from their long dispersion should take place, the Lord specified the prosperity of the Gentiles in America, and their agency in bringing the scriptures to the degraded remnant of Lehi's posterity or the American Indians.[1484] It was made plain that all Gentiles who would repent, and accept the gospel of Christ through baptism, should be numbered among the covenant people and be made partakers of the blessings incident to the last days, in which the New Jerusalem would be established on the American continent. The joyful account of gathered Israel as Jehovah had given it aforetime through the mouth of His prophet Isaiah, was repeated by the resurrected Jehovah to His Nephite flock.[1485] Admonishing them to ponder the words of the prophets, which were of record amongst them, and to give heed to the new scriptures He had made known, and especially commanding the Twelve to teach the people further concerning the things He had expounded, the Lord informed them of the revelations given through Malachi, and directed that the same be written.[1486]
As a sign of the time when the various branches of Israel would gather after their long dispersion, the Lord highlighted the prosperity of the Gentiles in America and their role in bringing the scriptures to the marginalized descendants of Lehi, or the American Indians.[1484] It was made clear that all Gentiles who repented and accepted the gospel of Christ through baptism would be counted among the covenant people and receive the blessings linked to the last days, when the New Jerusalem would be established on the American continent. The joyful account of gathered Israel, which Jehovah had previously conveyed through the prophet Isaiah, was reiterated by the resurrected Jehovah to His Nephite followers.[1485] He urged them to reflect on the words of the prophets that were recorded among them and to pay attention to the new scriptures He had revealed, especially instructing the Twelve to teach the people further about the things He had explained. The Lord informed them of the revelations given through Malachi and instructed that these be written down.[1486]
The prophecies so reiterated by Him who had inspired Malachi to utterance, were at that time obviously of the future, and are even yet unfulfilled in their entirety. The[Pg 735] advent of the Lord, to which these scriptures testify, is yet future; but that the time is now near—that "great and dreadful day of the Lord"—is attested by the fact that Elijah who was to come before that day, has appeared in the discharge of his particular commission—that of turning the hearts of the living children to their dead progenitors, and the hearts of the departed fathers to their still mortal posterity.[1487]
The prophecies repeatedly spoken by the one who inspired Malachi to speak were clearly about the future at that time and still haven't been completely fulfilled. The arrival of the Lord, which these scriptures refer to, is still forthcoming; however, the time is close—that "great and terrible day of the Lord"—as evidenced by the fact that Elijah, who was meant to come before that day, has already appeared to fulfill his specific mission: to turn the hearts of the living children towards their deceased ancestors, and the hearts of the departed fathers towards their living descendants.[Pg 735][1487]
The personal ministry of Christ on the occasion of this second visitation lasted three days, during which He gave the people many scriptures, such as had been before given unto the Jews, for so the Father had commanded; and He expounded unto them the purposes of God, from the beginning until the time at which Christ shall return in His glory; "And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall stand before God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil; if they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of damnation, being on a parallel, the one on the one hand, and the other on the other hand, according to the mercy, and the justice, and the holiness which is in Christ, who was before the world began." In merciful ministration He healed their afflicted folk, and raised a man from the dead. At later but unspecified times, He showed Himself among the Nephites, and "did break bread oft, and bless it, and give it unto them."[1488]
The personal ministry of Christ during this second visit lasted three days, during which He shared many scriptures that had previously been given to the Jews, as commanded by the Father; He explained to them God's purposes, from the beginning until the time when Christ will return in His glory; "And even until the great and last day, when all people, all families, and all nations and languages will stand before God to be judged for their actions, whether they are good or evil; if good, they will rise to everlasting life; if evil, they will rise to damnation, one on one side and the other on the other side, according to the mercy, justice, and holiness that is in Christ, who existed before the world began." In His merciful service, He healed their suffering people and raised a man from the dead. At later but unspecified times, He appeared among the Nephites, and "did break bread often, bless it, and give it to them."[1488]
After His second ascension from among them, the spirit of prophecy was manifest among the people, and this extended even to children and babes, many of whom spake of marvelous things, as the Spirit gave them utterance. The Twelve entered upon their ministry with vigor, teaching all[Pg 736] who would hear, and baptizing those who, through repentance, sought communion with the Church. Upon all who thus complied with the requirements of the gospel, the Holy Ghost was bestowed; and those so blessed lived together in love, and were called the Church of Christ.[1489]
After His second ascension from among them, the spirit of prophecy became evident among the people, reaching even children and infants, many of whom spoke of amazing things as the Spirit enabled them. The Twelve began their ministry with enthusiasm, teaching everyone who would listen and baptizing those who, through repentance, sought to join the Church. All who met the requirements of the gospel received the Holy Ghost; those who were blessed lived together in love and were called the Church of Christ.[1489]
CHRIST'S VISITATION TO HIS CHOSEN TWELVE AMONG THE NEPHITES.[1490]
Under the administration of the twelve ordained disciples the Church grew and prospered in the land of Nephi.[1491] The disciples, as special witnesses of the Christ, traveled, preached, taught, and baptized all who professed faith and showed forth repentance. On a certain occasion the Twelve were assembled in "mighty prayer and fasting," seeking instruction on a particular matter which, notwithstanding the Lord's injunction against contention, had given rise to disputation among the people. As they supplicated the Father in the Son's name, Jesus appeared amongst them, and asked: "What will ye that I shall give unto you?" Their answer was: "Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter." They had provisionally called the community of baptized believers the Church of Christ; but, apparently this true and distinguishing name had not been generally accepted without question.
Under the leadership of the twelve ordained disciples, the Church flourished in the land of Nephi.[1491] The disciples, as special witnesses of Christ, traveled, preached, taught, and baptized everyone who professed faith and showed genuine repentance. One time, the Twelve gathered in "powerful prayer and fasting," looking for guidance on a specific issue that, despite the Lord's warning against arguments, had sparked debate among the people. While they prayed to the Father in the name of the Son, Jesus appeared to them and asked, "What do you want me to give you?" They replied, "Lord, we want you to tell us the name by which we should call this church, because there are debates among the people about it." They had temporarily named the community of baptized believers the Church of Christ, but it seemed that this true and identifying name had not been widely accepted without question.
"And the Lord said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing? Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? for by this name shall ye be called at the last day; and whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day; therefore whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore[Pg 737] ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name, that he will bless the church for my sake; And how be it my church, save it be called in my name? for if a church be called in Moses' name, then it be Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man, then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name, then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name, the Father will hear you; and if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel, then will the Father shew forth his own works in it; but if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you, they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return; for their works do follow them, for it is because of their works that they are hewn down; therefore remember the things that I have told you."[1492]
"And the Lord said to them, Truly, I tell you, why are people complaining and arguing about this? Have they not read the scriptures, which say you must take upon yourselves the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name you will be called on the last day; and whoever takes my name upon themselves and endures to the end shall be saved on that day; therefore, whatever you do, do it in my name; therefore[Pg 737] you should call the church in my name; and you should pray to the Father in my name, so that he will bless the church for my sake. And how can it be my church if it is not called by my name? For if a church is called in Moses' name, then it is Moses' church; or if it is called in the name of a man, then it is the church of a man; but if it is called in my name, then it is my church, as long as it is built upon my gospel. I truly say to you, you are built upon my gospel; therefore, you should call whatever you name, in my name; so if you call upon the Father for the church, if it is in my name, the Father will hear you; and if the church is built upon my gospel, then the Father will show his own works in it; but if it is not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or the works of the devil, truly I say to you, they may have joy in their works for a time, but eventually the end will come, and they will be cut down and cast into the fire, from which there is no return; for their works follow them, and it is because of their works that they are cut down; therefore remember the things I have told you." [1492]
In such wise did the Lord confirm as an authoritative bestowal, the name which, through inspiration, had been assumed by His obedient children, The Church of Jesus Christ. The Lord's explanation as to the one and only Name by which the Church could be appropriately known is cogent and convincing. It was not the church of Lehi or Nephi, of Mosiah or Alma, of Samuel or Helaman; else it should have been called by the name of the man whose church it was, even as today there are churches named after men;[1493] but being the Church established by Jesus Christ, it could properly bear none other name than His.
In this way, the Lord confirmed the name that His obedient followers had taken on through inspiration, The Church of Jesus Christ. The Lord's explanation about the one and only name that the Church could rightfully be called is clear and persuasive. It wasn’t the church of Lehi or Nephi, or of Mosiah or Alma, or of Samuel or Helaman; otherwise, it would have been named after the man whose church it was, just like today there are churches named after people; [1493] but since it is the Church established by Jesus Christ, it can only rightly bear His name.
Jesus then reiterated to the Nephite Twelve many of the cardinal principles He had before enunciated to them and to the people at large; and commanded that His words be written, excepting certain exalted communications which He forbade them to write. The importance of preserving as a[Pg 738] priceless treasure the new scriptures He had given was shown, with assurance that in heaven records were kept of all things done by divine direction. The Twelve were told that they were to be the judges of their people; and in view of such investiture they were admonished to diligence and godliness.[1494] The Lord was made glad by the faith and ready obedience of the Nephites amongst whom He had ministered; and to the twelve special witnesses He said: "And now behold, my joy is great, even unto fulness, because of you, and also this generation; yea, and even the Father rejoiceth, and also all the holy angels, because of you and this generation; for none of them are lost. Behold, I would that ye should understand; for I mean them who are now alive of this generation; and none of them are lost; and in them I have fulness of joy." His joy, however, was mingled with sorrow because of the apostasy into which the later generations would fall; this He foresaw as a dire condition that would attain its climax in the fourth generation from that time.[1495]
Jesus then repeated to the Nephite Twelve many of the key principles He had previously shared with them and the larger group, and He instructed that His words be written down, except for certain profound messages that He told them not to document. He emphasized the importance of preserving the new scriptures He had given as a priceless treasure, assuring them that records of all divine actions were kept in heaven. The Twelve were informed that they were to act as judges for their people, and given this responsibility, they were reminded to be diligent and righteous.[1494] The Lord felt joy because of the faith and willingness to obey shown by the Nephites He had served; to the twelve special witnesses, He said: "And now look, my joy is immense, even to the fullest, because of you and this generation; yes, even the Father rejoices, as do all the holy angels, because of you and this generation; for none of them are lost. Behold, I want you to understand; I mean those who are alive in this generation; none are lost, and in them I find complete joy." However, His joy was mixed with sorrow because of the apostasy that later generations would experience; He foresaw this as a grave situation that would reach its peak in the fourth generation from that time.[1495]
THE THREE NEPHITES.
In loving compassion the Lord spoke unto the twelve disciples, one by one, asking: "What is it that ye desire of me, after that I am gone to the Father?"[1496] All but three expressed the desire that they might continue in the ministry until they had reached a goodly age, and then in due time be received by the Lord into His kingdom. To them Jesus gave blessed assurance, saying: "After that ye are seventy and two years old, ye shall come unto me in my kingdom, and with me ye shall find rest." He turned to the three who had reserved the request they ventured not to express;
In loving compassion, the Lord spoke to the twelve disciples, one by one, asking: "What is it that you desire from me after I go to the Father?"[1496] All but three expressed their wish to continue in the ministry until they reached a ripe old age and then, in due time, be welcomed by the Lord into His kingdom. To them, Jesus gave blessed assurance, saying: "Once you reach seventy-two years old, you will come to me in my kingdom, and with me, you will find rest." He turned to the three who had kept their request unspoken;
"And he said unto them, Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me; therefore more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death, but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father, unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled, according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory, with the powers of heaven; and ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory, ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality: and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father."[1497]
"And he said to them, Look, I know what you’re thinking, and you have wished for what John, my beloved, who was with me during my ministry before I was taken up by the Jews, asked of me; therefore you are more blessed, because you will never taste death, but you will live to see all the works of the Father for the children of men until everything is fulfilled according to the Father’s will, when I return in my glory with the powers of heaven; and you will never endure the pains of death; but when I come in my glory, you will be changed in the blink of an eye from mortal to immortal: and then you will be blessed in the kingdom of my Father."[1497]
The blessed three were assured that in the course of their prolonged life they should be immune to pain, and should know sorrow only as they grieved for the sins of the world. For their desire to labor in bringing souls unto Christ as long as the world should stand, they were promised an eventual fulness of joy, even like unto that to which the Lord Himself had attained. Jesus touched each of the nine who were to live and die in the Lord, but the three who were to tarry till He would come in His glory He did not touch. "And then he departed."
The blessed three were told that throughout their long lives, they would be free from pain and would only experience sorrow when mourning the world's sins. Because of their wish to work on saving souls for Christ as long as the world existed, they were promised a complete joy similar to what the Lord Himself had achieved. Jesus touched each of the nine who were meant to live and die in the Lord, but He did not touch the three who would remain until He returned in His glory. "And then he departed."
A change was wrought in the bodies of the Three Nephites, so that, while they remained in the flesh, they were exempt from the usual effects of physical vicissitude. The heavens were opened to their gaze; they were caught up, and saw and heard unspeakable things. "And it was forbidden them that they should utter; neither was it given unto them power that they could utter the things which they saw and heard." Though they lived and labored as men among their fellows, preaching, baptizing, and conferring the Holy Ghost upon all who gave heed to their words, the enemies to the truth were powerless to do them injury. Somewhat later than a hundred and seventy years after the Lord's last visitation, malignant persecution was waged against the Three. For their zeal in the ministry[Pg 740] they were cast into prison; but "the prisons could not hold them, for they were rent in twain." They were incarcerated in underground dungeons; "But they did smite the earth with the word of God, insomuch that by his power they were delivered out of the depths of the earth; and therefore they could not dig pits sufficient to hold them." Thrice they were cast into a furnace of fire, but received no harm; and three times were they thrown into dens of ravenous beasts, but, "behold they did play with the beasts, as a child with a suckling lamb, and received no harm."[1498] Mormon avers that in answer to his prayers the Lord had made known unto him that the change wrought upon the bodies of the Three, was such as to deprive Satan of all power over them, and that "they were holy, and that the powers of the earth could not hold them; and in this state they were to remain until the judgment day of Christ; and at that day they were to receive a greater change, and to be received into the kingdom of the Father to go no more out, but to dwell with God eternally in the heavens."[1499] For nearly three hundred years, and possibly longer, the Three Nephites ministered visibly among their fellows; but as the wickedness of the people increased these special ministers were withdrawn, and thereafter manifested themselves only to the righteous few. Moroni, the last prophet of the Nephites, when engaged in completing the record of his father, Mormon, and adding thereto matters of his own knowledge, wrote concerning these three disciples of the Lord, that they "did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great, that the Lord would not suffer them to remain with the people; and whether they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth. But behold, my father and I have seen them, and they have ministered unto us."[1500] Their ministry was to be[Pg 741] extended to Jews and Gentiles, amongst whom they labor unrecognized as of ancient birth; and they are sent unto the scattered tribes of Israel, and to all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples, from whom they have brought and are bringing many souls unto Christ, "that their desire may be fulfilled, and also because of the convincing power of God which is in them."[1501]
A change occurred in the bodies of the Three Nephites, so that while they lived in the flesh, they were free from the usual effects of physical change. The heavens were opened to their view; they were lifted up and saw and heard things that were beyond words. "And they were forbidden to speak; nor was it given to them the power to express the things they saw and heard." Although they lived and worked among others, preaching, baptizing, and giving the Holy Ghost to all who listened to them, their enemies could not harm them. About a hundred and seventy years after the Lord's last visit, there was intense persecution against the Three. For their enthusiasm in the ministry[Pg 740], they were thrown into prison; but "the prisons could not hold them, for they were torn apart." They were locked up in underground dungeons; "But they struck the ground with the word of God, so much so that by His power they were delivered from the depths of the earth; and thus they could not be contained." They were thrown into a furnace of fire three times but were unharmed; and three times they were tossed into dens of ferocious beasts, but "look, they played with the beasts like a child with a baby lamb, and suffered no harm."[1498] Mormon states that in response to his prayers, the Lord revealed to him that the change made in the bodies of the Three meant that Satan had no power over them, and that "they were holy, and the powers of the earth could not hold them; and in this state they would remain until Christ's judgment day; and on that day they would receive a greater change and be welcomed into the Father’s kingdom to go no more out, but to dwell with God forever in the heavens."[1499] For nearly three hundred years, and possibly longer, the Three Nephites visibly ministered among their people; but as the wickedness of the people grew, these special ministers were taken away, showing themselves only to the few righteous. Moroni, the last prophet of the Nephites, while working to complete the record of his father, Mormon, and including matters of his own knowledge, wrote about these three disciples of the Lord, that they "stayed in the land until the wickedness of the people became so great that the Lord would not allow them to remain with the people; and whether they are on the earth no one knows. But look, my father and I have seen them, and they have ministered to us."[1500] Their ministry was to be[Pg 741] extended to Jews and Gentiles, among whom they work unrecognized as ancient beings; and they are sent to the scattered tribes of Israel, and to all nations, kinds, languages, and peoples, from whom they have brought and are bringing many souls to Christ, "so that their desires may be fulfilled, and also because of the convincing power of God which is in them."[1501]
GROWTH OF THE CHURCH FOLLOWED BY THE APOSTASY OF THE NEPHITE NATION.
The Church of Jesus Christ developed rapidly in the land of Nephi, and brought to its faithful adherents unprecedented blessings. Even the hereditary animosity between Nephites and Lamanites was forgotten; and all lived in peace and prosperity. So great was the unity of the Church that its members owned all things in common, and "therefore they were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift."[1502] Populous cities replaced the desolation of ruin that had befallen at the time of the Lord's crucifixion. The land was blessed, and the people rejoiced in righteousness. "And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people. And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God."[1503] Nine of the twelve special witnesses chosen by the Lord passed at appointed times to their rest, and others were ordained in their stead. The state of blessed prosperity and of common ownership continued for a period of a hundred and sixty-seven years; but soon thereafter came a most distressing change. Pride displaced[Pg 742] humility, display of costly apparel superseded the simplicity of happier days; rivalry led to contention, and thence the people "did have their goods and their substance no more common among them, and they began to be divided into classes, and they began to build up churches unto themselves, to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ."[1504] Man-made churches multiplied, and persecution, true sister to intolerance, became rampant. The red-skinned Lamanites reverted to their degraded ways, and developed a murderous hostility against their white brothers; and all manner of corrupt practises became common among both nations. For many decades the Nephites retreated before their aggressive foes, making their way north-eastward through what is now the United States. About 400 A.D. the last great battle was fought near the hill Cumorah;[1505] and the Nephite nation became extinct.[1506] The degenerate remnant of Lehi's posterity, the Lamanites or American Indians, have continued until this day. Moroni, the last of the Nephite prophets, hid away the record of his people in the hill Cumorah, whence it has been brought forth by divine direction in the current dispensation. That record is now before the world translated through the gift and power of God, and published to the edification of all nations, as the BOOK OF MORMON.
The Church of Jesus Christ grew quickly in the land of Nephi and brought its followers amazing blessings. Even the longstanding hatred between the Nephites and Lamanites was forgotten, and everyone lived in peace and prosperity. The Church’s unity was so strong that its members shared everything, so there were no rich or poor, free or enslaved, but they were all free and enjoyed the heavenly gift.[1502] Bustling cities took the place of the ruins left after the Lord's crucifixion. The land was blessed, and the people celebrated righteousness. "And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people. And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God."[1503] Nine of the twelve special witnesses chosen by the Lord passed away at their appointed times, and others were ordained in their place. The state of blessed prosperity and common ownership lasted for a hundred and sixty-seven years; but soon after, a distressing change occurred. Pride replaced humility, the display of expensive clothing overshadowed the simplicity of happier days; competition led to conflict, and the people "did have their goods and their substance no more common among them, and they began to be divided into classes, and they began to build up churches unto themselves, to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ."[1504] Man-made churches multiplied, and persecution, an unfortunate companion to intolerance, became widespread. The red-skinned Lamanites returned to their corrupt ways and developed a murderous anger toward their white brothers; all kinds of corrupt practices became common among both nations. For many decades, the Nephites retreated from their aggressive enemies, moving northeast through what is now the United States. Around 400 A.D., the last great battle took place near the hill Cumorah;[1505] and the Nephite nation became extinct.[1506] The degenerate remnant of Lehi's descendants, the Lamanites or American Indians, have continued until today. Moroni, the last of the Nephite prophets, concealed the record of his people in the hill Cumorah, from where it has been revealed by divine direction in the current period. That record is now available to the world, translated through the gift and power of God, and published for the benefit of all nations as the BOOK OF MORMON.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 39.
1. The Land Bountiful.—This comprized the northerly part of South America, extending to the Isthmus of Panama. On the north it was bounded by the Land of Desolation, which embraced Central America, and, in later Nephite history, an indefinite extent north of the Isthmus. The South American continent in general is called, in the Book of Mormon, the Land of Nephi.
1. The Land Bountiful.—This included the northern part of South America, reaching up to the Isthmus of Panama. To the north, it was bordered by the Land of Desolation, which covered Central America, and, in later Nephite history, an unknown area north of the Isthmus. Overall, the South American continent is referred to in the Book of Mormon as the Land of Nephi.
2. The Jewish and Nephite Versions of the "Sermon on the Mount."—As indicated in the text, one of the most impressive contrasts between the Sermon on the Mount and the virtual[Pg 743] repetition of the discourse by our Lord on the occasion of His visit to the Nephites, is that of prediction concerning the fulfilment of the law of Moses in the first delivery, and unqualified affirmation in the second that the law had been fulfilled. Among the Beatitudes certain differences appear, in each of which the Nephite sermon is more explicit. Thus, instead of, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matt. 5:3), we read, "Blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me" (3 Nephi 12:3). Instead of, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled" (Matt.), we read, "And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost" (Nephi). Instead of, "for righteousness' sake," (Matt.) we have "for my name's sake," (Nephi). For the difficult passage, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?" (Matt.), we have the clearer expression, "I give unto you to be the salt of the earth; but if the salt shall lose its savor, wherewith shall the earth be salted?" (Nephi). And, as already noted, in place of "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt.), we have "one jot nor one tittle hath not passed away from the law, but in me it hath all been fulfilled" (Nephi). Variations in succeeding verses are incident to this prospective fulfilment (Matt.), and affirmed accomplishment (Nephi). Instead of the strong analogy concerning the plucking out of an offending eye, or the severing of an evil hand (Matt.), we find: "Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart; for it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell" (Nephi). Following the illustrative instances of the gospel requirements superseding those of the law, the Nephite record presents this splendid summation: "Therefore those things which were of old time, which were under the law in me, are all fulfilled. Old things are done away, and all things have become new; therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect."
2. The Jewish and Nephite Versions of the "Sermon on the Mount."—As noted in the text, one of the most striking differences between the Sermon on the Mount and the almost exact repetition of the sermon by our Lord during His visit to the Nephites is the prediction about the fulfillment of the law of Moses in the first instance, and the clear statement in the second that the law had already been fulfilled. There are specific differences in the Beatitudes, where the Nephite sermon is more detailed. For example, instead of "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matt. 5:3), we read, "Blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me" (3 Nephi 12:3). Instead of, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled" (Matt.), we read, "And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost" (Nephi). Instead of "for righteousness' sake" (Matt.), we have "for my name's sake" (Nephi). For the challenging passage, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?" (Matt.), we find the clearer expression, "I give unto you to be the salt of the earth; but if the salt shall lose its savor, wherewith shall the earth be salted?" (Nephi). Additionally, instead of "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt.), we have "one jot nor one tittle hath not passed away from the law, but in me it hath all been fulfilled" (Nephi). Variations in the subsequent verses reflect this anticipated fulfillment (Matt.) and confirmed completion (Nephi). Rather than the strong comparison about plucking out an offending eye or cutting off an evil hand (Matt.), we find: "Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart; for it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell" (Nephi). Following the examples of how the gospel requirements replace those of the law, the Nephite account gives this beautiful summary: "Therefore those things which were of old time, which were under the law in me, are all fulfilled. Old things are done away, and all things have become new; therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect."
In Matthew's report of the sermon, little distinction is made between the precepts addressed to the multitude in general, and the instructions given particularly to the Twelve. Thus, Matt. 6:25-34 was spoken inferentially to the apostles; for they and not the people were to lay aside all worldly pursuits; in the sermon delivered to the Nephites the distinction is thus made clear: "And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them, Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" etc. (See 3 Nephi 13:25-34). Matt 7 opens with "Judge not that ye be not judged," without intimation as to its general or special application; 3 Nephi 14 begins[Pg 744] "And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he turned again to the multitude, and did open his mouth unto them again, saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, judge not, that ye be not judged." A careful, verse-by-verse comparison between the Sermon on the Mount as recorded by Matthew, and the risen Lord's discourse to His people on the western continent is earnestly recommended to every student.
In Matthew's account of the sermon, there isn’t much distinction made between the teachings given to the general crowd and the instructions specifically for the Twelve. Therefore, Matt. 6:25-34 was indirectly spoken to the apostles, as they, not the people, were to set aside all worldly concerns. In the sermon delivered to the Nephites, the distinction is clear: "And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them, Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" etc. (See 3 Nephi 13:25-34). Matt 7 begins with "Judge not that ye be not judged," without indicating whether it applies generally or specifically; 3 Nephi 14 starts, "And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he turned again to the multitude, and did open his mouth unto them again, saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, judge not, that ye be not judged." A careful, verse-by-verse comparison between the Sermon on the Mount as recorded by Matthew, and the risen Lord's discourse to His people on the western continent is strongly recommended to every student.
3. Baptisms Among the Nephites After the Lord's Visitation.—We read that before the second appearing of Christ to the Nephites, the chosen Twelve were baptized (3 Nephi 19:10-13). These men had doubtless been baptized before, for Nephi had been empowered not only to baptize but to ordain others to the requisite authority for administering baptism (3 Nephi 7:23-26). The baptism of the disciples on the morn of the Savior's second visit, was in the nature of a rebaptism, involving a renewal of covenants, and confession of faith in the Lord Jesus.
3. Baptisms Among the Nephites After the Lord's Visitation.—It says that before Christ appeared a second time to the Nephites, the chosen Twelve were baptized (3 Nephi 19:10-13). These men had likely already been baptized before, since Nephi had the authority not just to baptize but also to ordain others to have the necessary authority to perform baptisms (3 Nephi 7:23-26). The baptism of the disciples on the morning of the Savior's second visit was essentially a rebaptism, involving a renewal of their covenants and a confession of faith in the Lord Jesus.
It is possible that in the earlier Nephite baptisms some irregularity in mode or impropriety in the spirit of administering the ordinance may have arisen; for, as we have seen the Lord enjoined upon the people in connection with the instructions concerning baptism that disputations must cease. (3 Nephi 11:28-33.)
It’s possible that in the earlier Nephite baptisms, there may have been some inconsistencies in how it was done or issues with the attitude of those administering the ordinance; because, as we’ve seen, the Lord instructed the people that arguments should stop in relation to the guidelines about baptism. (3 Nephi 11:28-33.)
As to second or later baptisms, the author has written elsewhere (see The Articles of Faith, vii:12-17) practically as follows. Rebaptisms recorded in scripture are few, and in each instance the special circumstances justifying the action are apparent. Thus, we read of Paul baptizing certain disciples at Ephesus, though they had already been immersed after the manner of John's baptism. But in this case the apostle was evidently unconvinced that the baptism had been solemnized by due authority, or that the believers had been properly instructed as to the import of the ordinance. When he tested the efficacy of their baptism by asking "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" they answered him, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." Then asked he in seeming surprize, "Unto what then were ye baptized? and they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (See Acts 19:1-6.)
Regarding second or later baptisms, the author has previously stated (see The Articles of Faith, vii:12-17) almost as follows. The instances of rebaptisms mentioned in scripture are limited, and in each case, the specific reasons supporting the action are clear. For example, we read about Paul baptizing certain disciples in Ephesus, even though they had already been baptized in the style of John's baptism. However, in this situation, it was clear that the apostle did not believe that their baptism had been performed with proper authority or that the believers had been adequately taught about the significance of the ordinance. When he assessed the validity of their baptism by asking, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?" they replied, "We haven't even heard if there is a Holy Ghost." Paul then asked in apparent surprise, "What then were you baptized into?" They replied, "Into John's baptism." Paul explained, "John truly baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who would come after him, that is, in Christ Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (See Acts 19:1-6.)
In the Church today a repetition of the baptismal rite on an individual is allowable under certain specific conditions. Thus, if one, having entered the Church by baptism, withdraws from it, or is excommunicated therefrom, and afterward repents and desires to regain his standing in the Church, he can do so only through baptism. However, such is a repetition of the initiatory ordinance as previously administered. There is no ordinance of "rebaptism" in the Church distinct in nature, form, or purpose, from other baptism; and, therefore, in administering baptism to a subject who has been formerly baptized, the form of the ceremony is exactly the same as in first baptisms.[Pg 745]
In the Church today, repeating the baptism rite for an individual is allowed under certain specific conditions. So, if someone has entered the Church through baptism, leaves it, or is excommunicated, and later repents and wants to regain their status in the Church, they can only do so through baptism. However, this is merely a repetition of the initial ordinance as it was previously performed. There is no separate ordinance of "rebaptism" in the Church that differs in nature, form, or purpose from other baptisms; therefore, when administering baptism to someone who has been baptized before, the ceremony's format is exactly the same as it is in first baptisms.[Pg 745]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1455] Helaman 14:14-27.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Helaman 14:14-27.
[1456] 3 Nephi 2:1.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi 2:1.
[1457] Exo. 10:21-23.
[1459] 3 Nephi chap. 9.
[1460] 3 Nephi, chap. 10.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi, chapter 10.
[1462] 3 Nephi, chaps. 11-18 inclusive.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi, chapters 11-18.
[1469] 3 Nephi 11:39-41.
[1473] 3 Nephi 15:11-24.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi 15:11-24.
[1474] 3 Nephi 16:4-20.
[1476] 3 Nephi 18:1-14, 27-34; compare 1 Cor. 11:23-30. For the prescribed manner of administering the Sacrament, see Moroni, chaps. 4 and 5; compare Doc. and Cov. 20:75-79.
[1476] 3 Nephi 18:1-14, 27-34; see also 1 Cor. 11:23-30. For the recommended way to perform the Sacrament, check out Moroni, chapters 4 and 5; refer to Doc. and Cov. 20:75-79.
[1477] 3 Nephi 18:19-23.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi 18:19-23.
[1483] 3 Nephi 21:4.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi 21:4.
[1487] Doc. and Cov. 110:13-16. Elijah appeared in the Kirtland Temple April 3, A.D. 1836, and committed to the Church the keys of authority for vicarious work in behalf of the dead. See chapter 41 herein, page 775.
[1487] Doc. and Cov. 110:13-16. Elijah showed up in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836, and entrusted the Church with the keys of authority for performing work on behalf of the deceased. See chapter 41 herein, page 775.
[1488] 3 Nephi 26:4, 5, 13-15.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi 26:4, 5, 13-15.
[1489] 3 Nephi 26:14-21.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi 26:14-21.
[1492] 3 Nephi 27:4-12.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi 27:4-12.
[1499] 3 Nephi 28:39, 40.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3 Nephi 28:39, 40.
[1501] 3 Nephi 28:27-32.
[1503] 4 Nephi 1:15, 16.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 4 Nephi 1:15, 16.
[1504] 4 Nephi 1:25, 26.
CHAPTER 40.
THE LONG NIGHT OF APOSTASY.
For over seventeen hundred years on the eastern hemisphere, and for more than fourteen centuries on the western, there appears to have been silence between the heavens and the earth.[1507] Of direct revelation from God to man during this long interval, we have no authentic record. As already shown, the period of apostolic ministry on the eastern continent probably terminated before the dawn of the second century of the Christian era. The passing of the apostles was followed by the rapid development of a universal apostasy as had been foreseen and predicted.[1508]
For over seventeen hundred years in the eastern hemisphere and more than fourteen centuries in the western hemisphere, it seems there has been a silence between heaven and earth.[1507] There are no reliable records of direct communication from God to humanity during this long period. As previously mentioned, the time of the apostles on the eastern continent likely ended before the start of the second century of the Christian era. After the apostles passed away, a swift rise of a widespread falling away occurred, as had been predicted.[1508]
In the accomplishment of this great falling away, external and internal causes cooperated. Among the disintegrating forces acting from without, the most effective was the persistent persecution to which the saints were subjected, incident to both Judaistic and pagan opposition. Vast numbers who had professed membership and many who had been officers in the ministry deserted the Church; while a few were stimulated to greater zeal under the scourge of persecution. The general effect of opposition from the outside—of external causes of decline in faith and works considered as a whole—was the defection of individuals, resulting in a widespread apostasy from the Church. But immeasurably more serious was the result of internal dissension, schism and disruption, whereby an absolute apostasy of the Church from the way and word of God was brought about.[Pg 746]
In the achievement of this significant decline, both external and internal factors worked together. Among the disintegrating forces from the outside, the most impactful was the ongoing persecution that the saints faced from both Jewish and pagan opponents. Many who had claimed membership and even some who had held positions in the ministry left the Church; while a few were motivated to become more fervent under the pressure of persecution. The overall effect of outside opposition—the external reasons for the decline in faith and actions—was the defection of individuals, leading to a widespread apostasy from the Church. However, even more concerning was the outcome of internal conflict, division, and disruption, which led to an absolute apostasy of the Church from the path and teachings of God.[Pg 746]
Judaism was the earliest oppressor of Christianity, and became the instigator and abettor of the succeeding atrocities incident to pagan persecution. Open and vigorous hostility of the Roman powers against the Christian Church became general during the reign of Nero, (beginning about 64 A.D.), and continued with occasional respites of a few months or even years at a time to the close of Diocletian's reign (about 305 A.D.). The inhuman cruelty and savage barbarity to which were subjected those who dared profess the name of Christ during these centuries of heathen domination are matters of accepted history.[1509] When Constantine the Great came to the throne in the first quarter of the fourth century, a radical change was inaugurated in the attitude of the state toward the church. The emperor straightway made the so-called Christianity of the time the religion of his realm; and zealous devotion to the church became the surest recommendation to imperial favor. But the church was already in great measure an apostate institution and even in crude outline of organization and service bore but remote resemblance to the Church of Jesus Christ, founded by the Savior and builded through the instrumentality of the apostles. Whatever vestiges of genuine Christianity may have possibly survived in the church before, were buried beyond the sight of man by the abuses that followed the elevation of the churchly organization to secular favor through the decree of Constantine. The emperor, even though unbaptized, made himself the head of the church, and priestly office was more sought after than military rank or state preferment. The spirit of apostasy, by which the church had become permeated before Constantine threw about it the mantle of imperial protection and emblazoned it with the insignia of state, now was roused to increased activity as the leaven of Satan's own culture flourished under the conditions most favorable for such fungoid growth.
Judaism was the first to oppress Christianity and played a key role in the following atrocities related to pagan persecution. Open and intense hostility from Roman authorities towards the Christian Church became widespread during Nero's reign, starting around 64 A.D., and it continued with occasional breaks of a few months or even years until the end of Diocletian’s reign (around 305 A.D.). The brutal cruelty and savage behavior inflicted on those who dared to identify themselves as Christians during these centuries of pagan rule are well-documented historical facts.[1509] When Constantine the Great rose to power in the early fourth century, a significant shift occurred in the government’s attitude toward the church. The emperor quickly established the popular form of Christianity as the official religion of his empire, and strong loyalty to the church became the best way to gain imperial favor. However, the church was largely an apostate institution and, in its basic structure and practices, bore little resemblance to the Church of Jesus Christ founded by the Savior and established through the apostles. Any remnants of genuine Christianity that may have existed in the church beforehand were buried out of sight by the abuses that followed the church's rise to secular power due to Constantine’s decree. The emperor, even though he had not been baptized, positioned himself as the head of the church, and being a priest became more desirable than holding a military position or other state offices. The spirit of apostasy that had infiltrated the church before Constantine granted it imperial protection and decorated it with state symbols now became even more active as the influence of Satan’s own culture thrived under conditions ripe for such growth.
The bishop of Rome had already asserted supremacy over his fellows in the episcopate; but when the emperor made Byzantium his capital, and renamed it in his own honor, Constantinople, the bishop of that city claimed equality with the Roman pontiff. The claim was contested; the ensuing dissension divided the church; and the disruption has persisted until the present day, as is evidenced by the existing distinction between the Roman Catholic and the Greek Catholic churches.
The bishop of Rome had already claimed supremacy over his fellow bishops; however, when the emperor made Byzantium his capital and renamed it Constantinople in his own honor, the bishop of that city asserted equality with the Roman pope. This claim was challenged, leading to conflict that divided the church, and that divide still exists today, as shown by the ongoing distinction between the Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic churches.
The Roman pontiff exercized secular as well as spiritual authority; and in the eleventh century arrogated to himself the title of Pope, signifying Father, in the sense of paternal ruler in all things. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the temporal authority of the pope was superior to that of kings and emperors; and the Roman church became the despotic potentate of nations, and an autocrat above all secular states. Yet this church, reeking with the stench of worldly ambition and lust of dominance, audaciously claimed to be the Church established by Him who affirmed: "My kingdom is not of this world." The arrogant assumptions of the Church of Rome were not less extravagant in spiritual than in secular administration. In her loudly asserted control over the spiritual destinies of the souls of men, she blasphemously pretended to forgive or retain individual sins, and to inflict or remit penalties both on earth and beyond the grave. She sold permission to commit sin and bartered for gold charters of indulgent forgiveness for sins already done. Her pope, proclaiming himself the vicar of God, sat in state to judge as God Himself; and by such blasphemy fulfilled the prophecy of Paul following his warning in relation to the awful conditions antecedent to the second coming of the Christ: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called[Pg 748] God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."[1510]
The Pope had both political and spiritual power; in the eleventh century, he claimed the title of Pope, meaning Father, as a paternal ruler over everything. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Pope's authority was greater than that of kings and emperors, and the Roman Church became the dominating power over nations, acting as an absolute ruler above all secular governments. However, this church, saturated with the odor of earthly ambition and the desire for control, boldly claimed to be the Church established by the one who said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The Church of Rome's arrogant claims were just as excessive in spiritual matters as they were in secular ones. In her loudly proclaimed authority over the spiritual fates of individuals, she shamelessly pretended to forgive or hold onto personal sins, and to impose or lift penalties both in this life and the next. She sold licenses to sin and traded for gold in exchange for indulgences for past sins. The Pope, announcing himself as God's representative, sat in judgment as if he were God Himself; through such blasphemy, he fulfilled Paul's prophecy warning about the terrible conditions before Christ's second coming: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called[Pg 748] God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."[1510]
In her unrestrained abandon to the license of arrogated authority, the Church of Rome hesitated not to transgress the law of God, change the ordinances essential to salvation, and ruthlessly break the everlasting covenant, thereby defiling the earth even as Isaiah had foretold.[1511] She altered the ordinance of baptism, destroying its symbolism and associating with it imitations of pagan rites; she corrupted the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and befouled the doctrine thereof by the vagary of transubstantiation;[1512] she assumed to apply the merits of the righteous to the forgiveness of the sinner in the unscriptural and wholly repellent dogma of supererogation; she promoted idolatry in most seductive and pernicious forms; she penalized the study of the holy scriptures by the people at large; she enjoined an unnatural state of celibacy upon her clergy; she revelled in unholy union with the theories and sophistries of men, and so adulterated the simple doctrines of the gospel of Christ as to produce a creed rank with superstition and heresy; she promulgated such perverted doctrines regarding the human body as to make the divinely formed tabernacle of flesh appear as a thing fit only to be tortured and contemned; she proclaimed it an act of virtue insuring rich reward to lie and deceive if thereby her own interests might be subserved; and she so thoroughly departed from the original plan of Church organization as to make of herself a spectacle of ornate display, fabricated by the caprice of man.[1513]
In her complete surrender to the freedom of assumed authority, the Church of Rome did not hesitate to violate God's law, alter the essential ordinances for salvation, and ruthlessly break the eternal covenant, thus staining the earth just as Isaiah had predicted.[1511] She changed the rules of baptism, destroying its symbolism and mixing it with imitations of pagan rituals; she corrupted the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and tainted its doctrine with the bizarre idea of transubstantiation;[1512] she took it upon herself to apply the merits of the righteous to forgive the sinner through the unbiblical and completely off-putting idea of supererogation; she encouraged idolatry in the most tempting and harmful forms; she prohibited the general public from studying the holy scriptures; she imposed an unnatural state of celibacy on her clergy; she indulged in unholy partnerships with human theories and clever arguments, so distorting the simple teachings of Christ’s gospel that she created a creed filled with superstition and heresy; she promoted such twisted doctrines about the human body that the divinely created fleshly form appeared as something meant only for torture and disdain; she proclaimed it virtuous to lie and deceive if it served her own interests; and she strayed so far from the original plan for church organization that she turned herself into a spectacle of extravagant display, crafted by human whims.[1513]
The most important of the internal causes by which the apostasy of the Primitive Church was brought about may be[Pg 749] thus summarized: (1) The corrupting of the simple doctrines of the gospel of Christ by admixture with so-called philosophic systems. (2) Unauthorized additions to the prescribed rites of the Church and the introduction of vital alterations in essential ordinances. (3) Unauthorized changes in Church organization and government.[1514]
The key internal factors that led to the downfall of the Primitive Church can be summarized as follows: (1) The distortion of the straightforward teachings of Christ's gospel by blending them with so-called philosophical ideas. (2) Unapproved additions to the established practices of the Church and significant changes to essential rites. (3) Unapproved modifications in Church structure and governance.[1514]
Under the tyrannous repression incident to usurped and unrighteous domination by the Roman church, civilization was retarded and for centuries was practically halted in its course. The period of retrogression is known in history as the Dark Ages. The fifteenth century witnessed the movement known as the Renaissance or Revival of Learning; there was a general and significantly rapid awakening among men, and a determined effort to shake off the stupor of indolence and ignorance was manifest throughout the civilized world. By historians and philosophers the revival has been regarded as an unconscious and spontaneous prompting of the "spirit of the times"; it was a development predetermined in the Mind of God to illumine the benighted minds of men in preparation for the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which was appointed to be accomplished some centuries later.[1515]
Under the oppressive control of the Roman church, civilization was significantly slowed and practically came to a standstill for centuries. This period of decline is known in history as the Dark Ages. The fifteenth century saw the Renaissance or Revival of Learning; there was a widespread and notably quick awakening among people, and a strong effort to break free from the complacency and ignorance was evident throughout the civilized world. Historians and philosophers view this revival as an unconscious and spontaneous response of the "spirit of the times"; it was a development that was predetermined by God to enlighten the darkened minds of people in preparation for the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which was set to take place centuries later.[1515]
With the renewal of intellectual activity and effort in material betterment, there came, as a natural and inevitable accompaniment, protest and revolt against the ecclesiastical tyranny of the age. The Albigenses in France had risen in insurrection against churchly despotism during the thirteenth century; and in the fourteenth, John Wickliffe of Oxford University had boldly denounced the corruption of the Roman church and clergy, and particularly the restrictions imposed by the papal hierarchy on the popular study of the scriptures. Wickliffe gave to the world a version of the Holy Bible in English. These manifestations of independent[Pg 750] belief and action the papal church sought to repress and punish by force. The Albigenses had been subjected to inhuman cruelties and unrestrained slaughter. Wickliffe was the subject of severe and persistent persecution; and though he died in his bed the vindictiveness of the Roman church was unsated until she had caused his body to be exhumed and burned and the ashes scattered abroad. John Huss and Jerome of Prague were prominent on the continent of Europe in agitation against papal despotism, and both fell martyrs to the cause. Though the church had become apostate to the core, there were not lacking men brave of heart and righteous of soul, ready to give their lives to the furtherance of spiritual emancipation.
With the resurgence of intellectual activity and efforts for material improvement, there naturally came a protest and rebellion against the church's tyranny of the time. The Albigenses in France had risen up against church oppression in the thirteenth century; and in the fourteenth, John Wycliffe of Oxford University had boldly condemned the corruption of the Roman church and its clergy, especially the restrictions imposed by the papal hierarchy on the public study of the scriptures. Wycliffe provided the world with an English version of the Holy Bible. The papal church attempted to suppress and punish these expressions of independent belief and action by force. The Albigenses faced brutal atrocities and unchecked massacres. Wycliffe endured severe and relentless persecution; although he died peacefully in his bed, the vengeance of the Roman church was not satisfied until they had his body exhumed, burned, and the ashes scattered. John Huss and Jerome of Prague were notable figures in Europe, actively opposing papal oppression, and both became martyrs for the cause. Although the church had become corrupt at its core, there were still brave and righteous individuals willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause of spiritual freedom.
A notable revolt against the papacy occurred in the sixteenth century, and is known as the Reformation. This movement was begun in 1517 by Martin Luther, a German monk; and it spread so rapidly as soon to involve the whole domain of popedom. Formal protests against the despotism of the papal church were formulated by the representatives of certain German principalities and other delegates at a diet or general council held at Spires A.D. 1529; and the reformers were thenceforth known as Protestants. An independent church was proposed by John, Elector of Saxony, a constitution for which was prepared at his instance by Luther and his colleague, Melanchthon. The Protestants were discordant. Being devoid of divine authority to guide them in matters of church organization and doctrine, they followed the diverse ways of men, and were rent within while assailed from without. The Roman church, confronted by determined opponents, hesitated at no extreme of cruelty. The court of the Inquisition, which had been established in the latter part of the fifteenth century under the infamously sacrilegious name of the "Holy Office," became intoxicated with the lust of barbarous cruelty in the century of the[Pg 751] Reformation, and inflicted indescribable tortures on persons secretly accused of heresy.
A significant revolt against the papacy took place in the sixteenth century, known as the Reformation. This movement began in 1517 with Martin Luther, a German monk, and quickly spread to encompass the entire realm of the papacy. Formal protests against the tyranny of the papal church were made by representatives from certain German principalities and other delegates at a diet or general council held in Spires in 1529; from then on, the reformers were referred to as Protestants. John, Elector of Saxony, proposed the idea of an independent church, and Luther, along with his colleague Melanchthon, prepared a constitution for it at his request. The Protestants were divided. Lacking divine authority to guide them on church organization and doctrine, they followed various human paths and faced internal conflict while being attacked from outside. The Roman church, faced with determined adversaries, did not shy away from extreme cruelty. The court of the Inquisition, established in the late fifteenth century under the notorious name of the "Holy Office," became increasingly brutal during the century of the [Pg 751] Reformation and inflicted unimaginable torture on individuals secretly accused of heresy.
In the early stages of the Reformation instigated by Luther, the king of England, Henry VIII, declared himself a supporter of the pope, and was rewarded by a papal bestowal of the distinguishing title "Defender of the Faith." Within a few years, this same British sovereign was excommunicated from the Roman church, because of impatient disregard of the pope's authority in the matter of Henry's desire to divorce Queen Catherine so that he could marry one of her maids. The British parliament, in 1534, passed the Act of Supremacy, by which the nation was declared free from all allegiance to papal authority. By Act of Parliament the king was made the head of the church within his own dominions. Thus was born the Church of England, a direct result of the licentious amours of a debauched and infamous king. With blasphemous indifference to the absence of divine commission, with no semblance of priestly succession, an adulterous sovereign created a church, provided therein a "priesthood" of his own, and proclaimed himself supreme administrator in all matters spiritual.
In the early days of the Reformation started by Luther, the king of England, Henry VIII, claimed to be a supporter of the pope and was rewarded with the title "Defender of the Faith" by the pope. However, within a few years, this same king was excommunicated from the Roman church due to his impatient disregard for the pope's authority regarding his wish to divorce Queen Catherine so he could marry one of her maids. In 1534, the British parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, which declared the nation free from any allegiance to papal authority. By this act, the king was made the head of the church in his own territories. This led to the establishment of the Church of England, a direct result of the scandalous affairs of a corrupt and infamous king. With shocking indifference to the lack of divine approval and no real priestly succession, an adulterous king created a church, appointed his own "priesthood," and declared himself the ultimate authority in all spiritual matters.
With the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism in Great Britain the student of history is familiar. Suffice it here to say that the mutual hatred of the two contending sects, the zeal of their respective adherents, their professed love of God and devotion to Christ's service, were chiefly signalized by the sword, the ax, and the stake. Revelling in the realization of at least a partial emancipation from the tyranny of priestcraft, men and nations debauched their newly acquired liberty of thought, speech, and action, in a riot of abhorrent excess. The mis-called Age of Reason, and the atheistical abominations culminating in the French Revolution stand as ineffaceable testimony of what man may become when glorying in his denial of God.
With the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism in Great Britain, students of history are well aware. It's enough to say that the mutual hatred between the two rival sects, the passion of their followers, their claimed love for God and commitment to Christ's service, were mostly marked by violence, torture, and execution. Thriving on their newfound freedom from the oppression of religious authority, people and nations misused their hard-won liberty of thought, speech, and action in a frenzy of shocking excess. The so-called Age of Reason and the godless horrors leading up to the French Revolution serve as an undeniable reminder of what humanity can become when it revels in its rejection of God.
Is it to be wondered at, that from the sixteenth century[Pg 752] onward, churches of man's contriving have multiplied with phenomenal rapidity? Churches and churchly organizations professing Christianity as their creed have come to be numbered by hundreds. On every side is heard in this day, "Lo, here is Christ" or "Lo, there." There are sects named from the circumstances of their origin—as the Church of England; others after their famous founders or promoters—as Lutheran, Calvinist, Wesleyan; some are known by peculiarities of doctrine or plan of administration—as Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregationalist; but down to the third decade of the nineteenth century there was no church on earth affirming name or title as the Church of Jesus Christ. The only organization called a church existing at that time and venturing to assert claim to authority by succession was the Catholic church, which for centuries had been apostate and wholly bereft of divine authority or recognition. If the "mother church" be without a valid priesthood, and devoid of spiritual power, how can her offspring derive from her the right to officiate in the things of God? Who would dare to affirm that man can originate a priesthood which God is bound to honor and acknowledge? Granted that men may and do create among themselves societies, associations, sects, and even "churches" if they choose so to designate their organizations; granted that they may prescribe rules, formulate laws, and devize plans of operation, discipline, and government, and that all such laws, rules, and schemes of administration are binding upon those who assume membership—granted all these rights and powers—whence can such human institutions derive the authority of the Holy Priesthood, without which there can be no Church of Christ?[1516]
Is it surprising that since the sixteenth century[Pg 752] churches created by humans have multiplied at an incredible rate? Hundreds of churches and church organizations claiming Christianity as their belief have emerged. Everywhere today you hear, "Look, here is Christ" or "Look, there." There are groups named after how they started, like the Church of England; others are named after their famous founders or leaders, such as Lutheran, Calvinist, or Wesleyan; some are known for their specific beliefs or organizational styles, like Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, or Congregationalist. But until the third decade of the nineteenth century, there was no church on earth that claimed to be the Church of Jesus Christ. The only organization that called itself a church at that time and dared to claim authority through succession was the Catholic Church, which had long been fallen away and completely lacking divine authority or recognition. If the "mother church" has no valid priesthood and lacks spiritual power, how can its offspring claim the right to carry out the work of God? Who would assert that humans can create a priesthood that God is obligated to recognize and honor? While it’s true that people can and do form societies, associations, sects, and even "churches" if they wish to name them that; and granted that they can set rules, create laws, and devise operational plans, governance, and discipline that bind those who join—given all these rights and powers—where do such human institutions get the authority of the Holy Priesthood, without which there cannot be a Church of Christ?[1516]
The apostate condition of Christendom has been frankly admitted by many eminent and conscientious representatives of the several churches, and by churches as institutions.[Pg 753] Even the Church of England acknowledges the awful fact in her official declaration of degeneracy, as set forth in the "Homily Against Peril of Idolatry," in these words:
The fallen state of Christianity has been openly acknowledged by many prominent and sincere leaders of various churches, as well as by the churches themselves as organizations.[Pg 753] Even the Church of England recognizes the harsh truth in its official statement of decline, as detailed in the "Homily Against Peril of Idolatry," which says:
"So that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children of whole Christendom—an horrible and most dreadful thing to think—have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry; of all other vices most detested of God, and most damnable to man; and that by the space of eight hundred years and more."[1517]
"So that both regular people and clergy, educated and uneducated, individuals of all ages, backgrounds, and social statuses, including men, women, and children from all of Christendom—it's a horrifying and dreadful thing to consider—have all been simultaneously submerged in terrible idolatry; the kind of vice that is most hated by God and most destructive to humanity; and this has been going on for more than eight hundred years." [1517]
Let it not be concluded that through the night of the universal apostasy, long and dark as it was, God had forgotten the world. Mankind had not been left wholly to itself. The Spirit of God was operative so far as the unbelief of men permitted. John the apostle, and the Three Nephite disciples,[1518] were ministering among men, though unknown. But through the centuries of spiritual darkness men lived and died without the administration of a contemporary apostle, prophet, elder, bishop, priest, teacher, or deacon. Whatever of the form of Godliness existed in the churches of human establishment was destitute of divine power. The time foreseen by the inspired apostle had fully come—mankind in general refused to endure sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, did they heap to themselves teachers, after their own lusts, and verily had they turned away their ears from the truth to follow after fables.[1519] The first quarter of the nineteenth century witnessed the cumulative fulfilment of the conditions predicted through the prophet Amos: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east,[Pg 754] they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it."[1520]
Let’s not assume that during the long and dark night of universal apostasy, God had forgotten the world. Humanity wasn't completely left to its own devices. The Spirit of God was still active, as far as people’s unbelief allowed. John the apostle and the Three Nephite disciples,[1518] were among men, though they were not recognized. However, throughout the centuries of spiritual darkness, people lived and died without the presence of a contemporary apostle, prophet, elder, bishop, priest, teacher, or deacon. Any semblance of godliness in established churches lacked divine power. The time predicted by the inspired apostle had fully arrived—mankind largely refused to accept sound doctrine and, with their itching ears, sought out teachers who catered to their desires, turning away from the truth to chase after fables.[1519] The first quarter of the nineteenth century marked the total fulfillment of the conditions foretold by the prophet Amos: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east,[Pg 754] they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it."[1520]
Throughout the period of apostasy the windows of heaven had been shut toward the world, so as to preclude all direct revelation from God, and particularly any personal ministration or theophany of the Christ. Mankind had ceased to know God; and had invested the utterances of prophets and apostles of old, who had known Him, with a pall of mystery and fancy, so that the True and the Living God was no longer believed to exist; but in His place the sectaries had tried to conceive of an incomprehensible being, devoid of "body, parts, or passions," an immaterial nothing.[1521]
Throughout the time of apostasy, the windows of heaven had been closed to the world, preventing any direct revelation from God, especially any personal ministry or appearance of Christ. People had stopped knowing God and had turned the words of past prophets and apostles—who had truly known Him—into something shrouded in mystery and imagination. As a result, the True and Living God was no longer believed to exist; instead, various sects tried to imagine an incomprehensible being, lacking "body, parts, or passions," essentially an immaterial void.[1521]
But it had been determined in the councils of heaven, that after many centuries of benighted ignorance the world should be illumined anew by the light of truth. Through the operation of the genius of intelligence, which is the Spirit of Truth, the soul of the race had been undergoing a preparation, like unto the deep plowing of a field, for the planting of the gospel afresh. The principle of the mariner's compass was revealed by the Spirit; the material embodiment thereof was invented by man; and by its aid the unknown oceans were explored. Toward the end of the fifteenth century Columbus was led by the inspiration of God to the discovery of the New World, whereon dwelt the degenerate posterity of Lehi, a dark-skinned remnant of the house of Israel—the American Indians. In due time the good ships Mayflower and Speedwell brought to the western world the Pilgrim Fathers, as the vanguard of a host escaping from exile and seeking a new home wherein they could worship according to the dictates of their consciences. The coming of Columbus and the later immigration of the Puritan Pilgrims had been predicted nearly six hundred years before Christ; their respective missions had been as truly appointed[Pg 755] unto them as has been the sending of any prophet with a message to deliver and a work to do.[1522] The war between the American Colonies and the Mother Country, and the victorious issue thereof in the emancipation of the American nation once and forever from monarchial rule, had been foretold as further steps in preparation for the restoration of the gospel. Time was allowed for the establishment of a stable government, for the raising up of men chosen and inspired to frame and promulgate the Constitution of the United States, which promises to every man a full measure of political and religious freedom. It was not meet that the precious seed of the restored gospel be thrown upon unplowed soil, hardened by intolerance, and fit to produce only thorns of bigotry and rank weeds of mental and spiritual serfdom. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the embodiment of liberty; it is the truth that shall make free every man and every nation who will accept and obey its precepts.
But it had been decided in the councils of heaven that after many centuries of dark ignorance, the world would be brightened again by the light of truth. Through the workings of intelligence, which is the Spirit of Truth, the collective soul had been preparing, much like deeply plowing a field, for the gospel to be planted anew. The principle of the mariner's compass was revealed by the Spirit, while its actual creation was the work of humans, helping them explore the unknown oceans. Toward the end of the fifteenth century, Columbus was inspired by God to discover the New World, where the descendants of Lehi, a darker-skinned remnant of the House of Israel—namely, the American Indians—lived. Eventually, the good ships Mayflower and Speedwell brought the Pilgrim Fathers to the western world as the first wave of people escaping exile and looking for a new home where they could worship freely. The arrival of Columbus and the later immigration of the Puritan Pilgrims had been prophesied nearly six hundred years before Christ; their missions had been as truly assigned to them as any prophet sent with a message to share and a task to accomplish.[Pg 755] The war between the American Colonies and the Mother Country, and its resulting victory that led to the American nation’s liberation from monarchial rule, had been foretold as part of the groundwork for the restoration of the gospel. Time was given for the establishment of a stable government, for the emergence of inspired individuals to create and promote the Constitution of the United States, which promises every person a full measure of political and religious freedom. It was not right for the valuable seed of the restored gospel to be cast upon unplowed soil, hardened by intolerance, and only capable of producing thorns of bigotry and rampant weeds of mental and spiritual servitude. The gospel of Jesus Christ embodies liberty; it is the truth that will set free every individual and every nation willing to accept and follow its teachings.
At the appointed time, the Eternal Father and His Son Jesus the Christ appeared to man upon the earth, and inaugurated the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.
At the scheduled time, the Eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ showed up to humanity on earth and started the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 40.
1. Cessation of Revelation on the Western Hemisphere.—"The eastern world had lost this knowledge of the Lord earlier than the western hemisphere. Upon the land of North America, four hundred years after the birth of our Savior and Master, there stood at least one man who knew the Lord God Almighty as a distinct personality, a Being capable of communicating Himself to man. That man was Moroni, the son of Mormon, whose testimony abides now and must abide through all the ages to come."—George Q. Cannon, Life of Joseph Smith, p. 21. See B. of M., Moroni 10:27-34.
1. End of Revelation in the Western Hemisphere.—"The eastern world had lost this understanding of the Lord earlier than the western hemisphere. In North America, four hundred years after the birth of our Savior and Master, there was at least one man who recognized the Lord God Almighty as a distinct person, a Being capable of communicating with humans. That man was Moroni, the son of Mormon, whose testimony still endures and will endure through all the ages to come."—George Q. Cannon, Life of Joseph Smith, p. 21. See B. of M., Moroni 10:27-34.
2. Results of the Great Apostasy Divinely Overruled for Eventual Good.—The thoughtful student cannot fail to see in the progress of the great apostasy and its results the existence of an overruling power operating toward eventual good, however mysterious its methods. The heart-rending persecutions to which the saints were subjected in the early centuries of our era, the anguish, the torture, the bloodshed incurred in defense[Pg 756] of the testimony of Christ, the rise of an apostate church, blighting the intellect and leading captive the souls of men—all these dread conditions were foreknown to the Lord. While we cannot say or believe that such exhibitions of human depravity and blasphemy of heart were in accordance with the divine will, certainly God willed to permit full scope to the free agency of man, in the exercize of which agency some won the martyr's crown, and others filled the flagon of their iniquity to overflowing. Not less marked is the divine permission in the revolts and rebellions, in the revolutions and reformations, that developed in opposition to the darkening influence of the apostate church. Wickliffe and Huss, Luther and Melanchthon, Zwingli and Calvin, Henry VIII in his arrogant assumption of priestly authority, John Knox in Scotland, Roger Williams in America—these and a host of others builded better than they knew, in that their efforts laid in part the foundation of the structure of religious freedom and liberty of conscience—and this in preparation for the restoration of the gospel as had been divinely predicted.—The Great Apostasy, 10:19, 20.
2. Results of the Great Apostasy Divinely Overruled for Eventual Good.—The thoughtful student can't help but see in the progress of the great apostasy and its results an overriding power working toward eventual good, no matter how mysterious its methods. The heart-wrenching persecutions that the saints faced in the early centuries of our era, the anguish, the torture, the bloodshed endured in defense of Christ's testimony, the rise of an apostate church that stunted intellect and captivated souls—these terrifying conditions were known to the Lord. While we can't say or believe that such displays of human depravity and blasphemy were in line with divine will, it is clear that God allowed complete freedom to human agency, through which some earned the martyr's crown, while others filled their own cups of iniquity to overflowing. The divine permission is equally evident in the revolts and rebellions, in the revolutions and reforms that arose in opposition to the darkening influence of the apostate church. Wickliffe and Huss, Luther and Melanchthon, Zwingli and Calvin, Henry VIII with his arrogant claim of priestly authority, John Knox in Scotland, Roger Williams in America—these and many others built more than they realized, as their efforts partially laid the groundwork for religious freedom and the liberty of conscience—and this was all in preparation for the restoration of the gospel as had been divinely predicted.—The Great Apostasy, 10:19, 20.
3. Declaration of a General Apostasy by the Church of England.—The Book of Homilies, from which the quotation given in the text is taken, was published about the middle of the sixteenth century. The official proclamation of a universal apostasy was made prominently current, for the Homilies were "appointed to be read in churches" in lieu of sermons under certain conditions. In the statement cited, the Church of England solemnly avers that a state of apostasy affecting all ages, sects, and degrees throughout whole Christendom, had prevailed for eight hundred years prior to the establishment of the church making the declaration. That this affirmation remains effective today, as both confession and profession of the Church of England, appears from the fact that the homily "Against Peril of Idolatry" and certain other homilies are specifically ratified and endorsed, and withal prescribed "to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently and distinctly that they may be understanded of the people." See "Articles of Religion" xxxv, in current issues of Church of England, Book of Common Prayer.
3. Declaration of a General Apostasy by the Church of England.—The Book of Homilies, which includes the quote in the text, was published around the mid-16th century. The official announcement of a widespread apostasy became well-known because the Homilies were "appointed to be read in churches" instead of sermons under certain conditions. In the cited statement, the Church of England solemnly declares that a state of apostasy affecting all ages, sects, and levels throughout all of Christendom had been present for eight hundred years before the church issued the declaration. The fact that this statement remains relevant today, as both a confession and profession of the Church of England, is evident from the specific ratification and endorsement of the homily "Against Peril of Idolatry" and certain other homilies, which are prescribed "to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently and distinctly so that they may be understood by the people." See "Articles of Religion" xxxv, in current issues of Church of England, Book of Common Prayer.
4. The "Creed of Athanasius."—At the Council of Nice, convoked by the emperor Constantine, 325 A.D., a formal statement of belief concerning the Godhead was adopted. Later a modification was issued, known as the "Creed of Athanasius," and though the authorship is questioned, the creed has a place in the ritual of some of the Protestant churches. No more conclusive evidence that men had ceased to know God need be adduced than the Athanasian Creed. As confessed by the Church of England in this day, and as published in the official ritual (see Prayer Book) "The Creed of Saint Athanasius" is this: "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and[Pg 757] of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate: and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal: and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated: but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty: and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties: but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords: but one Lord."
4. The "Creed of Athanasius."—At the Council of Nicea, called by Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D., a formal statement of belief about the nature of God was adopted. Later, a modification was released, known as the "Creed of Athanasius." Although the authorship is debated, the creed is included in the rituals of some Protestant churches. There’s no clearer evidence that people had lost touch with God than the Athanasian Creed. As acknowledged by the Church of England today, and as presented in the official ritual (see Prayer Book), "The Creed of Saint Athanasius" is this: "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confusing the Persons nor separating the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. As the Father is, so is the Son: and so is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. Likewise, there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. Similarly, the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. Thus, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. Likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord."
Then follows this strange confession of what is at once required by "Christian verity," and forbidden by the "Catholick Religion": "For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion: to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords."
Then follows this strange confession of what is simultaneously required by "Christian truth" and forbidden by the "Catholic faith": "Just as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge each Person as God and Lord, we are also forbidden by the Catholic faith from saying that there are three Gods or three Lords."
5. The Mission of Columbus and Its Results.—Unto Nephi, son of Lehi, was shown the future of his people, including the degeneracy of a branch thereof, afterward known as Lamanites and in modern times as American Indians. The coming of a man from among the Gentiles, across the deep waters, was revealed in such plainness as to positively identify that man with Columbus; and the coming of other Gentiles to this land, out of captivity, is equally explicit. The revelation is thus recorded by Nephi to whom it was given: "And it came to pass that I looked and beheld many waters; and they divided the Gentiles from the seed of my brethren. And it came to pass that the angel said unto me, Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land. And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters." (1 Nephi 13:10-13). The establishment of a great Gentile nation on the American continent, the subjugation of the Lamanites or Indians, the war between the newly established nation and Great Britain, or "their mother Gentiles," and the victorious outcome of that struggle for independence, are set forth with equal clearness in the same chapter.[Pg 758]
5. The Mission of Columbus and Its Results.—Nephi, the son of Lehi, was shown the future of his people, including the decline of a branch that would later be known as the Lamanites, and in modern times, as American Indians. He was given a clear vision of a man from among the Gentiles coming across the ocean, unmistakably identified as Columbus; and it was also revealed that other Gentiles would come to this land from captivity. Nephi recorded this revelation: "And it came to pass that I looked and saw many waters; and they separated the Gentiles from the descendants of my brothers. Then the angel said to me, 'Look, the wrath of God is upon the descendants of your brothers.' And I saw a man among the Gentiles who was separated from my brothers by many waters; and I saw the Spirit of God come down upon the man, and he went forth upon the many waters, even to the descendants of my brothers who were in the promised land. And it happened that I saw the Spirit of God work upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters." (1 Nephi 13:10-13). The chapter also clearly outlines the establishment of a great Gentile nation on the American continent, the subjugation of the Lamanites or Indians, the war between the newly formed nation and Great Britain, or "their mother Gentiles," and the successful outcome of that fight for independence.[Pg 758]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1508] No extended account of the apostasy of the Primitive Church can be attempted here; the reader is referred to special works treating this important subject. See the author's "The Great Apostasy, considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History," a work of 176 pages.
[1508] A detailed account of the departure from faith in the early Church won’t be provided here; readers are directed to specific works that address this significant topic. Check out the author's "The Great Apostasy, considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History," which is 176 pages long.
[1510] 1 Thess. 2:3, 4.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Thess. 2:3, 4.
[1511] Isa. 24:5.
[1512] The false doctrine of "transubstantiation" is to the effect that the bread and wine administered as emblems of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper are transmuted by priestly consecration into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. See "The Great Apostasy," 8:16-19. As to "supererogation" see page 590 herein.
[1512] The incorrect belief in "transubstantiation" suggests that the bread and wine served as symbols of Christ's body and blood during the Lord's Supper are transformed by the priest's blessing into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. See "The Great Apostasy," 8:16-19. For information on "supererogation," see page 590 herein.
[1520] Amos. 8:11, 12.
CHAPTER 41.
PERSONAL MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD THE ETERNAL FATHER AND OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST IN MODERN TIMES.
A NEW DISPENSATION.
In the year of our Lord 1820 there lived at Manchester, Ontario county, state of New York, a worthy citizen named Joseph Smith. His household comprized his wife and their nine children. The third son and fourth child of the family was Joseph Smith Jr., who at the time of which we speak was in his fifteenth year. In the year specified, New York and adjacent states were swept by a wave of intense agitation in religious matters; and unusual zeal was put forth by ministers of the numerous rival sects to win converts to their respective folds. The boy Joseph was profoundly affected by this intense excitement, and was particularly puzzled and troubled over the spirit of confusion and contention manifest through it all. As our present subject has to do with him specifically, and in view of the transcendent importance of his testimony to the world, his own account of what ensued is given herewith.
In the year 1820, there lived in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, a good citizen named Joseph Smith. His household included his wife and their nine children. The third son and fourth child was Joseph Smith Jr., who was fifteen at the time. In that year, New York and nearby states were swept by a wave of intense religious fervor, with ministers from various rival sects working hard to gain converts. Young Joseph was deeply affected by this excitement and was particularly confused and troubled by the spirit of conflict and division surrounding it all. Since our focus is on him and considering the significant importance of his testimony to the world, his own account of what happened next is provided here.
"Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, 'Lo, here!' and others, 'Lo, there!' Some were contending[Pg 759] for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.
"Some time in the second year after we moved to Manchester, there was a noticeable excitement about religion in our area. It started with the Methodists but quickly spread to all the different religious groups in the region. In fact, the entire area seemed to be affected, and many people joined various religious factions, which caused quite a stir and division among the locals, with some shouting, 'Look over here!' and others, 'Look over there!' Some were arguing for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist."
"For notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased—yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued; priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.
For despite the intense love expressed by the converts to these different faiths at the time of their conversion, and the strong enthusiasm shown by the clergy who were eager to organize and promote this extraordinary display of religious sentiment to convert everyone, as they liked to say, and to let them join whichever group they chose—once the converts started to drift apart, some joining one faction and others another, it became clear that the seemingly positive emotions of both the priests and the converts were more about show than substance. What followed was a scene of chaos and animosity, with priest arguing against priest and convert against convert, leading to the complete breakdown of any genuine goodwill they might have had for each other, swallowed up in a dispute over words and differing opinions.
"I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely—my mother Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.
"I was fifteen at this time. My father's family had converted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church: my mother Lucy, my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison, and my sister Sophronia."
"During this time of great excitement, my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.
"During this exciting time, I found myself deep in thought and feeling pretty uneasy; even though my emotions were intense and often painful, I kept my distance from all these gatherings, even though I attended their meetings whenever I could. Over time, I started to feel a bit drawn to the Methodist group, and I wanted to join them; but the confusion and conflict among the different denominations were so great that, as a young person who was unfamiliar with people and the situation, I couldn't figure out who was right and who was wrong."
"My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of either reason or sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.[Pg 760]
My mind was often really stirred up; the noise and chaos were overwhelming and continuous. The Presbyterians were very firm in their opposition to the Baptists and Methodists, using all their reasoning or clever arguments to prove their mistakes, or at least to make people believe they were wrong. Meanwhile, the Baptists and Methodists were just as passionate in trying to promote their own beliefs and refute all others.[Pg 760]
"In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself, What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?
"In the middle of this battle of words and chaos of opinions, I often thought to myself, What should I do? Which of these groups is right, or are they all wrong? If any of them is right, which one is it, and how will I know?"
"While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
"While I was struggling with the intense challenges brought on by the conflicts between these religious groups, one day I was reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which says: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to everyone generously and doesn’t hold anything against them; and it will be given to him.
"Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
"Never has a passage of scripture touched someone’s heart quite like this one touched mine at that moment. It seemed to penetrate deeply into every emotion I felt. I thought about it over and over, realizing that if anyone needed wisdom from God, it was me; because I had no idea how to proceed, and unless I could gain more wisdom than I currently had, I would remain lost; the religious leaders from different groups interpreted the same passages of scripture in such varied ways that it shattered any confidence I had in resolving the question by turning to the Bible."
"At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to 'ask of God,' concluding that if He gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.
"Eventually, I realized that I could either stay in darkness and confusion or follow James's advice, which is to ask God. I ultimately decided to 'ask of God,' believing that if He generously gives wisdom to those who lack it and doesn’t criticize, I could take the risk."
"So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.
"So, following this, my decision to ask God, I went to the woods to give it a try. It was the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had tried something like this, because despite all my worries, I had never actually attempted to pray out loud."
"After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick[Pg 761] darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
"After I went to the place I had planned to visit, I looked around and realized I was alone. I knelt down and started to express my heartfelt desires to God. I had barely begun when I was suddenly overwhelmed by a power that completely took control of me, silencing me so I couldn’t speak. Thick[Pg 761]darkness closed in around me, and for a moment, it felt like I was facing imminent destruction."
"But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
"But, using all my strength to call on God to save me from this enemy that had taken hold of me, and just when I was about to fall into despair and give in to destruction—not an imagined ruin, but the influence of a real being from the unseen world, who had an incredible power I had never experienced before—at this moment of intense fear, I saw a pillar of light directly above my head, brighter than the sun, which slowly descended until it reached me."
"It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other—This is my beloved Son, hear him!
"It barely appeared when I felt freed from the enemy that had me trapped. When the light shone on me, I saw two figures, whose brilliance and glory are beyond description, standing above me in the air. One of them spoke to me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other—This is my beloved Son, hear him!
"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right—and which I should join.
"My purpose in seeking out the Lord was to find out which of all the religious groups was correct, so I could know which one to join. As soon as I was calm enough to speak, I asked the figures above me in the light which of the sects was right—and which one I should join."
"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'
"I was told that I shouldn’t join any of them because they were all misguided; the person who spoke to me said that all their beliefs were unacceptable to him, that those teachers were all corrupt, that 'they honor me with their words, but their hearts are far from me; they teach human rules as doctrines, having a form of godliness, but they deny its real power.'"
"He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven.
"He told me again that I couldn't join any of them; and he said many other things to me that I can't write down right now. When I regained my senses, I found myself lying on my back, looking up at the sky."
"Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he[Pg 762] treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying, it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.
A few days after I had this vision, I found myself talking to one of the Methodist preachers who was really active in the previously mentioned religious revival. While discussing religion with him, I took the chance to share my vision. I was very shocked by his reaction; he[Pg 762] dismissed what I said not only lightly but also with a lot of disdain, claiming it was all from the devil, that visions and revelations don’t happen anymore, that they all stopped with the apostles, and that there would never be any more.
"I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.
I soon realized, though, that sharing my story had stirred up a lot of prejudice against me among religious professors, leading to serious persecution that kept growing. Even though I was just a boy, around fourteen or fifteen years old, and my situation in life made me seem insignificant, men of high status would pay enough attention to turn public opinion against me and spark a harsh persecution. This was a widespread issue among all the different groups—they all came together to persecute me.
"It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.
"It made me think a lot back then, and I still do, about how odd it was that an unknown boy, just over fourteen years old, who had to work hard for a meager living, would be seen as important enough to catch the attention of the powerful leaders of the most popular groups of the time, leading them to act with intense hatred and hostility. But whether it was strange or not, that was the reality, and it often caused me a great deal of sadness."
"However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light, and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.
However, the truth is, I had seen a vision. I've realized since then that I felt a lot like Paul when he defended himself before King Agrippa and shared the story of the vision he had when he saw a light and heard a voice. Still, very few people believed him; some accused him of being dishonest, others called him crazy, and he was mocked and insulted. But none of this changed the reality of his vision. He had seen something, he knew it, and no amount of persecution could alter that fact; even if they went so far as to kill him, he knew and would know until his last breath that he had seen a light and heard a voice speaking to him, and nothing in the world could make him think or believe otherwise.
"So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two personages, and they did[Pg 763] in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision, and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it, at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.
"So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the middle of that light, I saw two figures, and they truly spoke to me; and even though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, it was true; and while they were persecuting me, insulting me, and spreading all kinds of false accusations against me for saying this, I was led to think in my heart: Why are you persecuting me for telling the truth? I have genuinely seen a vision, and who am I to go against God, or why does the world think it can make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I couldn’t deny it, nor would I dare to do so, because I knew that by doing so I would offend God and come under condemnation."
"I had now got my mind satisfied so far as the sectarian world was concerned; that it was not my duty to join with any of them, but to continue as I was until further directed. I had found the testimony of James to be true, that a man who lacked wisdom might ask of God, and obtain, and not be upbraided."[1523]
"I was now convinced that I didn’t need to join any of the different religious groups; my duty was to stay as I was until I received further guidance. I found James's testimony to be true: if someone lacks wisdom, they can ask God for it and receive it without being criticized."[1523]
In this wise was ushered in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.[1524] The darkness of the long night of apostasy was dispelled; the glory of the heavens once more illumined the world; the silence of centuries was broken; the voice of God was heard again upon the earth. In the spring of A.D. 1820 there was one mortal, a boy not quite fifteen years old, who knew as well as that he lived, that the current human conception of Deity as an incorporeal essence of something possessing neither definite shape nor tangible substance was as devoid of truth in respect to both the Father and the Son as its statement in formulated creeds was incomprehensible. The boy Joseph knew that both the Eternal Father and His glorified Son, Jesus Christ, were in form and stature, perfect Men; and that in Their physical likeness mankind had been created in the flesh.[1525] He knew further that the Father and the Son were individual Personages, each distinct from the other—a truth fully attested[Pg 764] by the Lord Jesus during His mortal existence, but which had been obscured if not buried by the sophistries of human unbelief. He realized that the unity of the Godhead was a oneness of perfection in purpose, plan, and action, as the scriptures declare it to be, and not an impossible union of personalities, as generations of false teachers had tried to impress. This resplendent theophany confirmed the fact of a universal apostasy, with the inevitable corollary—that the Church of Christ was nowhere existent upon the earth. It effectively dissipated the delusion that direct revelation from the heavens had forever ceased; and affirmatively proved the actuality of personal communication between God and mortals.
In this way, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times began. The darkness of the long night of apostasy was lifted; the glory of the heavens once again brightened the world; the silence of centuries was broken; the voice of God was heard on earth once more. In the spring of A.D. 1820, there was one mortal, a boy not quite fifteen years old, who knew as clearly as he knew he lived that the common human idea of God as a formless essence, lacking definite shape or tangible substance, was completely false regarding both the Father and the Son, just as its expression in creeds was baffling. The boy Joseph understood that both the Eternal Father and His glorified Son, Jesus Christ, were in form and stature, perfect Men, and that mankind had been created in Their physical likeness. He further understood that the Father and the Son were individual Personages, each distinct from the other—a truth clearly demonstrated by the Lord Jesus during His earthly life, but which had been obscured, if not buried, by the arguments of human disbelief. He recognized that the unity of the Godhead was a oneness of perfection in purpose, plan, and action, as the scriptures state, and not an impossible union of personalities, as generations of false teachers had attempted to convey. This brilliant theophany confirmed the reality of a universal apostasy, along with the unavoidable conclusion that the Church of Christ was nowhere to be found on the earth. It effectively dispelled the illusion that direct revelation from the heavens had permanently ceased and confirmed the reality of personal communication between God and humans.
For the fourth time since the Savior's birth in the flesh, the voice of the Father had attested the Son's authority in matters pertaining to earth and man.[1526] In this latter-day revelation of Himself, as on the earlier occasions, the Father did no more than affirm the fact of the Son's identity, and command that He be obeyed.
For the fourth time since the Savior was born, the Father confirmed the Son's authority over earthly and human matters.[1526] In this modern revelation of Himself, just like before, the Father simply affirmed the Son's identity and commanded that He be followed.
"A MESSENGER SENT FROM THE PRESENCE OF GOD."[1527]
For about three and a half years following the glorious appearing of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith, the youthful revelator was left to himself, so far as further manifestations from heaven were concerned. The period was one of probation. He was subjected to the sneers of youths of his age, and to aggressive persecution on the part of older men, "who," as he very justly and somewhat accusingly remarks, "ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me."[1528] He pursued his usual vocation, that of[Pg 765] farm work in association with his father and brothers, from whom he received kindness, consideration, and sympathy; and in spite of raillery, abuse, and denunciation from the community at large he remained firm and faithful in his solemn avouchment that he had seen and heard both the Eternal Father and Jesus the Christ, and that he had been instructed to join none of the contending sects or churches because they were all fundamentally wrong.
For about three and a half years after the remarkable appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith, the young revelator was left to himself regarding any further heavenly manifestations. This time was a test. He faced ridicule from peers his age and harsh persecution from older men who, as he rightly and somewhat accusatorily points out, "should have been my friends and treated me kindly, and if they thought I was misled, should have tried in a caring and respectful way to bring me back." He continued his usual work, farming alongside his father and brothers, who offered him kindness, support, and understanding; and despite the mocking, abuse, and condemnation from the wider community, he remained steadfast and resolute in his serious claim that he had seen and heard both the Eternal Father and Jesus Christ and that he had been instructed not to join any of the rival sects or churches because they were all fundamentally wrong.
On the night of the 21st of September 1823, while engaged in fervent prayer to God in the solitude of his chamber, Joseph observed the room become illuminated until the light exceeded that of a cloudless noon. A glorious personage appeared within the room, standing a little space above the floor. Both the body of the visitant and the loose robe he wore were of exquisite whiteness. Calling Joseph by name he announced himself as Moroni, "a messenger sent from the presence of God"; and informed the young man that the Lord had a work for him to do, and that his name should come to be spoken of both for good and for evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues. The angel told of a record engraven on plates of gold, which contained an account of the former inhabitants of the American continent, and the fulness of the everlasting gospel as delivered by the Savior to those ancient people; and furthermore, that with the record were a breastplate, and the Urim and Thummim, which had been prepared by divine instrumentality for use in translating the book. The place at which the plates and the other sacred things were deposited was shown to Joseph in vision, and so clear was the demonstration that he readily recognized the spot when he visited it next day.
On the night of September 21, 1823, while deeply praying to God in the quiet of his room, Joseph saw the space become filled with light, brighter than a sunny afternoon. A glorious figure appeared, hovering slightly above the floor. Both the figure and the flowing robe he wore were brilliantly white. Calling Joseph by name, he introduced himself as Moroni, "a messenger sent from the presence of God," and told the young man that the Lord had a mission for him. He said Joseph's name would be spoken of for both good and bad across all nations, tribes, and languages. The angel spoke of a record engraved on gold plates, which detailed the earlier inhabitants of the American continent and the complete gospel that the Savior had shared with those ancient peoples. Additionally, he mentioned that accompanying the record were a breastplate and the Urim and Thummim, which had been divinely prepared for translating the book. Joseph was shown in a vision the location where the plates and other sacred items were hidden, and it was so clearly revealed that he immediately recognized the spot when he visited it the next day.
The angel quoted several passages from the Old and one from the New Testament, some verbatim, and some with small variations from the Biblical version. Joseph's statement concerning the scriptures cited by Moroni is as follows:[Pg 766]
The angel quoted several passages from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, some exactly as they are and some with slight tweaks from the Biblical version. Joseph's comment about the scriptures mentioned by Moroni is as follows:[Pg 766]
"He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi, and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:
"He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi, and he also quoted the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a slight variation from how it appears in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it is written in our books, he quoted it this way:"
"For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
"For look, the day is coming that will burn like an oven, and all the proud, as well as everyone who does wrong, will be burned up like dry grass; for those who come will burn them up, says the Lord of Hosts, leaving them with neither root nor branch."
"And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
"And again, he quoted the fifth verse this way: Look, I will show you the Priesthood, through the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the arrival of the great and terrible day of the Lord.
"He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers; if it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.
"He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers; if it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.
"In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people, but soon would come.
"In addition to these, he referenced the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying it was about to be fulfilled. He also quoted the third chapter of Acts, verses twenty-two and twenty-three, exactly as they are in our New Testament. He stated that the prophet referred to was Christ; however, the day had not yet arrived when those who would not listen to his voice would be removed from among the people, but that day would come soon."
"He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled but was soon to be. And he further stated that the fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in."[1529]
"He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He mentioned that this had not been fulfilled yet but was going to happen soon. He added that the fullness of the Gentiles was also going to come in soon."[1529]
The messenger departed, and the light disappeared with him. Twice during the same night, however, the angel returned, each time repeating what had been said at his first appearing and adding words of instruction and caution. On the next day Moroni appeared to the young man again, and directed him to inform his father of the visitations and commandments he had received. Joseph's father instructed him[Pg 767] to obey the messenger's instructions and testified that they were given of God. Joseph then went to the locality specified by the angel, on the side of a hill called in the record Cumorah, and immediately identified the spot that had been shown him in vision. By the aid of a lever he removed a large stone, which proved to be the cover of a stone box wherein lay the plates and other articles described by Moroni. The angel appeared at the place, and forbade Joseph to remove the contents of the box at that time. The young man replaced the massive stone lid and left the spot.
The messenger left, and the light went out with him. But later that night, the angel came back twice, repeating what he had said before and adding more instructions and warnings. The next day Moroni appeared to the young man again and told him to inform his father about the visitations and the commandments he had received. Joseph's father told him to follow the messenger's instructions and confirmed that they were from God. Joseph then went to the location the angel had indicated, on the side of a hill called Cumorah, and immediately recognized the spot he had seen in a vision. Using a lever, he lifted a large stone that turned out to be the cover of a stone box containing the plates and other items described by Moroni. The angel appeared at the site and told Joseph not to take the contents of the box at that time. The young man replaced the heavy stone lid and left the area.
Four years later, the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate were delivered into Joseph's keeping by the angel Moroni. This Moroni, who now came as a resurrected being, was the last survivor of the Nephite nation; he had completed the record, and then shortly before his death had hidden away the same in the hill Cumorah, whence it was brought forth through his instrumentality and delivered to the modern prophet and seer, Joseph Smith, September 22, 1827. That record, or, strictly speaking a part thereof, is now accessible to all; it has been translated through divine instrumentality and is now published in many languages as the Book of Mormon.[1530]
Four years later, the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate were handed over to Joseph by the angel Moroni. This Moroni, now appearing as a resurrected being, was the last survivor of the Nephite nation; he had finished the record and, shortly before his death, had concealed it in the hill Cumorah, from where it was brought forth through his agency and given to the modern prophet and seer, Joseph Smith, on September 22, 1827. That record, or more accurately a part of it, is now available to everyone; it has been translated through divine means and is published in many languages as the Book of Mormon.[1530]
THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD CONFERRED BY JOHN THE BAPTIST.
On the 15th of May, 1829, Joseph Smith and his scribe in the work of translating the Nephite record, Oliver Cowdery, retired to a secluded glade to pray. Their special purpose was to inquire of the Lord concerning the ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins, some account of which they had found on the plates. Joseph writes:
On May 15, 1829, Joseph Smith and his scribe, Oliver Cowdery, took some time in a quiet glade to pray. Their main goal was to ask the Lord about the ordinance of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, which they had discovered on the plates. Joseph writes:
"While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:[Pg 768]
"While we were doing this, praying and calling on the Lord, a messenger from heaven came down in a cloud of light, and after laying his hands on us, he ordained us, saying:[Pg 768]
"Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the Gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."[1531]
"In the name of the Messiah, I grant you, my fellow servants, the Priesthood of Aaron, which gives you the authority to minister with angels and to share the Gospel of repentance, as well as to baptize by full immersion for the forgiveness of sins; and this authority will never be taken from the earth again until the descendants of Levi offer a righteous offering to the Lord.[1531]"
The angelic visitor stated that his name was John, the same who is designated in the New Testament, John the Baptist; and that he had acted in ordaining the two under the direction of Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. He explained that the Aaronic Priesthood did not comprize "the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost";[1532] but he predicted that the Higher Priesthood, having this power, would be conferred later. By his express direction, Joseph baptized Oliver, and the latter in turn baptized Joseph, by immersion in water.
The angelic visitor said his name was John, the same John referred to in the New Testament as John the Baptist. He mentioned that he had been involved in ordaining the two under the guidance of Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. He clarified that the Aaronic Priesthood did not include "the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost";[1532] but he predicted that the Higher Priesthood, which has this power, would be given later. Following his explicit instructions, Joseph baptized Oliver, and then Oliver baptized Joseph, by immersion in water.
THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD CONFERRED BY PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN.
Shortly after their ordination to the Lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were visited by the presiding apostles of old, Peter, James, and John, who conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood and ordained them to the Holy Apostleship. In a later revelation the Lord Jesus thus specifically acknowledges the respective ordinations as having been done by His will and commandment:
Shortly after they were ordained to the Lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were visited by the presiding apostles from the past, Peter, James, and John, who conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood and ordained them as Apostles. In a later revelation, the Lord Jesus specifically confirms that these ordinations were done by His will and command:
"Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto this first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron.... And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto[Pg 769] you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry, and of the same things which I revealed unto them: Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on the earth."[1533]
"Which John I have sent to you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jr., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you into this first priesthood that you have received, so that you might be called and ordained just like Aaron.... And also with Peter, James, and John, whom I have sent to you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles and special witnesses of my name, and you hold the keys of your ministry, as well as the same things that I revealed to them: To whom I have given the keys of my kingdom and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fullness of times, during which I will gather together in one all things, both those in heaven and those on the earth."[1533]
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.
On the sixth day of April A.D. 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was formally organized, at Fayette, Seneca county, New York, in accordance with the secular law governing the establishment of religious associations. The persons actually participating in the organization numbered but six, such being the minimum required by law in such an undertaking; many others were present however, some of whom had already received the ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins. By revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord had previously specified the day on which the organization was to be effected, and had made known His plan of Church government—with detailed instructions as to the requisite conditions for membership; the indispensability of baptism by immersion, and the precise manner in which the initiatory ordinance was to be administered; the manner of confirming baptized believers as members of the Church; the duties of elders, priests, teachers, and deacons in the Church; the exact procedure to be followed in the administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; the order of Church discipline, and the method of transferring members from one branch to another.[1534] The baptized converts present at the organization were called upon to express their acceptance or rejection of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as elders in the Church; and in accordance with[Pg 770] the unanimous vote in the affirmative the ordination or setting apart of these two men as respectively first and second elder in the new organization was performed.[1535]
On April 6, 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was officially organized in Fayette, Seneca County, New York, following the state's laws for setting up religious organizations. There were just six individuals involved in the organization, which was the minimum required by law, but many others were present, some of whom had already been baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Through revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord had previously specified the day for the organization and revealed His plan for Church governance, including detailed guidelines for membership; the necessity of baptism by immersion; the exact way to perform the initiation ritual; how to confirm baptized believers as Church members; the responsibilities of elders, priests, teachers, and deacons; the procedure for administering the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; the process for Church discipline; and how to transfer members between branches.[1534] The baptized members present were asked to indicate whether they accepted or rejected Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as elders of the Church. Following the unanimous affirmative vote, the ordination of these two men as the first and second elder in the new organization was carried out.[1535]
While the Book of Mormon had been in course of translation, particularly during the two years immediately preceding the organization of the Church, several revelations had been given through Joseph the prophet and seer, relating to the work of translation and to the preparatory labor necessary to the establishment of the Church as an institution among men. The Author of these several revelations declared Himself definitely to be Jesus Christ, God, the Son of God, the Redeemer, the Light and Life of the World, Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, the Lord and Savior.[1536] As early as A.D. 1829, the calling of the Twelve Apostles was indicated, and appointment was made for the searching out of the Twelve who should stand before the world as special witnesses of the Christ; these were subsequently ordained to the Holy Apostleship, and the council or quorum of the Twelve has been recognized, and instructions concerning their exalted duties have been given, in numerous revelations of later dates.[1537]
While the Book of Mormon was being translated, especially during the two years right before the Church was organized, Joseph the prophet and seer received several revelations related to the translation work and the preparatory efforts needed to establish the Church as an institution among people. The Author of these revelations identified Himself as Jesus Christ, God, the Son of God, the Redeemer, the Light and Life of the World, Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, the Lord and Savior.[1536] As early as A.D. 1829, the calling of the Twelve Apostles was announced, and plans were made to identify the Twelve who would stand as special witnesses of Christ; these individuals were later ordained to the Holy Apostleship, and the council or quorum of the Twelve has been acknowledged, with instructions regarding their important responsibilities given in various revelations over time.[1537]
In such manner has the Church of Jesus Christ been reestablished upon the earth, with all the powers and authority pertaining to the Holy Priesthood as committed by the Lord Jesus to His apostles in the period of His personal ministry. The inauguration of a new dispensation of the gospel, with a restoration of the Priesthood, was absolutely necessary; since through the apostasy of the Primitive Church there lived not a man empowered to speak or administer in the name of God or His Christ. John the Revelator saw in his vision of the last days an angel bringing anew "the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and[Pg 771] to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."[1538]
The Church of Jesus Christ has been restored on earth, with all the powers and authority of the Holy Priesthood given by the Lord Jesus to His apostles during His ministry. The start of a new era of the gospel, along with a restoration of the Priesthood, was essential; because after the apostasy of the original Church, no one remained who had the authority to speak or act in the name of God or His Christ. John the Revelator saw in his vision of the last days an angel bringing back "the everlasting gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation, tribe, language, and people, saying loudly, Fear God and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment has come: and worship Him who made heaven, earth, the sea, and the springs of water."[1538]
Such an angelic embassage would have been but a needless and empty display, and therefore an impossibility, had the everlasting gospel remained upon the earth with its powers of priesthood perpetuated by succession. The scriptural assurances of a restoration in the last days through direct bestowal from the heavens is conclusive proof of the actuality of the universal apostasy. Moroni came to Joseph Smith as "a messenger sent from the presence of God," and delivered a record containing "the fulness of the everlasting gospel," as it had been imparted to the Lord's people in ancient times; and the world-wide distribution of the Book of Mormon, and of other publications embodying the revealed word in modern times, and the ministry of thousands who labor in the authority of the Holy Priesthood combine as the loud voice addressed to every nation, crying: "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come."
Such a heavenly message would have just been a pointless and empty show, and therefore impossible, if the everlasting gospel had remained on earth with its priesthood powers passed down through succession. The scriptural promises of a restoration in the last days through direct revelation from heaven clearly prove the reality of the global apostasy. Moroni came to Joseph Smith as "a messenger sent from the presence of God," delivering a record that contained "the fullness of the everlasting gospel," as it had been given to the Lord's people in ancient times. The widespread distribution of the Book of Mormon, along with other publications that include the revealed word in modern times, and the ministry of thousands who serve with the authority of the Holy Priesthood all serve as a strong message to every nation, proclaiming: "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment has come."
FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE HEAVENS TO MAN.
Following the organization of the Church as heretofore described, direct communication between the Lord Jesus Christ and His prophet Joseph was frequent, as the needs of the Church required. Numerous revelations were given, and these are accessible to all who will read.[1539] A marvelous manifestation was granted to the prophet and his associate in the presidency of the Church, Sidney Rigdon, the record of which appears as follows:
Following the organization of the Church as previously described, direct communication between Jesus Christ and His prophet Joseph happened regularly, as the needs of the Church required. Many revelations were given, and these are available to anyone who reads.[1539] A remarkable experience was granted to the prophet and his associate in the Church presidency, Sidney Rigdon, the account of which is as follows:
"We, Joseph Smith, jun., and Sidney Rigdon, being in the Spirit on the sixteenth of February, in the year of our[Pg 772] Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, by the power of the Spirit our eyes were opened and our understandings were enlightened, so as to see and understand the things of God—even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning, of whom we bear record, and the record which we bear is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, whom we saw and with whom we conversed in the heavenly vision; For while we were doing the work of translation, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John, which was given unto us as follows. Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and shall come forth; they who have done good in the resurrection of the just, and they who have done evil in the resurrection of the unjust. Now this caused us to marvel, for it was given unto us of the Spirit; and while we meditated upon these things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about; and we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness; and saw the holy angels, and they who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him for ever and ever. And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony last of all, which we give of him, that he lives; for we saw him, even on the right hand of God, and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—that by him and through him, and of him the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."[1540]
"We, Joseph Smith Jr. and Sidney Rigdon, being in the Spirit on February 16, 1832, through the power of the Spirit, our eyes were opened and our understanding was illuminated, allowing us to see and understand the things of God—even those things which were present from the beginning before the world existed, which were ordained by the Father, through His Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father from the start, of whom we bear witness, and the witness we bear is the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, whom we saw and with whom we communicated in the heavenly vision. While we were engaged in the work of translation, which the Lord had commanded us to do, we reached the twenty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John, which was revealed to us as follows. Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who will hear the voice of the Son of Man and come forth; those who have done good will rise in the resurrection of the just, and those who have done evil will rise in the resurrection of the unjust. This caused us to marvel, for it was given to us by the Spirit; and while we reflected on these things, the Lord opened the eyes of our understanding and they were enlightened, and the glory of the Lord surrounded us; and we beheld the glory of the Son, at the right hand of the Father, and received of His fullness; and we saw the holy angels, and those who are sanctified before His throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who is worshiped forever and ever. And now, after the many testimonies that have been given of Him, this is the final testimony we give of Him, that He lives; for we saw Him, even at the right hand of God, and we heard the voice bearing witness that He is the Only Begotten of the Father—that by Him and through Him, and of Him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are born as sons and daughters unto God."
The vision was followed by further revelation both through sight and hearing; and the Lord showed unto His servants and proclaimed aloud the fate of the wicked and the characteristic features of the varied degrees of glory provided for the souls of mankind in the hereafter. The[Pg 773] several states of graded honor and exaltation pertaining to the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial kingdoms were revealed, and the ancient scriptures relating thereto were illumined with the new light of simplicity and literalness.[1541]
The vision was followed by more revelations through sight and sound; the Lord showed His servants and announced the fate of the wicked as well as the different levels of glory that await the souls of humanity in the afterlife. The various states of honor and exaltation related to the telestial, terrestrial, and celestial kingdoms were revealed, and the ancient scriptures about these topics were brought to life with new clarity and straightforwardness.[Pg 773][1541]
PERSONAL APPEARING OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE KIRTLAND TEMPLE.
In less than three and a half years after its organization the Church began the erection of the first temple of modern times at Kirtland, Ohio. The work was undertaken in compliance with a revelation from the Lord requiring this labor at the hands of His people. The Church membership was small; the people were in poverty; the period was one of determined opposition and relentless persecution.[1542] Be it understood that to the Latter-day Saints a temple is more than chapel, church, tabernacle, or cathedral; it is no place of common assembly even for purposes of congregational worship, but an edifice sacred to the ordinances of the Holy Priesthood—distinctively and essentially a House of the Lord. The temple at Kirtland stands today, a substantial and stately building; but it is no longer in possession of the people who reared it by unmeasured sacrifice of time, substance, and effort extending through years of self-denial and suffering. Its corner-stones were laid July 23, 1833, and the completed structure was dedicated March 27, 1836. The dedicatory service was made ever memorable by a Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit of the Lord accompanied by the visible presence of angels. In the evening of the same day the several quorums of priesthood assembled in the house, and a yet greater manifestation of divine power and glory was witnessed. On the succeeding Sunday—April 3, 1836—after a service of solemn worship, including the administration[Pg 774] of the Lord's Supper, the prophet Joseph and his counselor, Oliver Cowdery, retired for prayer within the veils enclosing the platform and pulpit reserved for the presiding authorities of the Melchizedek Priesthood. They bear this solemn testimony to the personal appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ at that time and place:
In less than three and a half years after its formation, the Church began building the first modern temple in Kirtland, Ohio. This work was undertaken in response to a revelation from the Lord instructing His people to do this labor. The Church's membership was small, the people were struggling financially, and the time was marked by strong opposition and relentless persecution.[1542] It's important to understand that for the Latter-day Saints, a temple is more than just a chapel, church, tabernacle, or cathedral; it’s not a place for common gatherings, even for worship, but a sacred building dedicated to the ordinances of the Holy Priesthood—distinctly and fundamentally a House of the Lord. The temple in Kirtland still stands today as a substantial and impressive building, but it is no longer owned by the people who built it through immense sacrifices of time, resources, and effort over many years of self-denial and hardship. Its cornerstones were laid on July 23, 1833, and the finished structure was dedicated on March 27, 1836. The dedicatory service became memorable with a powerful outpouring of the Spirit of the Lord, accompanied by the visible presence of angels. Later that evening, the various priesthood quorums gathered in the temple, and an even greater manifestation of divine power and glory was observed. The following Sunday—April 3, 1836—after a solemn worship service that included administering the Lord’s Supper, the prophet Joseph and his counselor, Oliver Cowdery, withdrew to pray within the veils surrounding the platform and pulpit set aside for the presiding authorities of the Melchizedek Priesthood. They bear this solemn testimony to the personal appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ at that time and place:
"The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened. We saw the Lord standing upon the breast work of the pulpit, before us, and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold in color like amber. His eyes were as a flame of fire, the hair of his head was white like the pure snow, his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun, and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying—I am the first and the last, I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain, I am your advocate with the Father. Behold, your sins are forgiven you, you are clean before me, therefore lift up your heads and rejoice, let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, built this house to my name. For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here, and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house, Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house, Yea the hearts of thousands and tens of thousands shall greatly rejoice in consequence of the blessings which shall be poured out, and the endowment with which my servants have been endowed in this house; and the fame of this house shall spread to foreign lands, and this is the beginning of the blessing which shall be poured out upon the heads of my people. Even so. Amen."[1543]
"The veil was lifted from our minds, and our understanding became clear. We saw the Lord standing on the pulpit, right in front of us, and beneath his feet was a beautiful floor made of pure gold, shining like amber. His eyes were like flames, his hair was as white as pure snow, his face was brighter than the sun, and his voice sounded like the rushing of mighty waters, the voice of Jehovah, saying—I am the beginning and the end, I am the one who lives, I am the one who was slain, I am your advocate with the Father. Look, your sins are forgiven, you are clean in my sight, so lift up your heads and rejoice, let the hearts of your brothers rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have worked hard to build this house in my name. For look, I have accepted this house, and my name will be here, and I will show myself to my people in mercy in this house. Yes, I will appear to my servants and speak to them with my own voice, if my people keep my commandments and do not desecrate this holy house. Yes, the hearts of thousands upon thousands will greatly rejoice because of the blessings that will be poured out and the gifts with which my servants have been blessed in this house; and the reputation of this house will spread to distant lands, and this is just the beginning of the blessings that will be poured out on my people. Amen." [1543]
After the Savior's withdrawal, the two mortal prophets were visited by glorified beings, each of whom had officiated on earth as a specially commissioned servant of Jehovah, and now came to confer the authority of his particular office[Pg 775] upon Joseph and Oliver, thus uniting all the powers and authorities of olden dispensations in the restored Church of Christ, which characterizes the last and greatest dispensation of history. This is the record:
After the Savior left, the two mortal prophets were visited by glorified beings, each of whom had served on earth as a specially appointed servant of God, and now came to give the authority of their specific office[Pg 775] to Joseph and Oliver, thereby uniting all the powers and authorities of past dispensations in the restored Church of Christ, which marks the last and greatest dispensation in history. This is the record:
"After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us, and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north. After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying, that in us, and our seed, all generations after us should be blessed. After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us, for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said—Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi, testifying that he (Elijah) should be sent before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse. Therefore the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands, and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors."[1544]
"After this vision ended, the heavens opened up for us again, and Moses appeared before us, giving us the keys for gathering Israel from all corners of the earth and leading the ten tribes from the north. Then Elias appeared and entrusted us with the gospel of Abraham, stating that through us and our descendants, all generations would be blessed. Once this vision concluded, another magnificent vision unfolded, as Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without dying, stood before us and said—Look, the time has come as prophesied by Malachi, confirming that he (Elijah) would be sent before the great and terrible day of the Lord to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers, so the entire earth wouldn't be cursed. Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are now in your hands, and this will confirm to you that the great and terrible day of the Lord is near, even at the door."[1544]
JESUS THE CHRIST IS WITH HIS CHURCH TODAY.
Right gloriously has the Lord brought about a fulfilment of the promises uttered through the mouths of His holy prophets in by-gone ages—to restore the gospel with all its former blessings and privileges; to bestow anew the Holy Priesthood with authority to administer in the name of God; to reestablish the Church bearing His name and founded upon the rock of divine revelation; and to proclaim the message of salvation to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples. In spite of persecution both mobocratic and judicially sanctioned, in spite of assaults, drivings, and slaughter, the Church has developed with marvelous rapidity and strength since the day of its organization. Joseph, the[Pg 776] prophet, and his brother Hyrum, the patriarch of the Church, were brutally slain as martyrs to the truth at Carthage, Illinois, June 27, 1844. But the Lord raised up others to succeed them; and the world learned in part and yet shall know beyond all question that the Church so miraculously established in the last days is not the church of Joseph Smith nor of any other man, but in literal verity, the Church of Jesus Christ. The Lord has continued to make known His mind and will through prophets, seers, and revelators whom He has successively chosen and appointed to lead His people; and the voice of divine revelation is heard in the Church today. As provided for in its revealed plan and constitution, the Church is blessed by the ministry of prophets, apostles, high priests, patriarchs, seventies, elders, bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons.[1545] The spiritual gifts and blessings of old are again enjoyed in rich abundance.[1546] New scriptures, primarily directed to present duties and current developments in the purposes of God, yet which illuminate and make plain in simplicity the scriptures of old, have been given to the world through the channel of the restored priesthood; and other scriptures shall yet be written. The united membership of the Church proclaims:
Right gloriously has the Lord fulfilled the promises spoken by His holy prophets in the past—to restore the gospel with all its original blessings and privileges; to grant the Holy Priesthood again with the authority to act in the name of God; to reestablish the Church named after Him, built on the foundation of divine revelation; and to share the message of salvation with all nations, races, languages, and peoples. Despite facing violence and legal persecution, as well as assaults and killings, the Church has grown remarkably fast and strong since it was organized. Joseph, the prophet, and his brother Hyrum, the patriarch of the Church, were brutally killed as martyrs for the truth in Carthage, Illinois, on June 27, 1844. But the Lord raised up others to take their place; and the world has partially learned, and will ultimately know without a doubt, that the Church so miraculously established in the last days is not the church of Joseph Smith or any other man, but truly, the Church of Jesus Christ. The Lord continues to reveal His mind and will through prophets, seers, and revelators whom He has chosen and appointed to lead His people; and the voice of divine revelation is heard in the Church today. As outlined in its revealed plan and constitution, the Church is blessed by the ministry of prophets, apostles, high priests, patriarchs, seventies, elders, bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons. The spiritual gifts and blessings of old are again enjoyed in rich abundance. New scriptures, primarily focused on current duties and developments in God’s purposes, yet which clarify and simplify the scriptures of old, have been given to the world through the restored priesthood; and more scriptures will yet be written. The united membership of the Church proclaims:
"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."[1547]
"We believe in everything that God has revealed, everything He is currently revealing, and we are confident that He will reveal many significant and important things related to the Kingdom of God."[1547]
The predicted gathering of Israel from their long dispersion is in progress under the commission given by the Lord through Moses. The "mountain of the Lord's house" is already established in the top of the mountains, and all peoples flow unto it; while the elders of the Church go[Pg 777] forth among the nations, saying: "Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."[1548]
The anticipated gathering of Israel from their long exile is happening now, based on the mission given by the Lord through Moses. The "mountain of the Lord's house" is already established at the top of the mountains, and people from all nations are coming to it; meanwhile, the church elders are going out among the nations, saying: "Come, let’s go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us his ways, and we will follow his paths: because from Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."[1548]
Within sacred temples, the living are officiating vicariously in behalf of the dead; and the hearts of mortal children are turned with affectionate concern toward their departed ancestors, while disembodied hosts are praying for the success of their posterity, yet in the flesh, in the service of salvation.[1549] The saving gospel is offered freely to all, for so hath its Author commanded. Through the medium of the press, and by the personal ministrations of men invested with the Holy Priesthood whom the Church sends out by thousands, this Gospel of the Kingdom is today preached throughout the world. When such witness among the nations is made complete, "then shall the end come"; and the nations "shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."[1550]
Within sacred temples, the living are serving on behalf of the dead; and the hearts of mortal children are filled with loving concern for their departed ancestors, while the spirits are praying for the success of their descendants who are still alive, in the mission of salvation.[1549] The saving gospel is given freely to everyone, as its Author has commanded. Through the press and by the personal efforts of men authorized by the Holy Priesthood, whom the Church sends out by the thousands, this Gospel of the Kingdom is now preached around the world. When this testimony among the nations is complete, "then shall the end come"; and the nations "shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."[1550]
NOTES TO CHAPTER 41.
1. The Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.—"Now the thing to be known is, what the fulness of times means, or the extent and authority thereof. It means this, that the dispensation of the fulness of times is made up of all the dispensations that ever have been given since the world began, until this time. Unto Adam first was given a dispensation. It is well known that God spake to him with His own voice in the garden, and gave him the promise of the Messiah. And unto Noah also was a dispensation given; for Jesus said, 'As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the coming of the Son of Man;' and as the righteous were saved then, and the wicked destroyed, so it will be now. And from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Moses, and from Moses to Elias, and from Elias to John the Baptist, and from then to Jesus Christ, and from Jesus Christ to Peter, James, and John, the Apostles all having received in their dispensation by revelation from God, to accomplish the great scheme of restitution, spoken by all the holy[Pg 778] Prophets since the world began; the end of which is, the dispensation of the fulness of times, in which all things shall be fulfilled that have been spoken of since the earth was made."—See Millennial Star, vol. 16, p. 220.
1. The Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.—"What you need to understand is what the fulness of times means, including its scope and authority. It means that the dispensation of the fulness of times is composed of all the dispensations that have ever been given since the beginning of the world up to now. The first dispensation was given to Adam. It’s well known that God spoke to him directly in the garden and promised him the Messiah. Noah also received a dispensation; for Jesus said, 'Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man;' and as the righteous were saved then while the wicked were destroyed, so it will be now. From Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Moses, and from Moses to Elias, and from Elias to John the Baptist, and then to Jesus Christ, and from Jesus Christ to Peter, James, and John, all the Apostles received revelations from God in their dispensations to fulfill the great plan of restoration spoken of by all the holy[Pg 778] Prophets since the world began; the ultimate goal of which is the dispensation of the fulness of times, where all things will be fulfilled that have been foretold since the earth was created."—See Millennial Star, vol. 16, p. 220.
2. Limitations of the Aaronic Priesthood.—After conferring the Lesser or Aaronic Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, the officiating angel, who had been known while a mortal being as John the Baptist, explained that the authority he had imparted did not extend to the laying-on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, the latter ordinance being a function of the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. Consider the instance of Philip, (not the apostle Philip), whose ordination empowered him to baptize, though a higher authority than his was requisite for the conferring of the Holy Ghost; and consequently the apostles Peter and John went down to Samaria to officiate in the case of Philip's baptized converts (Acts 8:5, 12-17). See Doc. and Cov. 20:41, 46.
2. Limitations of the Aaronic Priesthood.—After conferring the Lesser or Aaronic Priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, the angel who performed the ceremony, known in life as John the Baptist, explained that the authority given did not include the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is reserved for the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. For example, Philip (not the apostle Philip) was ordained to baptize, but he needed a higher authority to confer the Holy Ghost; as a result, the apostles Peter and John went to Samaria to perform the laying on of hands for those converted by Philip (Acts 8:5, 12-17). See Doc. and Cov. 20:41, 46.
3. Priesthood and Office Therein.—It is important to know that although Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had been ordained to the Holy Apostleship, and therefore to a fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood, by Peter, James, and John, it was necessary that they be ordained as elders in the Church. When they received the Melchizedek Priesthood from the three ancient apostles, there was no organized Church of Jesus Christ, and consequently no need of Church officers, such as elders, priests, teachers, or deacons. As soon as the Church was established, officers were chosen therein and these were ordained to the requisite office or grade in the Priesthood. Moreover, the principle of common consent in the conduct of Church affairs was observed in this early action of the members in voting to sustain the men nominated for official positions, and has continued to be the rule of the Church to this day. It is pertinent to point out further that in conferring upon Joseph and Oliver the Aaronic Priesthood, John the Baptist did not ordain them to the office of priest, teacher, or deacon. These three offices are included in the Aaronic, as are the offices of elder, seventy, high priest, etc., in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Read Doc. and Cov. 20:38-67; The Articles of Faith, xi.
3. Priesthood and Office Therein.—It's important to note that even though Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ordained to the Holy Apostleship, and thus received the full Melchizedek Priesthood, by Peter, James, and John, they still needed to be ordained as elders in the Church. When they received the Melchizedek Priesthood from the three ancient apostles, there was no organized Church of Jesus Christ, and therefore, no need for Church officers like elders, priests, teachers, or deacons. Once the Church was established, officers were chosen and ordained to the necessary office or level in the Priesthood. Additionally, the principle of common consent in managing Church affairs was upheld during this early action when members voted to support the men nominated for official roles, which has remained the practice of the Church to this day. It's also important to clarify that when John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood upon Joseph and Oliver, he did not ordain them to the office of priest, teacher, or deacon. These three offices are part of the Aaronic Priesthood, just as the offices of elder, seventy, high priest, etc., are part of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Read Doc. and Cov. 20:38-67; The Articles of Faith, xi.
4. Modern Temples.—The Lord's gracious promise given in the Kirtland Temple—to appear unto His servants at times then future, and to speak unto them with His own voice, provided the people would keep His commandments and not pollute that holy house—has been in no wise abrogated nor forfeited through the enforced relinquishment of the Kirtland Temple by the Latter-day Saints. The people were compelled to flee before the fury of mobocratic persecution; but they hastened to erect another and yet more splendid sanctuary at Nauvoo, Illinois, and were again dispossessed by lawless mobs. In the valleys of Utah the Church has erected four great temples, each more stately than the last; and in these holy houses the sacred ordinances pertaining to salvation and exaltation of both the living and the[Pg 779] dead are in uninterrupted progress. The temples of the present dispensation, at the time of the present writing designated according to location, are those of Kirtland, Ohio; Nauvoo, Illinois; St. George, Logan, Manti, and Salt Lake City, Utah; Cardston, Canada, and Laie, Hawaii. See The House of the Lord, pp. 63-232.
4. Modern Temples.—The Lord's gracious promise given in the Kirtland Temple—to appear to His servants at times in the future and to speak to them with His own voice, as long as the people kept His commandments and didn't desecrate that holy place—has definitely not been canceled or lost due to the forced abandonment of the Kirtland Temple by the Latter-day Saints. The people had to flee from the violent persecution of mobs; however, they quickly built another and even more magnificent sanctuary in Nauvoo, Illinois, only to be driven out again by lawless mobs. In the valleys of Utah, the Church has built four grand temples, each one more impressive than the last; and in these sacred houses, the essential ordinances for the salvation and exaltation of both the living and the[Pg 779] dead are continuously carried out. The temples of the present dispensation, as of now identified by their locations, are: Kirtland, Ohio; Nauvoo, Illinois; St. George, Logan, Manti, and Salt Lake City, Utah; Cardston, Canada; and Laie, Hawaii. See The House of the Lord, pp. 63-232.
5. Consistency of the Church's Claim to Authority.—The proofs of order and system in the restoration of authority to officiate in particular functions pertaining to the priesthood are striking, and go to prove the continued validity, beyond the grave, of authoritative ordination on earth. The keys of the Aaronic order, comprizing authority to baptize for the remission of sins, were brought by John the Baptist, who had been especially commissioned in that order of priesthood in the time of Christ. The apostleship, comprizing all powers inherent in the Melchizedek Priesthood, was restored by the presiding apostles of old, Peter, James, and John. Then, as has been seen, Moses conferred the authority to prosecute the work of gathering; and Elijah, who, not having tasted death, held a peculiar relation to both the living and the dead, delivered the authority of vicarious ministry for the departed. To these appointments by heavenly authority should be added that given by Elias, who appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and "committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham." It is evident, then, that the claims made by the Church with respect to its authority are complete and consistent as to the source of the powers professed and the channels through which such have been delivered again to earth. Scripture and revelation, both ancient and modern, support as an unalterable law the principle that no one can delegate to another an authority which the giver does not possess.
5. Consistency of the Church's Claim to Authority.—The evidence of order and structure in the restoration of the authority to perform specific priesthood functions is impressive and demonstrates the ongoing validity, beyond death, of authoritative ordination on earth. John the Baptist, who was specifically commissioned in that priesthood during Christ's time, brought the keys of the Aaronic order, which includes the authority to baptize for the forgiveness of sins. The apostleship, which comprises all powers within the Melchizedek Priesthood, was restored by the original presiding apostles, Peter, James, and John. Furthermore, as previously noted, Moses conferred the authority to carry out the gathering work, and Elijah, who had not died, held a unique connection to both the living and the dead, granting the authority for vicarious ministry for those who have passed away. Additionally, we must recognize the appointment made by Elias, who appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and "committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham." Thus, it’s clear that the Church's claims regarding its authority are thorough and consistent in terms of the sources of the powers it professes and the channels through which these have been returned to earth. Both ancient and modern scripture and revelation uphold the unchanging principle that no one can delegate authority to another that they themselves do not possess.
6. Cessation of the Melchizedek Administration in Ancient Times.—The Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was held by the patriarchs from Adam to Moses. Aaron was ordained to the priest's office, as were his sons; but that Moses held superior authority is abundantly shown (Numb. 12:1-8). After Aaron's death his son Eleazar officiated in the authority of the Lesser Priesthood; and even Joshua had to take counsel and authority from him (Numb. 27:18-23). From the ministry of Moses to that of Jesus Christ, the Lesser Priesthood alone was operative upon the earth, excepting only the instances of specially delegated authority of the higher order such as is manifest in the ministrations of certain chosen prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. It is evident that these prophets, seers, and revelators were individually and specially commissioned; but it appears that they had not authority to call and ordain successors, for in their time the Higher Priesthood was not existent on earth in an organized state with duly officered quorums. Not so with the Aaronic and Levitical Priesthood, however. The matter is made particularly plain through latter-day revelation. See Doc. and Cov. 84:23-28; read the entire section; also The House of the Lord pp. 235-238.[Pg 780]
6. End of the Melchizedek Administration in Ancient Times.—The Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was held by the patriarchs from Adam to Moses. Aaron was ordained as a priest, as were his sons; however, Moses clearly had greater authority (Numb. 12:1-8). After Aaron's death, his son Eleazar served in the authority of the Lesser Priesthood; even Joshua had to seek guidance and authority from him (Numb. 27:18-23). From Moses's ministry until that of Jesus Christ, only the Lesser Priesthood was active on earth, apart from specific cases of higher authority granted to selected prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. It's clear that these prophets, seers, and revelators were individually and uniquely appointed; however, they did not have the authority to call and ordain successors, as the Higher Priesthood was not organized on earth at that time with properly appointed quorums. The same cannot be said for the Aaronic and Levitical Priesthood. This is especially clarified through later revelation. See Doc. and Cov. 84:23-28; read the entire section; also The House of the Lord pp. 235-238.[Pg 780]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1534] Doc. and Cov. sec. 20.
[1538] Rev. 14:6, 7.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Rev. 14:6, 7.
CHAPTER 42.
JESUS THE CHRIST TO RETURN.
THE LORD'S SECOND ADVENT PREDICTED IN ANCIENT SCRIPTURE.
"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."[1551] So spake the white-robed angels to the eleven apostles as the resurrected Christ ascended from their midst on Olivet. The scriptures abound in predictions of the Lord's return.
"Men of Galilee, why are you standing here looking up at the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken up to heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." [1551] So said the white-robed angels to the eleven apostles as the resurrected Christ ascended from among them on the Mount of Olives. The scriptures are full of predictions about the Lord's return.
By the "second advent" we understand not the personal appearing of the Son of God to a few, such as His visitation to Saul of Tarsus, to Joseph Smith in 1820, and again in the Kirtland Temple in 1836; nor later manifestations to His worthy servants as specifically promised;[1552] but His yet future coming in power and great glory, accompanied by hosts of resurrected and glorified beings, to execute judgment upon the earth and to inaugurate a reign of righteousness.
By the "second advent," we mean not the personal appearance of the Son of God to a few individuals, like His visit to Saul of Tarsus, to Joseph Smith in 1820, and again in the Kirtland Temple in 1836; nor later appearances to His faithful servants as specifically promised;[1552] but His future coming in power and great glory, accompanied by multitudes of resurrected and glorified beings, to bring judgment upon the earth and to start a reign of righteousness.
The prophets of both hemispheres, who lived prior to the meridian of time, said comparatively little concerning the Lord's second coming; their souls were too full of the merciful plan of redemption associated with the Savior's birth into mortality to permit them to dwell upon the yet more distant consummation appointed for the last days. Certain of them, however, were permitted to behold in vision the working out of the divine purposes even to the end of time; and these testified with unsurpassed fervency concerning the[Pg 781] glorious coming of Christ in the final dispensation. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied saying, "Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all."[1553] In a more extended account of the Lord's revelations to Enoch than is included in the Bible, we read that after this righteous prophet had been shown the scenes of Israel's history, down to and beyond the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, he pleaded with God, saying: "I ask thee if thou wilt not come again on the earth. And the Lord said unto Enoch: As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfil the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah.... And it came to pass that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, in the last days, to dwell on the earth in righteousness for the space of a thousand years."[1554] Isaiah, in rapturous contemplation of the eventual triumph of righteousness, exclaimed: "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you"; and again: "Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him."[1555] The conditions specified were not realized in the earthly life of the Redeemer; moreover the context clearly shows that the prophet's words are applicable to the last days only—the time of the ransomed of the Lord, the time of restitution, and of the triumph of Zion.
The prophets from both sides of the world, who lived before the peak of time, had relatively little to say about the Lord's second coming; their hearts were too filled with the merciful plan of redemption linked to the Savior's birth into mortality to focus on the more distant event set for the last days. However, some of them were allowed to see in vision the unfolding of divine plans even until the end of time; and they spoke with unmatched passion about the glorious return of Christ in the final era. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Look, the Lord is coming with countless saints to judge everyone." In a more detailed account of the Lord's revelations to Enoch than what's found in the Bible, we read that after this righteous prophet had seen the events of Israel's history, extending to and beyond the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, he asked God, saying: "I ask you if you will not come again to the earth." And the Lord replied to Enoch: "As I live, I will come again in the last days, during a time of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfill the promise I made to you regarding the children of Noah.... And it happened that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, in the last days, to live on the earth in righteousness for a thousand years." Isaiah, in awe at the eventual victory of righteousness, proclaimed: "Say to those with a fearful heart, Be strong, don’t be afraid: look, your God will come with vengeance, God will repay; He will come and save you"; and again: "Look, the Lord God will come with a mighty hand, and His arm will rule for Him: look, His reward is with Him, and His work is before Him." The conditions mentioned did not happen during the Redeemer's earthly life; furthermore, the context clearly indicates that the prophet's words apply only to the last days—the time of the redeemed of the Lord, the time of restoration, and the triumph of Zion.
Of all Biblical scriptures relating to our subject, the utterances of the Christ Himself in the course of His earthly ministry are most direct and certain. Many of these we have already considered in the narrative of the Savior's life; the few following are sufficient for present demonstration.[Pg 782] "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."[1556] To the apostles and the people generally He proclaimed: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."[1557] When a bound prisoner before proud Caiaphas, Jesus answered the unlawful adjuration of the corrupt high priest, by affirming: "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."[1558]
Of all the Biblical texts related to our topic, the statements made by Christ during His time on earth are the most straightforward and clear. Many of these have already been discussed in the retelling of the Savior's life; the few that follow are enough for our current purposes.[Pg 782] "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He will reward each person according to their actions."[1556] He told the apostles and the general public: "So whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this corrupt and sinful generation; the Son of Man will also be ashamed of them when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."[1557] When He was a bound prisoner before the proud Caiaphas, Jesus responded to the illegal questioning of the corrupt high priest by saying: "I tell you, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven."[1558]
The apostles had been so impressed with the Master's assurance that He would return to earth in power and glory, that they eagerly questioned as to the time and signs of His coming.[1559] He stated explicitly, though at the time they failed to comprehend Him, that many great events would intervene between His departure and return, including the long era of darkness associated with the apostasy.[1560] But as to the certainty of His advent in glory, as Judge, and Lord, and King, Jesus left no excuse for dubiety in the minds of His apostles. After the ascension, throughout the course of apostolic administration, the future coming of the Lord was preached with earnest emphasis.[1561]
The apostles were so impressed with the Master's promise that He would return to earth in power and glory that they eagerly asked about the timing and signs of His return.[1559] He made it clear, although they didn't fully understand at the time, that many significant events would occur between His departure and return, including a long period of darkness related to the apostasy.[1560] However, regarding the certainty of His glorious return as Judge, Lord, and King, Jesus gave His apostles no reason to doubt. After the ascension, throughout the apostolic era, the future return of the Lord was preached with great emphasis.[1561]
Book of Mormon prophecies concerning the advent of the Lord in the last days are specific and definite. On the occasion of His appearing to the Nephites on the American continent shortly after His ascension from the Mount of Olives, Christ preached the gospel to assembled multitudes; "And he did expound all things, even from the beginning[Pg 783] until the time that he should come in his glory"; and the events to follow, "even unto the great and last day."[1562] In granting the wish of the three Nephite disciples who desired to continue their ministry in the flesh throughout the generations to come, the Lord said unto them:
Book of Mormon prophecies about the coming of the Lord in the last days are clear and direct. When He appeared to the Nephites on the American continent shortly after His ascension from the Mount of Olives, Christ preached the gospel to the gathered crowds; "And he explained everything from the beginning[Pg 783] to the time when he would come in his glory"; and the events that would follow, "even unto the great and last day."[1562] When the three Nephite disciples asked to continue their ministry on earth for future generations, the Lord said to them:
"Ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father, unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled, according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory, with the powers of heaven; And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory, ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality: and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father."[1563]
"You will live to see all the actions of the Father toward mankind, until everything is fulfilled according to His will, when I return in my glory, accompanied by the powers of heaven. And you will never experience the pains of death; instead, when I come in my glory, you will be transformed in the blink of an eye from mortality to immortality: and then you will be blessed in the kingdom of my Father."[1563]
THE COMING OF THE LORD PROCLAIMED THROUGH MODERN REVELATION.
To the Church of Jesus Christ, restored and reestablished in these the last days, the word of the Lord has come repeatedly, declaring the actuality of His second advent and the nearness of that glorious yet dreadful event. But a few months after the Church was organized, the voice of Jesus Christ was heard, admonishing the elders to vigilance and proclaiming as follows:
To the Church of Jesus Christ, restored and reestablished in these last days, the word of the Lord has come repeatedly, affirming the reality of His second coming and the approach of that glorious yet terrifying event. Just a few months after the Church was organized, the voice of Jesus Christ was heard, urging the elders to stay alert and declaring the following:
"For the hour is nigh, and the day soon at hand when the earth is ripe: and all the proud, and they that do wickedly, shall be as stubble, and I will burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that wickedness shall not be upon the earth; for the hour is nigh, and that which was spoken by mine apostles must be fulfilled; for as they spoke so shall it come to pass; for I will reveal myself from heaven with power and great glory, with all the hosts thereof, and dwell in righteousness with men on earth a thousand years, and the wicked shall not stand."[1564]
"For the hour is near, and the day is coming when the earth is ready: all the proud and those who do wrong will be like stubble, and I will burn them up, says the Lord of Hosts, so that wickedness will not exist on earth; for the hour is near, and what my apostles spoke must be fulfilled; just as they said, it will happen; for I will reveal myself from heaven with power and great glory, with all the hosts, and I will live righteously with people on earth for a thousand years, and the wicked will not stand."[1564]
In the month following, the Lord gave instructions to certain elders, concluding with these portentous words:
In the following month, the Lord gave instructions to some elders, ending with these significant words:
"Wherefore, be faithful, praying always, having your lamps trimmed and burning, and oil with you, that you may be ready at the coming of the Bridegroom: for behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that I come quickly. Even so. Amen."[1565]
"Therefore, stay faithful, pray constantly, keep your lamps trimmed and burning, and have oil with you so that you’re ready for the arrival of the Bridegroom. Truly, I tell you, I am coming soon. Amen." [1565]
Again we read in a later revelation:
Again we read in a later revelation:
"And blessed are you because you have believed; and more blessed are you because you are called of me to preach my gospel, to lift up your voice as with the sound of a trump, both long and loud, and cry repentance unto a crooked and perverse generation, preparing the way of the Lord for his second coming; for behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, the time is soon at hand, that I shall come in a cloud with power and great glory, and it shall be a great day at the time of my coming, for all nations shall tremble."[1566]
"And you are truly blessed because you have faith; even more blessed are you because you are called by me to share my gospel, to raise your voice like the sound of a trumpet, both long and loud, and shout repentance to a crooked and corrupt generation, preparing the way for the Lord's return; for listen, truly, truly, I say to you, the time is coming soon when I will come in a cloud with power and great glory, and it will be a significant day at my coming, as all nations will tremble."[1566]
The Lord Jesus addressed a general revelation to His Church in March 1831, through which His earlier predictions uttered to the Twelve shortly before His betrayal were made plain, and the assurances of His glorious coming were thus reiterated:
The Lord Jesus spoke to His Church in March 1831, revealing truths that clarified the earlier predictions He had made to the Twelve just before His betrayal, and He reaffirmed the promises of His glorious return:
"Ye look and behold the fig-trees, and ye see them with your eyes, and ye say when they begin to shoot forth, and their leaves are yet tender, that summer is now nigh at hand; even so it shall be in that day when they shall see all these things, then shall they know that the hour is nigh. And it shall come to pass that he that feareth me shall be looking forth for the great day of the Lord to come, even for the signs of the coming of the Son of man: And they shall see signs and wonders, for they shall be shown forth in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath; and they shall behold blood, and fire, and vapors of smoke; and before the day of the Lord shall come, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon be turned into blood, and stars fall from heaven; and the remnant shall be gathered unto this place, and then[Pg 785] they shall look for me, and, behold, I will come; and they shall see me in the clouds of heaven, clothed with power and great glory, with all the holy angels; and he that watches not for me shall be cut off."[1567]
"Look at the fig trees. When they start to sprout and their leaves are still young, you can tell that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these signs, you'll know that the moment is close. Those who fear me will be eagerly waiting for the great day of the Lord, looking for the signs of the coming of the Son of Man. They will witness signs and wonders in the sky above and on the earth below; there will be blood, fire, and clouds of smoke. Before the day of the Lord arrives, the sun will be darkened, the moon will turn to blood, and stars will fall from the sky. The remnant will gather in this place, and then they will seek me, and I will come. They will see me in the clouds of heaven, clothed with power and great glory, along with all the holy angels; and anyone who is not watching for me will be cut off."
So near is the consummation that the intervening period is called "today"; and, in applying this time designation in the year 1831, the Lord said:
So close is the completion that the time in between is called "today"; and, when applying this term in the year 1831, the Lord said:
"Behold, now it is called today (until the coming of the Son of man), and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned (at his coming); For after today cometh the burning: this is speaking after the manner of the Lord; for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of hosts: and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon. Wherefore, if ye believe me, ye will labor while it is called today."[1568]
"Look, today is what it's called (until the arrival of the Son of Man), and truly it's a day for sacrifice and for my people to give their tithes; because those who give tithes won’t be consumed (when He comes). For after today comes the burning: this is how the Lord communicates; for truly I tell you, tomorrow all the proud and those who act wickedly will be like chaff; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of hosts: and I will not spare anyone who stays in Babylon. Therefore, if you believe me, you will work while it's still called today."[1568]
THE TIME AND ACCOMPANIMENTS OF THE LORD'S COMING.
The date of the future advent of Christ has never been revealed to man. To the inquiring apostles who labored with the Master, He said: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."[1569] In the present age, a similar declaration has been made by the Father: "I, the Lord God, have spoken it, but the hour and the day no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor shall they know until he comes."[1570] Only through watchfulness and prayer may the signs of the times be correctly interpreted and the imminence of the Lord's appearing be apprehended. To the unwatchful and the wicked the event will be as sudden and unexpected as the coming of a thief in the night.[1571] But we are not left without definite[Pg 786] information as to precedent signs. Biblical prophecies bearing upon this subject we have heretofore considered.[1572] As later scriptures affirm: "Before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose. Zion shall flourish upon the hills and rejoice upon the mountains, and shall be assembled together unto the place which I have appointed."[1573] War shall become so general that every man who will not take arms against his neighbor must of necessity flee to the land of Zion for safety.[1574] Ephraim shall assemble in Zion on the western continent, and Judah shall be again established in the east; and the cities of Zion and Jerusalem shall be the capitals of the world empire, over which Messiah shall reign in undisputed authority. The Lost Tribes shall be brought forth from the place where God has hidden them through the centuries and receive their long deferred blessings at the hands of Ephraim. The people of Israel shall be restored from their scattered condition.[1575]
The exact date of Christ's return has never been revealed to humanity. To the curious apostles who worked with the Master, He said: "But of that day and hour knows no one, not even the angels in heaven, but only my Father."[1569] In this current age, a similar message has been delivered by the Father: "I, the Lord God, have spoken it, but no one knows the hour and the day, neither the angels in heaven, nor will they know until He comes."[1570] Only through vigilance and prayer can we accurately interpret the signs of the times and understand the nearness of the Lord’s return. For the inattentive and the wicked, the event will come as suddenly and unexpectedly as a thief in the night.[1571] However, we are not left without clear[Pg 786] information regarding the signs that precede it. We have previously discussed biblical prophecies related to this topic.[1572] As later scriptures affirm: "Before the great day of the Lord comes, Jacob will thrive in the wilderness, and the Lamanites will bloom like a rose. Zion will flourish on the hills and rejoice on the mountains, and will gather together in the place I have appointed."[1573] War will become so widespread that anyone who refuses to fight against their neighbor will necessarily have to flee to the land of Zion for safety.[1574] Ephraim will gather in Zion on the western continent, and Judah will be reestablished in the east; the cities of Zion and Jerusalem will be the capitals of the world empire, ruled by the Messiah in unquestioned authority. The Lost Tribes will be revealed from where God has concealed them over the centuries and will receive their long-awaited blessings from Ephraim. The people of Israel will be restored from their dispersed state.[1575]
In addressing the elders of His Church in 1832, the Lord urged upon them the imperative need of devoted diligence, and said:
In addressing the leaders of His Church in 1832, the Lord stressed the essential need for dedicated hard work, and said:
"Abide ye in the liberty wherewith ye are made free; entangle not yourselves in sin but let your hands be clean, until the Lord come; For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man, and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light, and the moon shall be bathed in blood, and the stars shall become exceeding angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig tree. And after your testimony cometh wrath and indignation upon the people; For after your testimony cometh the testimony of earthquakes, that shall cause groanings in the midst of her, and men shall fall upon the ground, and shall not be able to stand. And also cometh the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and[Pg 787] the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea, heaving themselves beyond their bounds. And all things shall be in commotion; and surely, men's hearts shall fail them; for fear shall come upon all people; And angels shall fly through the midst of heaven, crying with a loud voice, sounding the trump of God, saying, Prepare ye, prepare ye, O inhabitants of the earth; for the judgment of our God is come: behold, and lo! the Bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him."[1576]
"Stay in the freedom that you've been given; don’t get caught up in sin but keep your hands clean until the Lord arrives. For it won't be long now before the earth shakes and sways like a drunk person, the sun will hide its face and not give light, the moon will turn red like blood, and the stars will be furious, falling like figs from a fig tree. After your testimony will come wrath and anger upon the people; for after your testimony comes the testimony of earthquakes that’ll cause groaning in the land, and people will fall to the ground unable to stand. There will also be the testimony of thunder, lightning, storms, and the crashing waves of the sea, surging beyond their limits. Everything will be in chaos; certainly, people will be overcome with fear; because dread will strike everyone; and angels will fly through the sky, proclaiming loudly, sounding the trumpet of God, saying, Prepare yourselves, prepare yourselves, O people of the earth; for the judgment of our God is here: behold, the Bridegroom is coming, go out to meet him."
A characteristic of present-day revelation is the reiteration of the fact that the event is nigh at hand, "even at the doors." The fateful time is repeatedly designated in scripture, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord."[1577] Fearful indeed will it be to individuals, families, and nations, who have so far sunk into sin as to have forfeited their claim to mercy. The time is not that of the final judgment—when the whole race of mankind shall stand in the resurrected state before the bar of God—nevertheless it shall be a time of unprecedented blessing unto the righteous and of condemnation and vengeance upon the wicked.[1578] With Christ shall come those who have already been resurrected; and His approach shall be the means of inaugurating a general resurrection of the righteous dead, while the pure and just who are still in the flesh shall be instantaneously changed from the mortal to the immortal state and shall be caught up with the newly resurrected to meet the Lord and His celestial company, and shall descend with Him. To this effect did Paul prophesy: "Even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.... For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the[Pg 788] clouds, to meet the Lord in the air."[1579] Compare the promise made to the Three Nephites: "And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory, ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality."[1580] Of the superlative glories awaiting the righteous when the Lord shall come, we have received in this day a partial description as follows: "And the face of the Lord shall be unveiled; and the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened, and be caught up to meet him."[1581] The heathen nations shall be redeemed and have part in the first resurrection.[1582]
A feature of modern revelation is the repeated emphasis that the event is very close, "even at the doors." The critical time is often referred to in scripture as "the great and dreadful day of the Lord." Fearful indeed will it be for individuals, families, and nations that have sunk so deep into sin that they have lost their right to mercy. This isn't the final judgment—when all of humanity will stand resurrected before God—but it will still be a time of extraordinary blessings for the righteous and punishment for the wicked. When Christ comes, He will bring those who have already been resurrected; His arrival will trigger a general resurrection of the righteous dead, while the pure and just who are still living will be instantly transformed from mortality to immortality and will be caught up with the newly resurrected to meet the Lord and His heavenly company, then descend with Him. Paul prophesied this: "Even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.... For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the [Pg 788] clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." Compare this to the promise made to the Three Nephites: "And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory, ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality." We have received a partial description of the extraordinary glories awaiting the righteous when the Lord comes: "And the face of the Lord shall be unveiled; and the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened, and be caught up to meet him." The heathen nations will be redeemed and will participate in the first resurrection.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN TO COME.
The coming of Christ in the last days, accompanied by the apostles of old[1583] and by the resurrected saints, is to mark the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth. The faithful apostles who were with Jesus in His earthly ministry are to be enthroned as judges of the whole house of Israel;[1584] they will judge the Nephite Twelve, who in turn will be empowered to judge the descendants of Lehi, or that branch of the Israelitish nation which was established upon the western continent.[1585]
The return of Christ in the last days, along with the apostles from the past[1583] and the resurrected saints, will signify the beginning of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. The faithful apostles who were with Jesus during His time on earth will be appointed as judges over the entire house of Israel;[1584] they will judge the Nephite Twelve, who will then have the authority to judge the descendants of Lehi, or that part of the Israelite nation that was established on the western continent.[1585]
While the expressions "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are used in the Bible synonymously or interchangeably, later revelation gives to each a distinctive meaning. The Kingdom of God is the Church established by divine authority upon the earth; this institution asserts no claim to temporal rule over nations; its sceptre of power is that of the Holy Priesthood, to be used in the preaching of the gospel and in administering its ordinances for the salvation of mankind living and dead. The Kingdom of Heaven[Pg 789] is the divinely ordained system of government and dominion in all matters, temporal and spiritual; this will be established on earth only when its rightful Head, the King of kings, Jesus the Christ, comes to reign. His administration will be one of order, operated through the agency of His commissioned representatives invested with the Holy Priesthood. When Christ appears in His glory, and not before, will be realized a complete fulfilment of the supplication: "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."
While the terms "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are used in the Bible as synonyms, later revelations give each a unique meaning. The Kingdom of God is the Church that was established by divine authority on earth; this institution does not claim any political power over nations; its power comes from the Holy Priesthood, which is to be used in preaching the gospel and administering its ordinances for the salvation of all people, both living and dead. The Kingdom of Heaven[Pg 789] is the divinely appointed system of government and authority in all aspects, both temporal and spiritual; this will only be established on earth when its rightful leader, the King of kings, Jesus Christ, comes to reign. His administration will be one of order, carried out through His commissioned representatives who hold the Holy Priesthood. When Christ appears in His glory, and not before, will the complete fulfillment of the prayer: "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" be realized.
The Kingdom of God has been established among men to prepare them for the Kingdom of Heaven which shall come; and in the blessed reign of Christ the King shall the two be made one. The relationship between them has been revealed to the Church in this wise:
The Kingdom of God has been set up among people to prepare them for the Kingdom of Heaven that will come; and in the blessed reign of Christ the King, the two will become one. The relationship between them has been revealed to the Church like this:
"Hearken, and lo, a voice as of one from on high, who is mighty and powerful, whose going forth is unto the ends of the earth, yea, whose voice is unto men—Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth; Yea, a voice crying—Prepare ye the way of the Lord, prepare ye the supper of the Lamb, make ready for the Bridegroom; Pray unto the Lord, call upon his holy name, make known his wonderful works among the people; Call upon the Lord, that his kingdom may go forth upon the earth, that the inhabitants thereof may receive it, and be prepared for the days to come, in the which the Son of man shall come down in heaven, clothed in the brightness of his glory, to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the earth; Wherefore may the kingdom of God go forth, that the kingdom of heaven may come, that thou, O God, mayest be glorified in heaven so on earth, that thy enemies may be subdued for thine is the honour, power and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."[1586]
"Listen, a voice from above, powerful and mighty, whose presence reaches to the ends of the earth, calling to people—Prepare the way for the Lord, make his paths straight. The keys to the kingdom of God are entrusted to humanity on earth, and from there, the gospel will spread to the ends of the earth, like a stone cut from a mountain without hands that will roll until it fills the whole earth; Yes, a voice is calling—Prepare the way for the Lord, prepare the feast of the Lamb, get ready for the Bridegroom; Pray to the Lord, call on his holy name, share his amazing works among the people; Call on the Lord, so his kingdom may spread across the earth, that its inhabitants may receive it and be prepared for the days to come when the Son of Man will descend from heaven, dressed in the brightness of his glory, to meet the kingdom of God established on earth; Therefore, may the kingdom of God advance, so the kingdom of heaven may come, and you, O God, be glorified in heaven and on earth, that your enemies may be subdued, for yours is the honor, power, and glory, forever and ever. Amen." [1586]
THE MILLENNIUM.
The inauguration of Christ's reign on earth is to be the beginning of a period that shall be distinct in many important particulars from all precedent and subsequent time; and the Lord shall reign with His people a thousand years. The government of individuals, communities and nations throughout this Millennium is to be that of a perfect theocracy, with Jesus the Christ as Lord and King. The more wicked part of the race shall have been destroyed; and during the period Satan shall be bound "that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled"; while the just shall share with Christ in rightful rule and dominion. The righteous dead shall have come forth from their graves, while the wicked shall remain unresurrected until the thousand years be past.[1587] Men yet in the flesh shall mingle with immortalized beings; children shall grow to maturity and then die in peace or be changed to immortality "in the twinkling of an eye."[1588] There shall be surcease of enmity between man and beast; the venom of serpents and the ferocity of the brute creation shall be done away, and love shall be the dominant power of control. Among the earliest revelations on the subject is that given to Enoch; and in this the return of that prophet and his righteous people with Christ in the last days was thus assured:
The start of Christ's reign on earth will mark the beginning of a time that will be significantly different from all times before and after it; Jesus will reign with His people for a thousand years. During this Millennium, the governance of individuals, communities, and nations will be a perfect theocracy, with Jesus as Lord and King. The more wicked part of humanity will have been destroyed; during this time, Satan will be bound "so that he can no longer deceive the nations until the thousand years are completed"; while the righteous will share in rightful rule and authority alongside Christ. The righteous dead will rise from their graves, while the wicked will remain unresurrected until the thousand years are over.[1587] People still alive will mix with immortal beings; children will grow up and then either pass away peacefully or be transformed into immortals "in the blink of an eye."[1588] There will be an end to conflict between humans and animals; the poison of snakes and the wildness of beasts will be eradicated, and love will be the guiding force. Among the first revelations on this topic is the one given to Enoch; in this, the return of that prophet and his righteous people along with Christ in the final days was assured:
"And the Lord said unto Enoch: Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there, and we will receive them into our bosom, and they shall see us; and we will fall upon their necks, and they shall fall upon our necks, and we will kiss each other; And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest. And it came to pass that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, in the last days, to dwell on the earth in righteousness for the space of a thousand years."[1589]
"And the Lord said to Enoch: You and all your city will meet them there, and we will welcome them with open arms, and they will see us; we will embrace each other, and they will embrace us, and we will kiss each other. This will be my home, and it will be Zion, which will emerge from all the creations I have made; and for a thousand years, the earth will rest. Enoch saw the day when the Son of Man would come in the last days to live on earth in righteousness for a thousand years." [1589]
In these latter days the Lord has thus spoken, requiring preparation for the Millennial era, and describing in part the glories thereof:
In these recent times, the Lord has spoken, asking for preparation for the Millennial era and describing some of its glories:
"And prepare for the revelation which is to come, when the veil of the covering of my temple, in my tabernacle, which hideth the earth, shall be taken off, and all flesh shall see me together. And every corruptible thing, both of man, or of the beasts of the field, or of the fowls of the heavens, or of the fish of the sea, that dwell upon all the face of the earth, shall be consumed; And also that of element shall melt with fervent heat; and all things shall become new, that my knowledge and glory may dwell upon all the earth. And in that day the enmity of man, and the enmity of beasts, yea, the enmity of all flesh, shall cease from before my face. And in that day whatsoever any man shall ask, it shall be given unto him. And in that day Satan shall not have power to tempt any man. And there shall be no sorrow because there is no death. In that day an infant shall not die until he is old, and his life shall be as the age of a tree, and when he dies he shall not sleep, (that is to say in the earth,) but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and shall be caught up, and his rest shall be glorious. Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things."[1590]
"And get ready for the revelation that’s coming, when the veil covering my temple, in my tabernacle, which hides the earth, will be removed, and everyone will see me together. Every corruptible thing, whether it’s from humans, the animals in the fields, the birds in the sky, or the fish in the sea, living all over the earth, will be consumed; and the elements will melt with intense heat; and everything will become new so that my knowledge and glory can fill the earth. On that day, the hostility between humans, between animals, and between all flesh will cease in my presence. On that day, whatever anyone asks will be given to them. On that day, Satan will have no power to tempt anyone. There will be no sorrow because there will be no death. On that day, infants won’t die until they’re old, and their lives will be as long as trees. When they die, they won’t sleep in the earth but will be changed in the blink of an eye, and they will be taken up, and their rest will be glorious. Yes, truly I say to you, on that day when the Lord comes, he will reveal all things." [1590]
The Millennium is to precede the time designated in scriptural phrase "the end of the world." When the thousand years are passed, Satan shall be loosed for a little season, and the final test of man's integrity to God shall ensue. Such as are prone to impurity of heart shall yield to temptation while the righteous shall endure to the end.[1591] A revelation to this effect was given the Church in 1831, in part as follows:
The Millennium will come before the time referred to in scripture as "the end of the world." After the thousand years are over, Satan will be released for a short time, leading to the ultimate test of humanity's faithfulness to God. Those who are easily led astray will succumb to temptation, while the righteous will hold strong until the end.[1591] A revelation regarding this was given to the Church in 1831, in part as follows:
"For the great Millennium, of which I have spoken by the mouth of my servants, shall come; For Satan shall be bound, and when he is loosed again, he shall only reign for a little season, and then cometh the end of the earth; And he that liveth in righteousness shall be changed in the twinkling[Pg 792] of an eye, and the earth shall pass away so as by fire; And the wicked shall go away into unquenchable fire, and their end no man knoweth on earth, nor ever shall know, until they come before me in judgment. Hearken ye to these words: Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. Treasure these things up in your hearts, and let the solemnities of eternity rest upon your minds."[1592]
"For the great Millennium that I have talked about through my servants will come; for Satan will be bound, and when he is released again, he will only rule for a short time, and then the end of the earth will come. Those who live in righteousness will be changed in the blink of an eye, and the earth will pass away as if by fire; the wicked will be sent into unquenchable fire, and no one on earth knows their end, nor will ever know, until they stand before me in judgment. Listen to these words: Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. Hold these things in your hearts, and let the seriousness of eternity occupy your minds." [Pg 792] [1592]
THE CELESTIAL CONSUMMATION.
The vanquishment of Satan and his hosts shall be complete. The dead, small and great, all who have breathed the breath of life on earth, shall be resurrected—every soul that has tabernacled in flesh, whether good or evil—and shall stand before God, to be judged according to the record as written in the books.[1593] So shall be brought to glorious consummation the mission of the Christ. "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet."[1594] Then shall the Lord Jesus "deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father spotless, saying—I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign for ever and ever."[1595] The earth shall pass to its glorified and celestialized condition, an eternal abode for the exalted sons and daughters of God.[1596] Forever shall they reign, kings and priests to the Most High, redeemed, sanctified, and exalted through their Lord and God
The defeat of Satan and his followers will be total. The dead, both small and great, everyone who has lived on Earth, will be resurrected—every soul that has lived in a body, whether good or bad—and will stand before God to be judged based on what is written in the books.[1593] This will bring the mission of Christ to a triumphant conclusion. "Then comes the end, when he will hand over the kingdom to God, the Father; when he has put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For he has put all things under his feet."[1594] Then the Lord Jesus will "hand over the kingdom and present it to the Father, spotless, saying—I have overcome and trampled the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierce wrath of Almighty God. Then he will be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign forever and ever."[1595] The earth will transform into its glorious and celestial state, an eternal home for the exalted sons and daughters of God.[1596] They will reign forever, kings and priests to the Most High, redeemed, sanctified, and exalted through their Lord and God.
JESUS THE CHRIST.
JESUS CHRIST.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 42.
1. Enoch, spoken of by Jude as "the seventh from Adam." was the father of Methuselah. In Genesis 5:24 we read: "And Enoch walked with God; and he was not; for God took him." From the Lord's revelation to Moses we learn that Enoch was a mighty man, favored of God because of his righteousness, and a leader of and revelator to his people. Through his agency a city was built, the inhabitants of which excelled in righteous living to such an extent that they were of one heart and one mind and had no poor among them. It was called the City of Holiness or Zion. The residue of the race were all corrupt in the sight of the Lord. Enoch and his people were taken from the earth and are to return with Christ at His coming. (P. of G.P., Moses 7:12-21, 68, 69; compare Doc. and Cov. 45:11, 12.)
1. Enoch, mentioned by Jude as "the seventh from Adam," was the father of Methuselah. In Genesis 5:24 it says: "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him." From the Lord's revelation to Moses, we learn that Enoch was a great man, favored by God for his righteousness, and a leader and prophet to his people. Through him, a city was built where the people lived righteously, united in heart and mind, and there were no poor among them. This city was called the City of Holiness or Zion. The rest of humanity was corrupt in the sight of the Lord. Enoch and his people were taken from the earth and are meant to return with Christ at His coming. (P. of G.P., Moses 7:12-21, 68, 69; compare Doc. and Cov. 45:11, 12.)
2. Heathen in the First Resurrection.—"And then shall the heathen nations be redeemed, and they that knew no law shall have part in the first resurrection; and it shall be tolerable for them." (Doc. and Cov. 45:54.) Such is the word of the Lord with respect to those benighted peoples who live and die in ignorance of the laws of the gospel. This affirmation is sustained by other scriptures, and by a consideration of the principles of true justice according to which humanity is to be judged. Man shall be accounted blameless or guilty according to his deeds as interpreted in the light of the law under which he is required to live. It is inconsistent with our conception of a just God to believe Him capable of inflicting condemnation upon any one for non-compliance with a requirement of which the person had no knowledge. Nevertheless, the laws of the gospel cannot be suspended even in the case of those who have sinned in darkness and ignorance; but it is reasonable to believe that the plan of redemption shall afford such benighted ones an opportunity of learning the laws of God; and, as fast as they so learn, will obedience be required on pain of the penalty. See Articles of Faith, xxi:33.
2. Heathen in the First Resurrection.—"And then the heathen nations will be redeemed, and those who were unaware of the law will participate in the first resurrection; and it will be tolerable for them." (Doc. and Cov. 45:54.) This is what the Lord says regarding those lost people who live and die without knowledge of the gospel’s laws. This statement is supported by other scriptures and by an understanding of true justice principles that will determine how humanity is judged. People will be considered blameless or guilty based on their actions, as interpreted in light of the law they are expected to follow. It is hard to imagine a just God condemning anyone for failing to meet a requirement they didn’t know about. However, the laws of the gospel cannot be set aside, even for those who have sinned in ignorance; but it is reasonable to think that the plan of redemption will give these lost individuals a chance to learn God’s laws. As they learn, they will be expected to obey, or face the consequences. See Articles of Faith, xxi:33.
3. Regeneration of the Earth.—In speaking of the graded and progressive glories provided for His creations, and of the laws of regeneration and sanctification, the Lord has thus spoken through revelation in the present dispensation: "And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law. Wherefore it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it." (Doc. and Cov. 88:25, 26.) This appointed change, by which the earth shall pass to the condition of a celestialized world, is referred to in numerous scriptures as the institution of "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21:1, 3, 4; B. of M., Ether 13:9; Doc. and Cov. 29:23).[Pg 794]
3. Regeneration of the Earth.—When discussing the varied and progressive wonders intended for His creations, along with the principles of regeneration and sanctification, the Lord has revealed the following in this present era: "And again, truly I say to you, the earth follows the law of a celestial kingdom, for it fulfills the purpose of its creation and does not break the law. Therefore, it will be sanctified; yes, even though it will die, it will be brought back to life, and it will remain under the power that brings it back to life, and the righteous will inherit it." (Doc. and Cov. 88:25, 26.) This designated transformation, through which the earth will transition to a celestial state, is mentioned in various scriptures as the establishment of "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21:1, 3, 4; B. of M., Ether 13:9; Doc. and Cov. 29:23).[Pg 794]
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
[1551] Acts 1:11.
Acts 1:11.
[1556] Matt. 16:27.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Matt. 16:27.
[1558] Matt. 26:64.
[1561] See Acts 3:20, 21; 1 Cor. 4:5; 11:26; Philip. 3:20; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:15-18; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8; 1 Tim. 6:14, 15; Titus 2:13; James 5:7, 8; 1 Peter 1:5-7; 4:13; 1 John 2:28; 3:2; Jude 14, etc.
[1561] See Acts 3:20, 21; 1 Cor. 4:5; 11:26; Philip. 3:20; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:15-18; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8; 1 Tim. 6:14, 15; Titus 2:13; James 5:7, 8; 1 Peter 1:5-7; 4:13; 1 John 2:28; 3:2; Jude 14, etc.
[1564] Doc. and Cov. 29:9-11.
[1565] Doc. and Cov. 33:17, 18.
[1566] Doc. and Cov. 34:4-8.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Doc. and Cov. 34:4-8.
[1568] Doc. and Cov. 64:23-25.
[1573] Doc. and Cov. 49:24, 25.
[1574] Doc. and Cov. 45:68-71.
[1576] Doc. and Cov. 88:86-92.
[1578] Doc and Cov. 29:11-17.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Doc and Cov. 29:11-17.
[1579] 1 Thess. 4:14-17.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Thess. 4:14-17.
[1581] Doc. and Cov. 88:95-98.
[1583] Doc. and Cov. 29:12.
[1586] Doc. and Cov. 65. For a fuller treatment of this subject as also the distinction between Church and Kingdom, see "Articles of Faith," xx:16-26.
[1586] Doc. and Cov. 65. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, as well as the difference between the Church and the Kingdom, see "Articles of Faith," xx:16-26.
[1589] P. of G.P., Moses 7:63-65.
[1591] Rev. 20:7-15.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Rev. 20:7-15.
[1593] Rev. 20:11-15.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Rev. 20:11-15.
[1594] 1 Cor. 15:24-27.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 1 Cor. 15:24-27.
[1595] Doc. and Cov. 76:107, 108.
INDEX
Aaronic Priesthood, restored by John the Baptist, 768;
its powers, 768.
Ablutions, ceremonial, 366.
Abraham, Children of, 409.
Abraham, Christ's seniority over, 410, 411.
Aceldama, the field of blood, 643.
Adam, the first man, 18;
his transgression, 19;
revelation to, 44.
Adulteress brought to Christ, 405.
Adulterous generation of sign-seekers, 270, 279, 359.
Agency, free, of unembodied spirits, 8, 17;
of man, 17, 29.
American Indians, progenitors of, 49, 56, 742, 757.
Ananias, ministers to Saul, 714.
Andrew, follows Christ, 140;
one of the Twelve, 221.
Annas, high priest, 621, 643.
Announcement of Christ by the Father, 39, 126, 371, 725, 761;
of Christ's birth to shepherds, 93.
See Annunciation.
Annunciation by Gabriel, to Zacharias, 76;
to Mary the Virgin, 79;
by angel to shepherds, 93.
Antemortal Godship of Jesus Christ, 32.
Antemortal state, graded intelligences in, 14.
Antipas, Herod, 110, 118, 446, 635.
Antonia, tower or fortress of, 441.
Apostasy, the great, 745;
among Nephites, 741.
Apostles, the Twelve, chosen and ordained, 217;
individually considered, 218;
general characteristics of, 226;
compared with disciples, 227;
charged and sent forth, 327, 328;
their return, 331;
futile attempt of to heal, 379;
as stewards, 441, 576;
Christ's final commission to, 695, 696;
imprisoned, 707;
delivered by an angel, 707;
scourged for their testimony, 709.
Apostleship, 227, 228;
restored in present dispensation, 769.
Apostolic ministry, the, 700;
close of, 716.
Appearances of the risen Lord to mortals before the ascension, 699.
Archelaus, 110, 118.
Arrest of Jesus, attempted but unaccomplished, 403;
effected through betrayal, 614.
Ascension, Christ's, 697.
Ass, Christ rides upon, 514;
as predicted, 517.
Athanasius, creed of, 756.
Atonement, the, a vicarious sacrifice, 21.
Authority, in Holy Priesthood, 362;
of Elias and Elijah, 375;
of Twelve, attested, 392;
of Christ, challenged, 530;
Christ as one having, 249;
Christ's ascribed to Beelzebub, 265.
Baptism, by John the Baptist, 122, 163, 531;
of Christ by John, 125;
enjoined upon Nephites by Christ, 725;
mode of, 726;
of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, 768;
as required in the Church today, 769.
Baptist, see John the Baptist.
Barabbas, 637.
Barnabas, sponsor for Saul or Paul, 714.
Bartholomew, see Nathanael.
Bartimeus, healed of blindness, 505.
Beatitudes, the, 230.
Beelzebub, Christ's authority ascribed to, 265.
Benedictus, the, 78.
Bethany, Jesus at, 432, 448;
the family home at, 522.
Bethesda, Pool of, 206.
Bethlehem, birthplace of Christ, 92;
slaughter of children in, 100.
Bethphage, 512, 526.
Bethsaida, 258, 332, 346;
Julias, 360.
Betrayal of Christ; foretold, 594;
effected by Judas Iscariot, 614.
Betrothal, Jewish, 88.
Blasphemy, 201;
Christ charged with, 193, 489;
Christ falsely convicted of, 629.[Pg 795]
Blessing of children, 485;
among Nephites, 730.
Blindness, bodily and spiritual, 412, 416.
Bloody sweat, Christ's, 612;
reality of affirmed, 613, 620.
Book of Mormon, original of, 742, 767.
Bountiful, Land of, 724.
Bread of Life, Jesus Christ the, 340.
Bridegroom, friend of the, 171.
Brother of Jared, 12.
Burial of Jesus, 664.
Cæsar, paying tribute to, 545;
Jews would have no king but, 641, 648.
Cæsarea Philippi, coasts of, 368;
Palestina, 631.
Caiaphas, high priest;
his inspired utterance, 498;
his tenure of office, 501;
Christ before, 621;
the apostles before, 706.
Called and chosen, 540.
Calvary, 654, 667.
Camel and needle's eye, 478, 485.
Capernaum, 181, 186;
our Lord's last sermon in synagog at, 339.
Capitation tax, 383.
Celestial marriage, 564.
Cephas, see Peter.
Ceremonial ablutions, 366.
Child, as a little, 386;
humility illustrated by a, 387.
Childlike and childish, distinction between, 387.
Children, precious in sight of God, 387;
blessed by Christ, 475, 485;
of Nephites blessed by risen Lord, 729.
Chorazin, woe decreed to, 258.
Chosen or only called, 540.
Christ, see Jesus Christ.
Christ and Messiah, significance of the titles, 36.
Christians, early persecutions of, 746.
Church discipline of individuals, 391.
Church of England, origin of, 751;
affirms great apostasy, 753.
Church of Jesus Christ;
foundation of, 361;
rapid growth of Primitive, 705, 707, 712;
name of, 736;
among Nephites, 737;
of Latter-day Saints, establishment of, 769.
Churches of man's making, 752.
Circumcision, 88.
Clay, applied to blind man's eyes, 413.
Clearing of the temple, the first, 153;
the second, 527.
Cleopas, 685.
Coasts, as descriptive term, 368.
Coin, image and superscription on, 546, 563;
in mouth of a fish, 385.
Columbus, Christopher, his mission, 754, 757.
Comforter promised, 603, 606;
given, 702.
Commandment, the great, 549.
Common ownership, 705, 718.
Common people, attentive to hear Christ, 529.
Confession, the great, 361.
Congenital blindness healed, 413.
Consent, common, observed in Primitive Church, 702, 718;
in the Church today, 778.
Consistency of Church's claims, 779.
Conspiracy of Pharisees and Herodians, 544.
Constantine the Great, gives state recognition to Christianity, 746.
Constitution of the United States, a necessary preliminary to the restoration of the gospel, 755.
Consummation, the celestial, 792.
Contention forbidden, 726.
Corban, 352, 366.
Corner stone, Jesus the chief, 535, 706.
Cost, counting the, 452.
Council, the Jewish, see Sanhedrin.
Council in Heaven, primeval, 9, 15.
Court of the Women, in temple, 407, 422.
Cowdery, Oliver, ordained with Joseph Smith, 767;
witness of heavenly manifestations, 774.
Creator, Jesus Christ the, 33.
Creed of Athanasius, 756.
Cross, figurative, 365;
of Christ, borne by Simon, 653.
Crucifixion, 655, 667;
of Jesus Christ, 654;
hour of, 668.
Cumorah, scene of last Nephite battle, 742;
Book of Mormon plates taken from, 767.
Cups and platters, ceremonial cleansing of, 437.
Dark ages, the, 749.[Pg 796]
Daughters of Jerusalem, Christ's lamentation over, 653, 666.
David, Son of, see Son of David.
Dead, gospel preached to, 24;
ministered unto by Jesus Christ, 672, 673;
missionary labor amongst, 674;
vicarious labor for in Church today, 777.
Death, inaugurated by Satan, 20;
overcome by the atonement of Christ, 20;
and resurrection of Christ predicted, 381, 382,
accomplished, 662, 678.
Decapolis, 367;
Jesus in coasts of, 356.
Dedication, feast of, 487, 499;
Jesus at, 487.
Defilement, things that cause, 352.
Degeneracy, bodily, incident to the fall of man, 19, 29.
Demoniacal possession, 183.
Demons, acclaim the Christ, 181, 310, 312.
Devil, Jesus charged as possessed of a, 401, 411.
Didrachm, 383.
Disciples and apostles, 227.
Disciples, instructed, 438, 461;
requirements of, 452.
Discipline of individuals in Church, 391.
Disembodied spirits, Christ among, 670.
Dispensation of fulness of times, 777;
ushered in, 763.
Dives and Lazarus, 483.
Divorce and marriage, 473;
views concerning, 484.
Doctrine, test of the Lord's, 400, 421;
Christ's, as declared to Nephites, 726.
Dogs that eat of the crumbs, 367.
Door to the sheepfold, Christ the, 417.
Dove, sign of, 126, 150.
Dust, shaking from feet as a testimony, 345.
Earth, regeneration of, 322, 793.
Eating, spiritual symbolism of, 343, 347;
with unwashen hands, 351.
Ecce Homo, 639.
Egypt, flight into, 100;
return from, 110.
Elders and high priests, 644.
Elias, John Baptist and, 374;
and Elijah, 375;
spirit and power of, 376;
appearing of in Kirtland Temple, 775.
Elijah, and Moses at transfiguration, 371;
and Elias, 375;
appearance of in Kirtland Temple, 775.
Elisabeth, mother of John the Baptist, 75, 78;
visited by Mary the Virgin, 82.
Elohim, 38.
Emmaus, Christ and two disciples journey to, 685.
Enoch, 44, 143, 793;
promise to, relating to Christ's second coming, 790.
Enrolment at Bethlehem, 91.
Ephraim, Jesus in retirement at, 498.
Essenes, 67.
Estate of man, first and second, 7.
Eternal Father, The, a resurrected, exalted Being, 143, 151.
Eve, beguiled by Satan, 19.
Evenings, earlier and later, 346.
Faith, active, as compared with passive belief, 319;
a gift from God, 347;
quality of, 381;
nothing impossible to, 395;
in behalf of others, 395;
as to quantity and quality, 469;
of Nephites, strong, 733.
Fall of man 19;
a process of bodily degeneracy, 19;
redemption from wrought by Jesus Christ, 20, 31.
Fasting and prayer, power gained by, 381.
Father, the Eternal, proclaims the Son, Jesus Christ, 126, 371;
to Nephites, 725;
to Joseph Smith, 761.
Feast, of Dedication, 487, 499;
of Tabernacles, 400, 419;
of the Passover, 112, 167;
the traditional Messianic, 538.
Few or many to be saved, 445.
Fig tree, 541;
cursed, 524;
symbol of Judaism, 527;
and other trees, lesson from, 754;
as a type in modern revelation, 784.
First may be last, 478.
Fishers of men, 197, 202.
Foreknowledge of God, not a determining cause, 18, 28.
Foreordination of Jesus Christ, 6.
Forgiveness, duty respecting, 391;
unlimited requirement of, 393;
mutual, 525.
Fox, Herod Antipas referred to as, 446, 636.
Free agency, of unembodied spirits, 8, 17;[Pg 797]
of man, 17, 29.
Gabriel's annunciation, of John and of Jesus, 75;
to Mary the Virgin, 79.
Gadarenes and Gergesenes, land of, 323.
Galilean ministry, beginning of, 144;
close of, 398.
Galileans, 68;
slain in temple courts, 441.
Galilee, sea of, 165;
the risen Lord appears at sea of, 691;
appears on mountain in, 694.
Gamaliel, his advice to the council, 709;
tutor to Saul of Tarsus, 712.
Genealogies of Christ, 85, 89.
Gennesaret, sea or lake of, 165.
Gentiles, 345;
to become great on western continent, 733.
Gergesenes and Gadarenes, land of, 323.
Gethsemane, 620;
Christ's agony in, 610;
His arrest in, 614.
Goats and sheep, figurative, 584.
God's foreknowledge not a determining cause of action, 18, 28.
Godhead, three Personages in, 32.
Godship of Jesus Christ, antemortal, 32.
Golgotha, 654, 667.
Gospels, the four, 166;
the synoptic, 166.
Graded conditions in the hereafter, 601.
Graded intelligences in antemortal state, 14.
Great commandment, the, 549.
Greeks, as Gentiles, 345;
certain ones visit Jesus, 518.
Happiness and pleasure, 231, 247.
Heathen to be redeemed;
their part in first resurrection, 793.
Hem of garment, 346.
Henry VIII, head of Church of England, 751.
Herder, the hireling, 417.
Herod, the Great, 97, 106;
temple of, 73;
Antipas, 110, 118;
referred to as "fox," 446;
Christ before, 635.
Herodians, 68;
in conspiracy with Pharisees, 544.
Herodias, 259.
High Priestly Prayer, Christ's, 609.
High priests and elders, 644.
Holy Ghost, sin against, 269, 278;
promised to apostles, 603;
investiture of apostles by, at Pentecost, 702.
Homily against Idolatry, affirming the apostasy, 753.
Hosanna shout, 516, 523.
Hyrum Smith, martyred, 776.
I AM, 36;
Jesus Christ, the, 411.
Image on the coin, 546, 563.
Indians, American, progenitors of, 49, 56, 742, 757.
Inquisition, court of the, 750.
Isaiah, Messianic predictions by, 46, 47.
Iscariot, see Judas Iscariot.
Israel and Judah, kingdoms of, 59.
Jacob's prophecy concerning Shiloh, 54.
Jahveh, see Jehovah.
James and John, sons of Zebedee, called, 198;
members of the Twelve, 219;
minister with Peter in modern days, 219, 768;
their aspiring desire, 503;
mother of, 521.
James, son of Alpheus, one of the Twelve, 224.
Jared, brother of; his interview with the unembodied Christ, 12.
Jaredites, 16.
Jehovah, significance of the name, 36, 41, 411.
Jeremiah, Messianic prophecies by, 47.
Jericho, 521.
Jerusalem, Christ's triumphal entry into, 513;
destruction of, predicted, 569,
accomplished, 586;
the Lord's lamentation over, 560;
daughters of, Christ's lamentation over, 653, 666.
Jesus the Christ, as Man and Christ, 1.
Jesus Christ, preexistence and foreordination of, 6;
the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, 8, 13, 81;
the Word, 10;
Word of God's power, 10;
His supremacy over Abraham, 11, 410, 411;
His power over death, 22, 23, 418;
antemortal Godship of, 32;
the Creator, 33;
names and titles of, 35;
predicted, 42;
annunciation of, 79;
the Babe of Bethlehem, 91;
birth of, 91;
birth announced to shepherds, 93;
circumcision and naming of, 95;
presentation in temple, 95;
testimony of Simeon and Anna regarding, 97;
birth made known to Nephites, 100;
time of birth of, 102, 109;
boy-hood of, 111;
in attendance at Passover when twelve years old, 113;
with the doctors in the temple, 114;
of Nazareth, 117;
baptism of, 125;[Pg 798]
descent of Holy Ghost, upon, 126;
temptations of, 127;
first clearing of temple by, 154;
an offender to many, 254, 274;
unique status of, 384;
His brethren, interview with, 398;
at the feast of Tabernacles, 399;
rejected in Samaria, 423;
at the home in Bethany, 448;
blesses little children, 475;
the ennobler of woman, 484;
at feast of Dedication, 487;
accused of blasphemy, 489;
in retirement at Ephraim, 498;
predicts His death and resurrection, 363, 372, 381, 502, 518, 586;
called Son of David, 80, 86, 320, 354, 505, 515, 529;
triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 513;
Prince of Peace, 517;
visited by certain Greeks, 518;
His second clearing of temple, 527;
His authority challenged, 530;
close of His public ministry, 544;
His lamentation over Jerusalem, 560;
His final withdrawal from temple, 562;
specific prediction of His death, 586;
foretells His betrayal, 594;
His agony in Gethsemane, 610;
His betrayal and arrest, 614;
Jewish trial of, 621;
falsely convicted of blasphemy, 629;
appearance before Pilate, first, 631,
second, 636;
before Herod Antipas, 635;
delivered up to be crucified, 639;
His crucifixion, 654;
His burial, 664;
physical cause of death of, 668;
after resurrection appears to Mary Magdalene and other women, 681;
to two disciples on road to Emmaus, 685;
to ten apostles and others, in whose presence He eats, 687;
to Peter, 687;
to the Eleven, 689;
His ascension from Olivet, 697;
His death signalized on American continent, 721;
giver of the law to Moses, 728;
visitations to Nephites, 724, 731, 736;
ministers to Joseph Smith, 761, 774;
revelations from in current dispensation, 770;
second advent of, 780.
Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews, 87, 90, 657.
Jewish exclusiveness, 61.
Jews, Christ the King of, 657.
John the Baptist, birth announced, 76;
circumcision and naming of, 78;
the forerunner, 75, 122;
regarded as a Nazarite, 87;
in the wilderness, 121;
baptizes Jesus Christ, 125;
his testimony of Jesus, 138, 150, 164;
his message to Jesus, 252;
Christ's testimony concerning, 256;
imprisonment of, 252;
death of, 259;
greatness of his mission, 275;
the Elias that was to come, 257, 276;
restores Aaronic Priesthood in modern time, 768.
John, son of Zebedee, follows Christ, 140;
called, 198;
one of the Twelve, 220;
his testimony regarding the graded development of Jesus, 119;
with Peter at sepulchre of Jesus, 679;
to tarry in the flesh until Christ's second coming, 694;
the Revelator, 716.
John and James, see James and John.
Joseph of Arimathea, assists in burial of Christ's body, 664.
Joseph and Mary the Virgin, espoused, 84;
married, 85;
genealogies of, 85, 89.
Joseph Smith, 758;
his perplexity over sectarian strife, 759;
his prayer for light, 760;
visited by the Father and the Son, 761;
persecution of, 762;
visited by Moroni, 765;
receives Aaronic Priesthood, 768;
receives Melchizedek Priesthood, 768;
again visited by the Lord Jesus Christ, 774;
visited by Moses, Elias and Elijah, 775;
martyred, 776.
Judah and Israel, kingdoms of, 59.
Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, 225;
his complaint against waste of ointment, 512;
in conspiracy with Jewish rulers, 592;
goes out to betray Christ, 598;
his betrayal of Christ, 614;
his maddening remorse and suicide, 642;
views concerning his character, 649.
Judas Thaddeus, or Lebbeus, one of the Twelve, 224, 228;
his inquiry, 603.
Judean and Perean ministry, 423, 449.
Judgment, the inevitable, 584.
Keys, of kingdom of heaven, 361;
symbolical of power in Jewish literature, 362.
King of the Jews, Christ the, 87, 90, 657.
Kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven, 788.[Pg 799]
Kirtland Temple, scene of heavenly manifestations, 773.
Lamanites and Nephites, 49, 55.
Lamanites, progenitors of American Indians, 49, 56, 742, 757;
promise concerning, 786.
Lamentation over Jerusalem, 560.
Last may be first, 478.
Last Supper, the, 592.
Latter-day Saints, Church of Jesus Christ of, 769.
Law, the, and the gospel, 234.
Law of Moses, rabbinical divisions of, 564;
Christ the giver of, 728;
fulfilled, as Christ declared to Nephites, 723, 728.
Lawyer questions Christ, 429.
Lawyers and Pharisees, Christ's criticism on, 436.
Lazarus and Dives, 483.
Lazarus restored to life, 490.
Leaven, of evil, 359;
of Pharisees and Sadducees, 359.
Leper, Simon the, 511.
Lepers, ten healed, 470.
Leprosy, 189, 199.
Levi Matthew, see Matthew.
Levirate marriages, 548.
Light of the World, Jesus the, 407.
Living water, figurative, 403.
Lord's Day, the, 690.
Lord's doctrine, test of, 421.
Lord's High Priestly prayer, the, 609.
Lord's Prayer, the, 238.
Lord's Supper, Sacrament of the, 596.
Love, mutual, enjoined on apostles, 599.
Lucifer, see Satan.
Luther, Martin, 750.
Maccabean revolt, 60.
Magnificat, the, 83.
Magi, see Wise men.
Malachi, his predictions misunderstood, 149;
fulfilled, 775.
Malchus, wounded by Peter, healed by Jesus, 616.
Malefactor, the penitent, 659, 671.
Mammon of unrighteousness, 463, 483.
Man, preexistence of, 6, 17;
an embodied spirit, 18;
fall of, 19, 29;
free agency of, 18, 29.
Man of Holiness, and Man of Counsel, names of the Eternal Father, 143.
Man, The Son of, 142.
Manna, traditions concerning, 347.
Mansions, many in the Father's house, 601.
Many or few to be saved, 445.
Marriage and divorce, 473.
Marriage for eternity, 564.
Marriages, levirate, 548.
Martha and Mary, 432;
at house of Simon the leper, 511.
Mary and Joseph, see Joseph and Mary.
Mary anoints Jesus with spikenard, 512.
Mary Magdalene, defended against traditional aspersions, 264;
at sepulchre, 679;
first to behold the risen Lord, 681.
Matthew, or Levi, called, 193;
gives a feast, 194;
one of the Twelve, 222.
Matthias ordained to apostleship, 700.
Melchizedek Priesthood, Jesus Christ holds the, 552;
restored by Peter, James and John, 768.
Meridian of Time, 57.
Messiah, see Jesus Christ.
Messiah and Christ, significance of names, 36.
Messianic Psalms, 46.
Michael in conflict with Satan, 6.
Millennium, the, 790;
predictions of, ancient, 790,
modern, 791.
Ministers and servants, 542.
Miracles, in general, 147;
attitude of science toward, 151.
Miracles of Christ: Water transmuted into wine, 144;
healing of nobleman's son, 178;
Peter's mother-in-law healed, 183;
demoniac healed in synagog at Capernaum, 181;
leper healed, 188;
palsied man healed and forgiven, 190;
draught of fishes, 198;
cripple healed at Bethesda pool, 206;
healing of man with withered hand, 214;
healing of centurion's servant, 249;
young man of Nain raised from, the dead, 251;
healing of a blind and dumb demoniac, 267;
stilling the tempest, 307;
demons rebuked in land of Gadarenes, 310;
raising of daughter of Jairus, 313;
healing of a woman in the throng, 317;
blind and dumb healed, 319;
feeding of the five thousand, 333;
walking on the water, 335;[Pg 800]
in the land of Gennesaret, 337;
healing of daughter of Syro-Phenician woman, 354;
healings in coasts of Decapolis, 356;
feeding of the four thousand, 357;
healing of blind man near Bethsaida Julias, 360;
healing of youthful demoniac, 378;
tribute money supplied, 382;
blind man healed on Sabbath, 413;
woman healed on Sabbath, 443;
dropsical man healed, 449;
ten lepers healed, 470;
Lazarus restored to life, 490;
blind healed near Jericho, 504;
blighting of barren fig tree, 524;
healings in the temple courts, 528;
Malchus healed of wound, 616;
second draught of fishes, 691.
Missing scriptures, 117, 119.
Mission, of the Twelve, 328, 695;
of the Seventy, 425, 427.
Modern revelation, belief in, 776.
Mormon, Book of, 742, 767.
Moroni, last of Nephite prophets, 742;
an angel sent from God, 765;
delivers ancient records to Joseph Smith, 767.
Moses, repels Satan, 7;
his prophecy concerning Christ, 45, 138, 710, 766;
with Elijah at transfiguration, 371;
appearance of in Kirtland Temple, 775.
Mount of Olives, see Olivet.
Name, of Christ, power in, 390;
in Christ's, 602;
of Christ's Church, 736, 769.
Names given of God, 40.
Nard, see Spikenard.
Nathanael, or Bartholomew brought to Christ, 141;
one of the Twelve, 222.
Nativity of Christ, a cause of discussion, 402, 403.
Nazareth, boyhood home of Jesus Christ, 110;
our Lord's sermon in synagog at, 179;
His rejection by Nazarenes, 180.
Nazarite, 67, 87;
John Baptist regarded as, 87.
Need of a Redeemer, 17.
Needle's eye, and camel, 478, 485.
Neighbor, Who is my, 429.
Nephites, birth of Christ made known to, 100;
and Lamanites, 49, 55;
as sheep of another fold, 419;
death of Jesus signalized to, 721;
visitation of the risen Lord among, 724, 731, 736;
Twelve called from among, 725;
the Three, 738.
Nicodemus, visits Jesus, 158, 170;
his protest before Sanhedrin, 404;
assists in burial of Christ's body, 665.
Night, watches of the, 346.
Ninety and nine, and the lost sheep, 389.
Nobleman seeking a kingdom, 522.
Nunc Dimittis, the, 97.
Offenses and offenders, 274, 388.
Old cloth and old bottles, 195.
Olivet, (Mount of Olives) Christ's discourse to apostles on, 540, 569;
Gethsemane near, 611;
the Lord's ascension from, 697.
Oneness, of Godhead, 500;
of Father and Son, 602.
Papal claims to authority, 747.
Parables in general, 298;
definitions, 303.
Parables of Christ: the Sower, 282;
Wheat and Tares, 280;
Seed growing secretly, 288;
Mustard Seed, 290;
Leaven, 291;
Hidden Treasure, 292;
Pearl of Great Price, 293;
Gospel Net, 294;
Lost Sheep, 389;
Unmerciful Servant, 393;
Good Samaritan, 430;
Friend at Midnight, 434;
Importunate Widow, or Unjust Judge, 436;
Foolish Rich Man, 439;
Barren Fig Tree, 443;
Great Supper, 450;
Lost Sheep (repeated), 454;
Lost Coin, 455;
Prodigal Son, 457;
Unrighteous Steward, 461;
Rich Man and Lazarus, 466;
Unprofitable Servants, 470;
Pharisee and Publican, 471;
Laborers in Vineyard, 479;
Pounds, 508;
Two Sons, 532;
Wicked Husbandmen, 533;
Royal Marriage Feast, 536;
Ten Virgins, 577;
the same referred to in modern revelation, 579;
Talents, 580;
Pounds and Talents compared, 581.
Parabolic teaching, Christ's purpose in, 295.
Paradise, 672, 676;
the penitent thief in, 659, 671.[Pg 801]
Passover, feast of, 112;
Jesus at when a Boy, 113;
throngs attending, 167;
recurrences of during Christ's ministry, 365;
the last eaten by Jesus, 593, 617.
Patmos, 720.
Paul, the Lord's manifestations to, 713, 715;
his demeanor when smitten contrasted with that of Christ, 644.
Pence and talents, value of, 396.
Pentecost, 702, 718.
Perea, the Lord's retirement in, 489.
Perean and Judean ministry, 423, 449,
Perfection, relative, 236, 248.
Persecutions of early Christians, 746.
Peter, James, and John, special witnesses, 314, 370, 376, 611;
officiate in modern times, 219, 768.
Peter, Simon, brought to Jesus by Andrew and named Peter, 140;
called from his boat and nets, 198;
one of the Twelve, 218;
his confession of Christ, 360;
his presidency among the apostles, 362;
remonstrates with Jesus and is rebuked, 364, 368;
protests against washing of his feet by Jesus, 596;
his protestations of allegiance, 600;
his assault on Malchus, 616;
his denial of his Lord, 629;
with John at sepulchre, 679;
questioned by the risen Lord, 692;
manner of his death foreshadowed, 693;
his Pentecostal address, 703;
heals lame man, 705;
testifies to people and rulers in temple, 706, 708;
with James and John officiates in modern times, 219, 768.
Pharisees, and Sadducees, 65, 72;
leaven of the, 359;
humiliated by an unlearned indigent, 415;
with lawyers criticized by Christ, 436;
Jesus in house of one of chief, 449;
proud of false humility, 465;
with scribes, denounced, 552.
Philip, called by Jesus, 140;
one of the Twelve, 221;
asks to behold the Father, 602.
Phylacteries, and borders, 565.
Physical cause of the Lord's death, 668.
Pilate, see Pontius Pilate
Pilgrim Fathers, their mission predicted, 754, 757.
Pleasure and happiness, 231, 247.
Pontius Pilate, procurator, 631;
hears charges against Christ, 631, 636;
questions Jesus, 634, 640;
sends Christ to Herod, 635;
tries to save Jesus from death, 640;
gives sentence of crucifixion, 639;
cause of his surrender to Jewish clamor, 641, 648;
writes inscription for the cross, 656;
gives body of Jesus for burial, 664;
allows guarding of sepulchre, 665.
Pool, of Bethesda, 206;
a cripple healed at, 207;
of Siloam, 403, 421;
blind man sent to wash in, 413.
Pope, the, 747.
Prayer, the Lord's, 238;
the Lord's High Priestly, 609;
and fasting, power developed by, 395;
request of disciples concerning, 434.
Precedence and humility, 503.
Predictions of Christ's birth, life and death, 42;
by Adam, 44;
by Jacob, 44;
by Moses, 45;
by Job, 46;
by Isaiah, 46;
by Jeremiah, 47;
by other Hebrew prophets, 48;
by John the Baptist, 48;
by Nephite prophets, 49, 722;
of the Lord's death by Himself, 363, 372, 381, 518, 586.
Preexistence of spirits, 6, 17;
involved in disciples' question, 412;
of Jesus Christ, 6.
Presidency, Peter's among apostles, 362.
Priesthood, Aaronic, see Aaronic Priesthood;
Melchizedek, see Melchizedek Priesthood;
the Holy, now operative on earth, 777; and office therein, 778.
Primitive Church, the, 705, 707, 712, 719.
Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ the, 517.
Prophet, predicted by Moses—Jesus Christ 45, 138, 710, 733, 766.
Protestants, origin of, 750.
Psalms, Messianic, 46.
Publicans, 193, 201;
and sinners, 193;
salvation for, 454;
Zaccheus a chief among, 506.
Rabbis, and scribes, 63, 71, 554.
Redeemer, need of by essential qualifications of, 21.
Redemption wrought by Jesus Christ, 20, 31.[Pg 802]
Reformation, the, 750.
Regeneration of the earth, 322, 793.
Repentant woman forgiven, 263.
Restoration, to mortal life contrasted with resurrection, 316, 496;
of the Priesthood in modern times, 768.
Resurrection, universal, 24;
distinct from restoration to mortal life, 316, 496;
Sadducean denial of, 72;
Sadducees question Jesus concerning, 547;
of Jesus Christ, 678;
false stories and untenable theories concerning Christ's, 683, 698;
heathen in the first, 793.
Revelation, foundation of Church of Christ, 361, 775;
modern, belief in, 776.
Reward, for merit, assured, 479.
Rich men, and their stewards, 483;
difficulty of entering kingdom, 478.
Rigdon, Sidney, associated with Joseph Smith, 771.
Rock of revelation, 361.
Ruler, the rich young, 477.
Sabbath, distinctively sacred to Israel, 203;
Jesus Christ the Lord of the, 203;
rabbinical requirements concerning, 205, 215;
desecration of imputed to Jesus, 208, 214, 401, 413, 443;
disciples charged with desecration of, 212;
change of day from Saturday to Sunday, 690.
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, instituted among Jews, 596;
on western continent, 730, 733, 735.
Sacrifice, animal, antiquity of, 53;
prototype of Christ's atoning death, 45, 53.
Sadducees, and Pharisees, 65, 72;
deny resurrection, 72;
question Christ concerning resurrection, 547.
Saliva, applied to eyes of blind man, 360, 413.
Salome, daughter of Herodias, 259;
mother of James and John, 521.
Salt of the earth, figurative, 232, 248, 743.
Salvation, conditions of, 26.
Samaritan, woman talks with Jesus, 172;
Christ called a, 411
Samaritans, origin of, 62;
and Jews, animosity between, 183;
Jesus received gladly by, 176;
afterward rejected by, 423.
Sanhedrin, the, 61, 69;
Nicodemus a member of, speaks in behalf of Jesus, 404;
unlawful trial of Jesus before, 621;
the apostles before, 706;
Gamaliel's advice to, 709;
Stephen condemned by, 711.
Satan, Lucifer, a son of the morning, 7;
in conflict with Michael, 6;
cast out from heaven, 8;
commanded by Moses, 7;
would destroy man's agency, 8;
beguiles Eve, 19;
introduces sin and death, 20;
tempts Jesus Christ, 127;
to be bound during Millennium, 791;
final vanquishment of, 792.
Saul of Tarsus, his persecution of the Saints, 712;
his conversion, 713, 719;
his baptism, 714;
beginning of his ministry, 714;
name changed to Paul, 714.
Savior and Redeemer, necessary qualifications of, 21.
Scourging, 638;
of Jesus, 639.
Scribes and Pharisees, 552;
and rabbis, 63;
see further, Pharisees.
Scriptures, lost, 117, 119.
Sea of Galilee, storms on, 321.
Second advent of Christ, 780;
predicted anciently, 569, 781,
in modern times, 783;
signs of, 573, 786;
time of unknown, 575, 589, 785;
near at hand, 787;
accompaniments of, 787.
Secular authority, submission to, 564.
Seed and crop, 519.
Sermon on the Mount, 230;
repeated in effect to the Nephites, 727.
Servants and ministers, 542.
Seventy, the, sent, 425;
return of, 427.
Sheep and goats, figurative, 584.
Sheep, other than of Jewish fold, 419;
Nephite fold, 728;
Lost Tribes another fold, 729.
Shepherd, Christ the Good, 417.
Shepherds, angelic annunciation to, 93;
contrasted with sheepherders, 416.
Shewbread, 213, 216.
Shiloh, Jacob's prophecy concerning, 44, 54.
Signs, miracles as, 147, 696;
seekers of, 270, 279, 358;
of Christ's birth and death shown on American continent, 100, 721.[Pg 803]
Silence, Christ's, when before Herod, 636.
Siloam, Pool of, 403, 421;
fall of tower at, 442.
Simon, Peter, see Peter;
the leper, 510;
the Pharisee, 261;
of Cyrene, 653, 666;
Zelotes, one of the Twelve, 225.
Sin, brings death into the world, 20;
the unpardonable, 269, 278;
servitude of, 409;
and bodily affliction, 413.
Sinners, joy in heaven over repentant, 455.
Smith, Hyrum, see Hyrum Smith;
Joseph, see Joseph Smith.
Solomon's Porch, 487, 500, 705.
Son of David, title, applied to Joseph of Nazareth, 84;
to Jesus Christ, 80, 86, 354, 505, 515, 529;
Christ's question concerning, 552.
Son of God, The, proclaimed by the Father, 126, 371, 725, 761.
Son of Man, The, 142.
Son of the morning, see Satan.
Spikenard, 523;
Mary anoints Jesus with, 512.
Spirit and power of Elias, 376.
Spirit of Truth, the Holy Ghost, 603.
Spirits, unembodied, 6, 8, 17;
state of between death and resurrection, 671;
disembodied, Christ's mission among, 670, 672, 677;
world of, missionary labor in, 675.
Spiritual development, the one thing needful, 433, 434.
Stater, 384.
Stephen, his zeal, 709;
his address to the council, 710;
his martyrdom, 711.
Stewards, apostles likened unto, 441, 576.
Stone, head of the corner—Jesus Christ—535, 706.
Supererogation, false doctrine of, 590.
Supper, at house of Simon the leper, 510;
The Last, 592.
Sychar, 173, 186.
Synoptic Gospels, 166.
Tabernacles, feast of, 419;
Jesus at the, 399.
Talents and pence, 396.
Talmud, 62, 70.
Targums, 179, 186.
Tax, capitation, 383.
Taxing, or enrolment, 104.
Temple, of Herod, 73;
the Lord's body symbolized as a, 157;
Christ's first clearing of the, 153;
second clearing of the, 527;
tribute paid to, 396;
destruction of, predicted, 563,
accomplished, 567;
treasure of, 567.
Temples, modern, 778.
Test of the Lord's doctrine, 400, 421.
Tetrarch, 274.
Thirty years of age, 166.
Thomas, one of the Twelve, 223;
doubts the resurrection of Christ, 689;
is convinced, 690.
"Thou art the Christ," 360.
Three Nephites, the, 738.
Tiberias, sea of, 165,
the risen Lord appears at, 691.
Tithing, day of, 785.
Titles, ecclesiastical, 566.
Today and tomorrow, special application of terms, 785.
Tongues, as of fire, Pentecostal manifestations, 702.
Traditionalism, in opposition to the law, 351.
Transubstantiation, false doctrine of, 748.
Transfiguration, the, 370, 376.
Transgressors, Christ numbered among, 601, 655.
Treasure belonging to temple, 567.
Treasury of temple, 422.
Trial of Jesus, the Jewish, 621;
illegalities of, 622, 644.
Tribes, of Israel, 59;
the Ten, or Lost, 61, 729.
Tribute, the temple, 396;
Christ pays the, 382;
to be rendered to Cæsar under law, 545.
Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Christ's, 513.
Truth, shall make men free, 408.
Twelve, the, see Apostles;
the Nephite, 725.
Tyre and Sidon, Jesus in borders of, 354.
Unbelief, effect of, 381.
Unity of Godhead, 500.
Unpardonable sin, 269, 278.[Pg 804]
Vine, Christ the true, 604.
Vineyard and vines, Israel symbolized by, 541.
Voice, in the wilderness,—John the Baptist, 121;
from heaven, the Father's, 126, 371, 519, 725;
of Jesus Christ from heaven to Nephites, 723.
War in heaven, 6.
Washing of feet, ordinance of, 595, 619.
Washings, ceremonial, 350, 366.
Watches of the night, 346.
Watchfulness enjoined, 575.
Water, living, 403.
Wedding garment, lacking, 539.
Western continent, ministry of Jesus Christ on, 721.
Widow's mites, 561.
Wise men, the, 97;
their adoration of Christ, 99.
Witnesses, false, at trial of Jesus, 623.
Woes over Jerusalem, 515, 560.
Woman, a repentant, receives forgiveness, 263;
one taken in sin, 405.
"Woman," as noun of address, 144.
Women, Christ the ennobler of, 484;
witnesses of the crucifixion, 659, 688;
at sepulchre of Jesus, 681;
see and touch the risen Lord, 682.
Word, Jesus Christ, the, 10.
Yahveh, see Jehovah.
Zaccheus, 506.
Zacharias, the martyr, 560, 567.
Zacharias, the priest, visited by the angel Gabriel, 76;
stricken dumb, 77, 88;
his speech restored, 78.
Zion, of Enoch, 719, 790;
of the last days, 786.
Aaronic Priesthood, restored by John the Baptist, 768;
its powers, 768.
Ceremonial washings, 366.
Children of Abraham, 409.
Christ's superiority over Abraham, 410, 411.
Aceldama, the field of blood, 643.
Adam, the first man, 18;
his sin, 19;
revelation to, 44.
Adulteress brought to Christ, 405.
Adulterous generation of sign-seekers, 270, 279, 359.
Free agency of disembodied spirits, 8, 17;
of man, 17, 29.
Progenitors of American Indians, 49, 56, 742, 757.
Ananias, minister to Saul, 714.
Andrew, follows Christ, 140;
one of the Twelve, 221.
Annas, high priest, 621, 643.
Announcement of Christ by the Father, 39, 126, 371, 725, 761;
of Christ's birth to shepherds, 93.
See Annunciation.
Annunciation by Gabriel, to Zacharias, 76;
to Mary the Virgin, 79;
by angel to shepherds, 93.
Antemortal Godhood of Jesus Christ, 32.
Antemortal state, graded intelligences in, 14.
Herod Antipas, 110, 118, 446, 635.
Antonia, tower or fortress of, 441.
The great apostasy, 745;
among Nephites, 741.
The Twelve Apostles, chosen and ordained, 217;
individually considered, 218;
general characteristics of, 226;
compared with disciples, 227;
charged and sent forth, 327, 328;
their return, 331;
futile attempt to heal, 379;
as stewards, 441, 576;
Christ's final commission to, 695, 696;
imprisoned, 707;
delivered by an angel, 707;
scourged for their testimony, 709.
Apostleship, 227, 228;
restored in the present dispensation, 769.
The apostolic ministry, 700;
close of, 716.
Appearances of the risen Lord to mortals before the ascension, 699.
Archelaus, 110, 118.
Attempted arrest of Jesus, which was not completed, 403;
achieved through betrayal, 614.
Ascension of Christ, 697.
The donkey Christ rides, 514;
as predicted, 517.
The creed of Athanasius, 756.
The atonement, a vicarious sacrifice, 21.
Authority in the Holy Priesthood, 362;
of Elias and Elijah, 375;
attested by the Twelve, 392;
of Christ, challenged, 530;
Christ as one possessing authority, 249;
attributed to Beelzebub, 265.
Baptism by John the Baptist, 122, 163, 531;
of Christ by John, 125;
commanded upon Nephites by Christ, 725;
method of, 726;
of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, 768;
as required in the Church today, 769.
For Baptist, see John the Baptist.
Barabbas, 637.
Barnabas, supporter of Saul or Paul, 714.
For Bartholomew, see Nathanael.
Bartimeus, healed of blindness, 505.
The Beatitudes, 230.
Beelzebub, Christ's authority ascribed to, 265.
The Benedictus, 78.
At Bethany, Jesus, 432, 448;
the family home at, 522.
Pool of Bethesda, 206.
Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ, 92;
massacre of children in, 100.
Bethphage, 512, 526.
Bethsaida, 258, 332, 346;
Julias, 360.
Betrayal of Christ; foretold, 594;
carried out by Judas Iscariot, 614.
Jewish betrothal, 88.
Blasphemy, 201;
charges against Christ, 193, 489;
false conviction of Christ for, 629.[Pg 795]
Blessing of children, 485;
among Nephites, 730.
Bodily and spiritual blindness, 412, 416.
Bloody sweat of Christ, 612;
affirmed as real, 613, 620.
Original of the Book of Mormon, 742, 767.
Land of Bountiful, 724.
Jesus Christ, the Bread of Life, 340.
Friend of the bridegroom, 171.
Brother of Jared, 12.
Burial of Jesus, 664.
Paying tribute to Caesar, 545;
Jews would have no king but, 641, 648.
Coasts of Caesarea Philippi, 368;
Palestina, 631.
Caiaphas, high priest;
his prophetic statement, 498;
his time in office, 501;
Christ before him, 621;
the apostles before him, 706.
Called and chosen, 540.
Calvary, 654, 667.
Camel and the eye of the needle, 478, 485.
Capernaum, 181, 186;
our Lord's last sermon in the synagogue at, 339.
Capitation tax, 383.
Celestial marriage, 564.
For Cephas, see Peter.
Ceremonial washings, 366.
Child, as a little one, 386;
humility illustrated by a child, 387.
Distinction between childlike and childish, 387.
Children, precious in the sight of God, 387;
blessed by Christ, 475, 485;
of Nephites blessed by the risen Lord, 729.
Chorazin, woe decreed to, 258.
Chosen or only called, 540.
For Christ, see Jesus Christ.
Significance of the titles Christ and Messiah, 36.
Early Christian persecutions, 746.
Discipline of individuals in the Church, 391.
Origin of the Church of England, 751;
affirms great apostasy, 753.
Foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ, 361;
rapid growth of Primitive Church, 705, 707, 712;
name of, 736;
among Nephites, 737;
establishment of the Church of Latter-day Saints, 769.
Churches made by man, 752.
Circumcision, 88.
Clay applied to the blind man's eyes, 413.
The first clearing of the temple, 153;
the second, 527.
Cleopas, 685.
As a descriptive term, coasts, 368.
Coin, image and inscription on, 546, 563;
in the mouth of a fish, 385.
Christopher Columbus, his mission, 754, 757.
Promised Comforter, 603, 606;
given, 702.
The great commandment, 549.
Common ownership, 705, 718.
Common people, eager to hear Christ, 529.
The great confession, 361.
Congenital blindness healed, 413.
Common consent, observed in the Primitive Church, 702, 718;
in the Church today, 778.
Consistency of the Church's claims, 779.
Conspiracy of Pharisees and Herodians, 544.
Constantine the Great gives state recognition to Christianity, 746.
The Constitution of the United States, a necessary precursor to the restoration of the gospel, 755.
The celestial consummation, 792.
Contention not allowed, 726.
Corban, 352, 366.
Jesus the chief cornerstone, 535, 706.
Counting the cost, 452.
The Jewish council, see Sanhedrin.
Council in Heaven, primordial, 9, 15.
Court of the Women in the temple, 407, 422.
Oliver Cowdery, ordained with Joseph Smith, 767;
witness of heavenly manifestations, 774.
The Creator, Jesus Christ, 33.
Creed of Athanasius, 756.
Figurative cross, 365;
of Christ, borne by Simon, 653.
Crucifixion, 655, 667;
of Jesus Christ, 654;
hour of, 668.
Cumorah, scene of the last Nephite battle, 742;
Book of Mormon records taken from, 767.
Ceremonial cleansing of cups and platters, 437.
The Dark Ages, 749.[Pg 796]
Christ's lament over the daughters of Jerusalem, 653, 666.
For David, Son of, see Son of David.
The gospel preached to the dead, 24;
ministered to by Jesus Christ, 672, 673;
missionary work among, 674;
vicarious work for in the Church today, 777.
Death, initiated by Satan, 20;
overcome by the atonement of Christ, 20;
and resurrection of Christ predicted, 381, 382,
accomplished, 662, 678.
Decapolis, 367;
Jesus in the coasts of, 356.
Feast of dedication, 487, 499;
Jesus at, 487.
Things that cause defilement, 352.
Bodily degeneration due to the fall of man, 19, 29.
Demonic possession, 183.
Demons, proclaim the Christ, 181, 310, 312.
Jesus accused of being possessed by a devil, 401, 411.
Didrachm, 383.
Disciples and apostles, 227.
Disciples, taught, 438, 461;
requirements of, 452.
Disciplinary actions of individuals in the Church, 391.
Disembodied spirits, Christ among, 670.
Dispensation of the fullness of times, 777;
begun, 763.
Dives and Lazarus, 483.
Divorce and marriage, 473;
views on, 484.
The Lord's doctrine, test of, 400, 421;
Christ's, as told to the Nephites, 726.
Dogs that eat the crumbs, 367.
Christ, the door to the sheepfold, 417.
Sign of the dove, 126, 150.
Shaking dust off feet as a testimony, 345.
Regeneration of the earth, 322, 793.
Spiritual symbolism of eating, 343, 347;
eating with unwashen hands, 351.
Ecce Homo, 639.
Flight into Egypt, 100;
return from, 110.
Elders and high priests, 644.
Elias, John the Baptist and, 374;
and Elijah, 375;
spirit and power of, 376;
appearing in Kirtland Temple, 775.
Elijah and Moses at transfiguration, 371;
and Elias, 375;
appearance in Kirtland Temple, 775.
Elisabeth, mother of John the Baptist, 75, 78;
visited by Mary the Virgin, 82.
Elohim, 38.
Christ and two disciples journey to Emmaus, 685.
Enoch, 44, 143, 793;
promise to, relating to Christ's second coming, 790.
Enrolment at Bethlehem, 91.
Jesus in seclusion at Ephraim, 498.
Essenes, 67.
Estate of man, first and second, 7.
The Eternal Father, a resurrected, exalted Being, 143, 151.
Eve, deceived by Satan, 19.
Earlier and later evenings, 346.
Active faith compared with passive belief, 319;
a gift from God, 347;
quality of faith, 381;
nothing impossible to faith, 395;
in behalf of others, 395;
regarding quantity and quality, 469;
strong faith of the Nephites, 733.
Fall of man 19;
a process of bodily degeneration, 19;
redemption from achieved by Jesus Christ, 20, 31.
Power gained through fasting and prayer, 381.
The Eternal Father proclaims the Son, Jesus Christ, 126, 371;
to Nephites, 725;
to Joseph Smith, 761.
Feast of Dedication, 487, 499;
Feast of Tabernacles, 400, 419;
Passover, 112, 167;
traditional Messianic feast, 538.
Few or many to be saved, 445.
The fig tree, 541;
cursed, 524;
symbol of Judaism, 527;
lesson from other trees, 754;
in modern revelation, 784.
The first may be last, 478.
Fishers of men, 197, 202.
God's foreknowledge, not a determining cause, 18, 28.
Foreordination of Jesus Christ, 6.
Duty concerning forgiveness, 391;
limitless requirement for, 393;
mutual forgiveness, 525.
Herod Antipas referred to as a fox, 446, 636.
Free agency of disembodied spirits, 8, 17;[Pg 797]
of man, 17, 29.
Gabriel's announcement, of John and of Jesus, 75;
to Mary the Virgin, 79.
Land of Gadarenes and Gergesenes, 323.
Beginning of the Galilean ministry, 144;
close of, 398.
Galileans, 68;
slain in temple courts, 441.
Sea of Galilee, 165;
the risen Lord appears at the sea of, 691;
appears on a mountain in, 694.
Gamaliel, his advice to the council, 709;
tutor to Saul of Tarsus, 712.
Genealogies of Christ, 85, 89.
Sea or lake of Gennesaret, 165.
Gentiles, 345;
to become great on the western continent, 733.
Land of Gergesenes and Gadarenes, 323.
Gethsemane, 620;
Christ's anguish in, 610;
His arrest in, 614.
Goats and sheep, figurative, 584.
God's foreknowledge is not a determining cause of action, 18, 28.
Godhead, three personages in, 32.
Antemortal Godhood of Jesus Christ, 32.
Golgotha, 654, 667.
The four gospels, 166;
the synoptic, 166.
Graded conditions in the hereafter, 601.
Graded intelligences in antemortal state, 14.
The great commandment, 549.
As Gentiles, Greeks, 345;
certain ones visit Jesus, 518.
Happiness and pleasure, 231, 247.
Heathens to be redeemed;
their part in the first resurrection, 793.
Hem of garment, 346.
Henry VIII, head of the Church of England, 751.
The hireling shepherd, 417.
Herod the Great, 97, 106;
temple of, 73;
Antipas, 110, 118;
referred to as "fox," 446;
Christ before him, 635.
Herodians, 68;
in conspiracy with Pharisees, 544.
Herodias, 259.
Christ's High Priestly prayer, 609.
High priests and elders, 644.
Sin against the Holy Ghost, 269, 278;
promised to the apostles, 603;
the investiture of apostles by the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, 702.
Homily against idolatry, affirming the apostasy, 753.
Hosanna shout, 516, 523.
Hyrum Smith, martyred, 776.
I AM, 36;
Jesus Christ, the, 411.
Image on the coin, 546, 563.
American Indians, progenitors of, 49, 56, 742, 757.
Inquisition, court of the, 750.
Messianic predictions by Isaiah, 46, 47.
For Iscariot, see Judas Iscariot.
Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, 59.
Jacob's prophecy about Shiloh, 54.
For Jahveh, see Jehovah.
James and John, sons of Zebedee, called, 198;
members of the Twelve, 219;
minister with Peter in modern days, 219, 768;
their ambitious desire, 503;
mother of, 521.
James, son of Alpheus, one of the Twelve, 224.
Jared, brother of; his meeting with the unembodied Christ, 12.
The Jaredites, 16.
Jehovah, significance of the name, 36, 41, 411.
Messianic prophecies by Jeremiah, 47.
Jericho, 521.
Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem, 513;
predicted destruction of, 569,
accomplished destruction, 586;
the Lord's lament over, 560;
Christ's lament over the daughters of, 653, 666.
Jesus the Christ, as Man and Christ, 1.
Jesus Christ, preexistence and foreordination of, 6;
the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, 8, 13, 81;
the Word, 10;
Word of God's power, 10;
His supremacy over Abraham, 11, 410, 411;
His power over death, 22, 23, 418;
antemortal Godhood of, 32;
the Creator, 33;
names and titles of, 35;
predicted, 42;
announcement of, 79;
the Babe of Bethlehem, 91;
birth of, 91;
birth announced to shepherds, 93;
circumcision and naming of, 95;
presentation in the temple, 95;
testimony of Simeon and Anna about, 97;
birth made known to Nephites, 100;
timing of birth of, 102, 109;
boyhood of, 111;
when twelve years old at Passover, 113;
with the scholars in the temple, 114;
from Nazareth, 117;
baptism of, 125;[Pg 798]
the descent of the Holy Ghost upon, 126;
temptations of, 127;
the first clearing of the temple by, 154;
an offender to many, 254, 274;
His unique status, 384;
interview with His brethren, 398;
at the Feast of Tabernacles, 399;
rejected in Samaria, 423;
at home in Bethany, 448;
blesses little children, 475;
the ennobler of women, 484;
at the Feast of Dedication, 487;
accused of blasphemy, 489;
in seclusion at Ephraim, 498;
predicts His death and resurrection, 363, 372, 381, 502, 518, 586;
called Son of David, 80, 86, 320, 354, 505, 515, 529;
triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 513;
Prince of Peace, 517;
visited by some Greeks, 518;
His second clearing of the temple, 527;
His authority challenged, 530;
close of His public ministry, 544;
His lament over Jerusalem, 560;
His final departure from the temple, 562;
specific prediction of His death, 586;
foretells His betrayal, 594;
His anguish in Gethsemane, 610;
His betrayal and arrest, 614;
Jewish trial of, 621;
falsely convicted of blasphemy, 629;
first appearance before Pilate, 631,
second appearance, 636;
appearance before Herod Antipas, 635;
delivered up to be crucified, 639;
His crucifixion, 654;
His burial, 664;
physical cause of death of, 668;
after resurrection appears to Mary Magdalene and other women, 681;
to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, 685;
to ten apostles and others, in their presence He eats, 687;
to Peter, 687;
to the Eleven, 689;
His ascension from Olivet, 697;
His death signaled on the American continent, 721;
giver of the law to Moses, 728;
visitations to Nephites, 724, 731, 736;
ministers to Joseph Smith, 761, 774;
revelations from in the current dispensation, 770;
second coming of, 780.
Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, 87, 90, 657.
Jewish exclusivity, 61.
Christ, the King of the Jews, 657.
John the Baptist, birth announced, 76;
circumcision and naming of, 78;
the forerunner, 75, 122;
regarded as a Nazarite, 87;
in the wilderness, 121;
baptizes Jesus Christ, 125;
his testimony of Jesus, 138, 150, 164;
his message to Jesus, 252;
Christ's testimony concerning him, 256;
imprisonment of, 252;
death of, 259;
greatness of his mission, 275;
the Elias who was to come, 257, 276;
restores the Aaronic Priesthood in modern times, 768.
John, son of Zebedee, follows Christ, 140;
called, 198;
one of the Twelve, 220;
his testimony about the graded development of Jesus, 119;
with Peter at the tomb of Jesus, 679;
to remain in the flesh until Christ's second coming, 694;
the Revelator, 716.
For John and James, see James and John.
Joseph of Arimathea, helps in burying Christ's body, 664.
Joseph and Mary the Virgin, betrothed, 84;
married, 85;
genealogies of, 85, 89.
Joseph Smith, 758;
his confusion over sectarian conflict, 759;
his prayer for guidance, 760;
visited by the Father and the Son, 761;
persecution of, 762;
visited by Moroni, 765;
receives the Aaronic Priesthood, 768;
receives the Melchizedek Priesthood, 768;
again visited by the Lord Jesus Christ, 774;
visited by Moses, Elias, and Elijah, 775;
martyred, 776.
Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, 59.
Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, 225;
his complaint about the waste of ointment, 512;
in conspiracy with Jewish leaders, 592;
goes out to betray Christ, 598;
his betrayal of Christ, 614;
his overwhelming remorse and suicide, 642;
opinions on his character, 649.
Judas Thaddeus, or Lebbeus, one of the Twelve, 224, 228;
his question, 603.
Judean and Perean ministry, 423, 449.
The inevitable judgment, 584.
Keys of the kingdom of heaven, 361;
symbolic of power in Jewish literature, 362.
Christ the King of the Jews, 87, 90, 657.
Kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven, 788.[Pg 799]
Kirtland Temple, site of heavenly manifestations, 773.
Lamanites and Nephites, 49, 55.
Lamanites, ancestors of American Indians, 49, 56, 742, 757;
promise regarding, 786.
Lamentation over Jerusalem, 560.
The last will be first, 478.
The Last Supper, 592.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 769.
Law and the gospel, 234.
Rabbinical divisions of the Law of Moses, 564;
Christ the giver of, 728;
fulfilled, as Christ declared to Nephites, 723, 728.
Lawyer questions Christ, 429.
Christ's criticisms of lawyers and Pharisees, 436.
Lazarus and Dives, 483.
Lazarus restored to life, 490.
Leaven of evil, 359;
of Pharisees and Sadducees, 359.
Simon the leper, 511.
Ten lepers healed, 470.
Leprosy, 189, 199.
For Levi Matthew, see Matthew.
Levirate marriages, 548.
Jesus the Light of the World, 407.
Figurative living water, 403.
The Lord's Day, 690.
Test of the Lord's doctrine, 421.
The Lord's High Priestly prayer, 609.
The Lord's Prayer, 238.
The Lord's Supper, Sacrament, 596.
Mutual love commanded of apostles, 599.
For Lucifer, see Satan.
Martin Luther, 750.
Maccabean revolt, 60.
The Magnificat, 83.
Magi, see Wise men.
Malachi, his misunderstood predictions, 149;
fulfilled, 775.
Malchus, wounded by Peter, healed by Jesus, 616.
The penitent malefactor, 659, 671.
Mammon of unrighteousness, 463, 483.
Preexistence of man, 6, 17;
an embodied spirit, 18;
fall of man, 19, 29;
free agency of man, 18, 29.
The Son of man, 142.
Traditions about manna, 347.
Many mansions in the Father's house, 601.
Many or few to be saved, 445.
Marriage and divorce, 473.
Marriage for eternity, 564.
Levirate marriages, 548.
Martha and Mary, 432;
at the house of Simon the leper, 511.
For Mary and Joseph, see Joseph and Mary.
Mary anoints Jesus with spikenard, 512.
Mary Magdalene, defended against false accusations, 264;
at the tomb, 679;
first to see the risen Lord, 681.
Matthew, or Levi, called, 193;
gives a feast, 194;
one of the Twelve, 222.
Matthias ordained to apostleship, 700.
Melchizedek Priesthood, held by Jesus Christ, 552;
restored by Peter, James, and John, 768.
Meridian of time, 57.
For Messiah, see Jesus Christ.
Significance of names Messiah and Christ, 36.
Messianic psalms, 46.
Michael in conflict with Satan, 6.
The Millennium, 790;
predictions of, ancient, 790,
modern, 791.
Ministers and servants, 542.
In general, miracles, 147;
science's attitude toward, 151.
Miracles of Christ: water changed into wine, 144;
healing of the nobleman's son, 178;
healing of Peter's mother-in-law, 183;
healing of a demon-possessed man in the synagogue at Capernaum, 181;
healing of a leper, 188;
healing and forgiveness of a paralyzed man, 190;
the catch of fish, 198;
healing of a cripple at the Bethesda pool, 206;
healing of a man with a withered hand, 214;
healing of the centurion's servant, 249;
raising the young man of Nain from the dead, 251;
healing of a blind and mute demoniac, 267;
calming the storm, 307;
rebuking demons in the land of Gadarenes, 310;
raising Jairus's daughter, 313;
healing a woman in the crowd, 317;
healing of a blind and mute man, 319;
feeding five thousand, 333;
walking on water, 335;[Pg 800]
in the land of Gennesaret, 337;
healing the daughter of a Syro-Phoenician woman, 354;
healings in the coasts of Decapolis, 356;
feeding four thousand, 357;
healing of a blind man near Bethsaida Julias, 360;
healing of a young demoniac, 378;
money for tax supplied, 382;
healing of a blind man on the Sabbath, 413;
healing of a woman on the Sabbath, 443;
healing of a dropsical man, 449;
healing of ten lepers, 470;
Lazarus restored to life, 490;
healing a blind man near Jericho, 504;
cursing the barren fig tree, 524;
healings in the temple courts, 528;
Malchus healed of his wound, 616;
the second catch of fish, 691.
Missing scriptures, 117, 119.
Mission of the Twelve, 328, 695;
mission of the Seventy, 425, 427.
Belief in modern revelation, 776.
Book of Mormon, 742, 767.
Moroni, last of the Nephite prophets, 742;
an angel sent from God, 765;
delivers ancient records to Joseph Smith, 767.
Moses, resists Satan, 7;
his prophecy about Christ, 45, 138, 710, 766;
with Elijah at transfiguration, 371;
appearance in Kirtland Temple, 775.
For Mount of Olives, see Olivet.
Power in the name of Christ, 390;
in Christ's name, 602;
of Christ's Church, 736, 769.
Names given to God, 40.
For Nard, see Spikenard.
Nathanael, or Bartholomew brought to Christ, 141;
one of the Twelve, 222.
Nativity of Christ, a topic of discussion, 402, 403.
Nazareth, boyhood home of Jesus Christ, 110;
our Lord's sermon in the synagogue at, 179;
His rejection by the Nazarenes, 180.
Nazarite, 67, 87;
John the Baptist regarded as one, 87.
Need for a Redeemer, 17.
The eye of the needle and the camel, 478, 485.
Who is my neighbor, 429.
Birth of Christ made known to Nephites, 100;
and Lamanites, 49, 55;
as sheep of another fold, 419;
death of Jesus marked to, 721;
visitations of the risen Lord among, 724, 731, 736;
the Twelve chosen from among, 725;
the Three, 738.
Nicodemus visits Jesus, 158, 170;
his protest before the Sanhedrin, 404;
assists in burying Christ's body, 665.
Watches of the night, 346.
The ninety and nine and the lost sheep, 389.
Nobleman seeking a kingdom, 522.
The Nunc Dimittis, 97.
Offenses and offenders, 274, 388.
Old cloth and old bottles, 195.
Olivet (Mount of Olives), Christ's discourse to apostles on, 540, 569;
Gethsemane nearby, 611;
the Lord's ascension from, 697.
Oneness of Godhead, 500;
of Father and Son, 602.
Papal claims to authority, 747.
In general, parables, 298;
definitions, 303.
Parables of Christ: the Sower, 282;
Wheat and Tares, 280;
Seed growing secretly, 288;
Mustard Seed, 290;
Leaven, 291;
Hidden Treasure, 292;
Pearl of Great Price, 293;
Gospel Net, 294;
Lost Sheep, 389;
Unmerciful Servant, 393;
Good Samaritan, 430;
Friend at Midnight, 434;
Importunate Widow or Unjust Judge, 436;
Foolish Rich Man, 439;
Barren Fig Tree, 443;
Great Supper, 450;
Lost Sheep (repeated), 454;
Lost Coin, 455;
Prodigal Son, 457;
Unrighteous Steward, 461;
Rich Man and Lazarus, 466;
Unprofitable Servants, 470;
Pharisee and Publican, 471;
Laborers in the Vineyard, 479;
Pounds, 508;
Two Sons, 532;
Wicked Husbandmen, 533;
Royal Marriage Feast, 536;
Ten Virgins, 577;
the same referenced in modern revelation, 579;
Talents, 580;
Pounds and Talents compared, 581.
Christ's purpose in parabolic teaching, 295.
Paradise, 672, 676;
the penitent thief in, 659, 671.[Pg 801]
Feast of Passover, 112;
Jesus attended when a Boy, 113;
thronging attendees, 167;
recurrences during Christ's ministry, 365;
the last eaten by Jesus, 593, 617.
Patmos, 720.
The Lord's manifestations to Paul, 713, 715;
his demeanor when struck compared to that of Christ, 644.
Value of pence and talents, 396.
Pentecost, 702, 718.
The Lord's retirement in Perea, 489.
Perean and Judean ministry, 423, 449,
Relative perfection, 236, 248.
Persecutions of early Christians, 746.
Peter, James, and John, special witnesses, 314, 370, 376, 611;
officiate in modern times, 219, 768.
Peter, Simon, brought to Jesus by Andrew and renamed Peter, 140;
called from his boat and nets, 198;
one of the Twelve, 218;
his confession of Christ, 360;
his leadership among the apostles, 362;
rebukes Jesus and is corrected, 364, 368;
protests against Jesus washing his feet, 596;
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!