Jesus Christ (continued) – Jesus Christ (continued)

Jesus Christ (continued)

(1) Education of Jesus. — Earliest in time, and probably chief in importance, was the education in the home. The Jewish Law earnestly impressed upon parents, especially upon fathers, the duty of instructing their children in the knowledge of God, His mighty acts and His laws, and also of disciplining them in religion and morality. ‘We take most pains of all,’ says Josephus, ‘with the instruction of children, and esteem the observation of the laws, and the piety corresponding with them, the most important affairs of our whole life’ (c. Apion, i. 12). ‘We know the laws,’ he adds, ‘as well as our own name.’ It was the home in Nazareth that opened to Jesus the avenues of knowledge, and first put Him in possession of the treasures of the OT. It also seems certain that in His home there was a type of family life which made fatherhood stand to Him henceforward as the highest manifestation of a love beneficent, disinterested, and all-forgiving. It is probable that Jesus had other teachers. We hear in the course of the same century of a resolution to provide teachers in every province and in every town; and before the attempt was made to secure a universal system, it was natural that tuition should be given in connexion with the synagogue to boys likely to ‘profit above their equals.’ Of the officers connected with the synagogue, the ruler and the elders may sometimes have done their work as a labour of love, and there is evidence that it could be laid on the chazzan as an official duty. The stated services of the synagogue, in which the chief part was the expounding of the Scriptures by any person possessed of learning or a message, must have been an event of the deepest interest to the awakening mind of Jesus. From early childhood He accompanied His parents to Jerusalem to keep the Feast — the utmost stress being laid by the Rabbis upon this as a means for the instilment of piety. It has also been well pointed out that the land of Palestine was itself a wonderful educational instrument. It was a little country, in size less than the Scottish Highlands, of which a great part could be seen from a mountain-top, and every district visited in a few days’ journey; and its valleys and towns, and, above all, Jerusalem, were filled with memories which compelled the citizen to live in the story of the past, and to reflect at every stage and prospect on the mission of his people and the ways of God (Ramsay, The Education of Christ, 1902) . To these has to be added the discipline of work. Jesus learned the trade of a carpenter, and appears to have practised this trade in Nazareth until He reached the threshold of middle age (Mark 6:3). It is perhaps remarkable that none of His imagery is borrowed from His handicraft. One has the feeling that the work of the husbandman and the vinedresser had more attraction for Him, and that His self-sacrifice may have begun in the workshop. The deeper preparation is suggested in the one incident which is chronicled. The point of it is that even in His boyhood Jesus thought of God as His Father, and of His house as His true sphere of work (Luke 2:49). The holy of holies in the silent years was the life of communion with God in which He knew the Divine Fatherhood to be a fact, and became conscious of standing to Him in the intimate relationship of a Son.

(2) Knowledge of Jesus. — There is no reason to suppose that Jesus studied in the Rabbinical schools. Nor is there more ground for the belief, which has been made the __motive of certain ‘Lives of Christ’ (Venturini, NatuTliche Gesch. des grossen Propheten von Nazareth, 1800-2), that He had acquired esoteric wisdom among the Essenes. It has also become diflScult for those who take their impressions from the historical records to believe that, while in virtue of His human nature His knowledge was progressive and limited, in virtue of His Divine nature He was simultaneously omniscient. All we can say is that He possessed perfect knowledge within the sphere in which His vocation lay. The one book which He studied was the OT, and He used it continually in temptation, confiict, and suffering. He knew human nature in its littleness and greatness — the littleness that spoils the noblest characters, the greatness that survives the worst pollution and degradation. He read individual character with a swift and unerring glance. But what must chiefly have impressed the listeners were the intimacy and the certainty with which He spoke of God. In the world of nature He pointed out the tokens of His bounty and the suggestions of His care. The realm of human affairs was to Him instinct with principles which illustrated the relations of God and man. He spoke as One who saw into the very heart of God, and who knew at first hand His purpose with the world, and His love for sinful and sorrow-laden men.

7. Jesus and the Baptist.— The religious commonplaceness of the age, which has been described above, was at length broken by the appearance of John the Baptist, who recalled the ancient prophets. Hebrews 9 claimed the approach of the Day of the Lord, when the Messiah would take to Himself His power and reign. He rejected the idea that the Jews could claim special privileges on the ground of birth (Matthew 3:9), and proclaimed that the judgment, with which His work would begin, would be searching and pitiless. Along with other Galilaeans Jesus repaired to the scene of the ministry in the lower Jordan valley, and received baptism (Mark 1:9). not, indeed, as though He needed repentance, but as a symbol and means of consecration to the work which lay before Him. The Gospels are more deeply interested in the impression made by Jesus on John, modern writers in the influence exerted by John upon Jesus. According to all the Synoptics, John proclaimed the near advent of the Messiah; according to Mt., he may have implied that Jesus was the Messiah (3:14) while the Fourth Gospel states that he explicitly pointed Him out as the Messiah to his disciples (l^n- If we suppose that Jesus held intercourse for a time with the Baptist, it is easy to believe that the stainlessness and commanding greatness of His character at least evoked from the Baptist an avowal of his own inferiority. That he went so far as to declare Him the Messiah whom he preached is a statement which it is difficult to accept literally, or as meaning more than that the school of the Baptist pointed to its consummation in the school of Christ. On the other hand, contact with the Baptist’s ministry evidently precipitated the crisis in the life of Christ. The man who re-discovered the need and the power of a prophetic mission was an instrument in bringing Jesus face to face with His prophetic task; while his proclamation of the impending advent of the Messiah must have had the character for Jesus of a call to the work for which, as the unique Son, He knew Himself to be furnished. It is evident that the act of baptism was accompanied by something decisive. According to Mk., Jesus then had a vision of the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove, and heard a voice from heaven, ‘Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’ (1). This is more probable than the statement that it was a public revelation (Luke 3:21, 22). or that it was the Baptist to whom the vision was vouchsafed (John 1:32). We shall hardly err if we suppose that Jesus spoke to the disciples of His baptism as the time when His Messianic consciousness became clear, and He received an endowment of strength for the task to which He was called.

8 . The Temptation .—The view taken of the significance of the Baptism is confirmed by the narrative of the Temptation, which would naturally follow closely upon the acceptance of the Messianic vocation (Mark 1:12–13. Matthew 4:1–11, Luke 4). Like the scene at the Baptism, the temptations probably came to Jesus in the form of a vision, which He afterwards described to His disciples. It has generally been agreed that the temptations must be understood as growing out of the Messianic commission, but there is wide difference of opinion as to their precise significance. The view which seems most probable to the present writer may be briefly set forth, it being premised that Luke’s order seems to answer best to the logic of the situation. Assuming that in the Baptism Jesus accepted the Messianic call, the possibilities of the ensuing ordeal of temptation were three — that He should recoil from the task, that He should misconceive it, or that, rightly apprehending it. He should adopt wrong methods. The first temptation, accordingly, may very naturally . be supposed to have consisted in the suggestion that He should choose comfort rather than hardship — that He should turn back, while there was yet time, from the arduous and perilous path, and live out His days in the sheltered lite of Nazareth. This He rejected on the ground that there are higher goods than comfort and security; ‘man shall not live by bread alone’ (Matthew 4:4). The heroic course resolved on, the great question to be next faced was if He was to aim at establishing a kingdom of the political land which the people generally expected, or a Idngdom of a spiritual order. To found and maintain an earthly liingdom. He knew, meant the use of violence, craft, and other Satanic instruments; and of such means, even if the end had approved itself to Him as His vocation. He refused to make use (Mt 4:8 ff.). This decision taken, the question remained as to the way in which He was to win belief for Himself and His cause. For one with perfect trust in God it was a natural suggestion to challenge God to own Him by facing risks in which His life could be saved only through the interposition of a stupendous miracle (4:5 ff.). But this He put aside as impious, and cast upon the Father the care of making His path plain, while He awaited, prudently as well as bravely, the gradual disclosure of His call to work and danger.

9. Duration of the Ministry (cf. art. Chronology above and in DB). — The Synoptics give no certain indication of the length of the period. It is argued that the incident of plucking the ears of com (Mark 2:23) points to April or June of one year, and that at the feeding of the five thousand we are in the spring (‘green grass,’ Mark 6:39) of the year following; while at least another twelve months would be required for the journeys which are subsequently recorded. The chronological scheme usually adopted is based on the Fourth Gospel, which has the following notes of time: — a Passover (2:13). four months to harvest (4:35). a feast of the Jews (5:1), another Passover (6:4), the feast of Tabernacles (7:2), the feast of Dedication (10:22), the last Passover (11). The first four ‘can be combined in more than one way to fit into a single year — e.g. (o) Passover — May — any lesser feast^Passover; or (6) Passover — January — Purim (February) — Passover.’ ‘From 6:4 to 11 the space covered is exactly a year, the autumn Feast of Tabernacles (7:2), and the winter Feast of Dedication (lO^^), being signalized in the course of it’ (art. ‘Chronology’ in DB i. 409% 408").

It was a wide-spread opinion in Patristic times, supported by the phrase ‘the acceptable year of the Lord’ (Luke 4:19), that the ministry lasted only one year; and in the opinion of some modern scholars it can be maintained that even the Fourth Gospel includes its material between two Passovers (Westcott and Hort, Greek Test.; Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus). On the other hand, it was asserted by Irenjeus {adv. Hwr. ii. 22) on the ground of John 8:57, and of an alleged Johannine tradition, that from ten to twenty years elapsed between the Baptism and the Crucifixion. John 8:57 is quite inconclusive, and the best authority for the Johannine tradition must be the Gospel, the evidence of which may be summed up by saying that ‘while two years must, not more than two years can, be allowed for the interval from John 2 to John 11:55 (art.’ Chronology’ in DB).

10. Periods of the Life of Christ. — The divisions are necessarily affected by the view which is taken of the value of the chronological scheme of the Fourth Gospel.

Keim, who generally follows the guidance of the Synoptics, divides as follows: —

Preliminary period of self-recognition and decision.

1. The Galilsean spring-time, beginning in the spring of A .D. 34 [certainly much too late] , and lastingf or a few months . Characteristics: the optimism of Jesus, and the responsiveness of the people.

2. The Galilsean storms, extending over the summer and autumn of a.d. 34 and the spring of the following year. Scene: Galilee and the neighbounn^ regions. Characteristics: increasing opposition, and intensification of the polemical note in the teaching of Jesus.

3 . The Messianic progress to Jerusalem, and the Messianic death at the Passover of a.d. 35. Scene: Persea and Jerusalem (Jesus of Nazara).

The Johannine material can be combined with the Synoptic in two periods, each of which lasted about a year. The following is the scheme of Hase: — Preliminary history.

1. The ‘acceptable year of the Lord,’ marked by hopefulness, active labour, and much outward success. Scene: Judsea and Galilee. Time: from the Baptism to the Feeding of the Multitude (some months before Passover of the year A.D. 30 or 31 to shortly before Passover of the following year).

2. The year of conflict. Scene: Gahlee, Penea, Judsea. Time; from the second to the last Passover.

3. The Passion and Resurrection. Scene: Jerusalem. Time: Passover (Gesch. Jesu).

The months between the Baptism and the first Passover may be regarded as a period with distinct characteristics, and we may distinguisn (1) the year of obscurity, (2) the year of public favour, (3) the year of opposition (Stalker, Life of Jesus Christ, 1879).

The division into sub-periods has been most elaborately carried out by Dr. Sanoay (.Outlines of the Life of Jesus Christ) . —

A- Preliminary period — from the Baptism to the call of theleading Apostles. Sources: Matthew 3:1, Mark 1:1–13. Luke 3:1;, John 1:6. Scene: mainly in Judaea, but in part also in Galilee. Time: winter a.d. 26 toafew weeks before Passover, A.D. 27.

B. First active or constructive period. Sources: Matthew 4 13:53. Mk l"-6", Luke 4:14, John 5. Scene: mainly in Galilee, but also partly in Jerusalem. Time: from about Pentecost, A.D. 27, to shortly before Passover, a.d. 28.

C. Middle or culminating period of the active ministry. Sources: Matthew 14:1, Mark 6:14, Luke 9:7–50. John 6. Scene: Galilee. ‘Time: Passover to shortly before Tabernacles, A.D. 28.

D . Close of the active period— the Messianic cnsis in view. Sources: Matthew 19:1, Mark 10:1–52. Luke 9:51, John 7:1. Scene: Judaea and Peraea. Time: Tabernacles, a.d. 28, to Passover, a.d. 29.

E. The Messianic crisis — the last week, passion, resurrection, ascension. Sources: Matthew 21:1, Mk ll’-16» [16:9–20, Luke 19:29, John 12. Scene: mainly in Jerusalem. Time: six days before Passover to ten days before Pentecost, A.D. 29.

Weiss’s scheme agrees with the above so far as regards the duration of the ministry (from 2 to 3 years) , and the date of the Crucifixion (Passover, a.d. 29). His periods are: (1) the preparation, corresponding to Dr. Sanday’s "preliminary period’ down to the wedding in Cana of Gahlee; (2) the seed-time, including the remainder of ‘the preliminaryperiod,’ and the first active or constructive penod; (3) the period of first conflicts, and (4) the period of crisis, corresponding to the ‘middle or culmmatme period ; (5) the Jerusalem period, corresponding to the close of the active period; (6) the Passion and the subsequent events.

Useful as the above schemes of Weiss and Sanday are for arranging the subject-matter, and deserving as they are of respect for their scholarly grounding, the writer doubts if we can pretend to such exact knowledge of the course of events. Even if we assume that the Fourth Gospel gives a reliable chronological framework, it is a very precarious assumption that the Synoptic material, which is largely put together from a topical point of view, can be assigned its proper place in the scheme. Further, it is by no means clear that we are right in supposing that there was a Judsean ministry which ran parallel with the Galitean ministry. There is much to be said for the view that the narratives of the Fourth Gospel presuppose a situation towards the close of them inistry, and that in interweaving them with the Synoptic narratives of the Gahlaean period, we anticipate the actual march of the history. The view here taken is that there was a Galilean ministry, for which the Synoptics are almost the sole source; that this was followed for some months before the end by a Judsean ministry, the materials of which are supplied mainly by the Fourth Gospel; and that finally the sources unite to give a picture of the Last Week, the Passion, and the Resurrection.

(A) The Gax,il.;ean Ministry. — ^Jesus seems to have remained with the Baptist until the latter was put in prison (Mark 1:14). when He returned to Galilee. The change of scene, which in any case was natural in view of the blow that had been struck, served to mark the distinctness of His mission from that of John. He may also have been influenced by His knowledge of the greater receptiveness of the Northern stock. The centre of His activity was the populous district, studded with prosperous towns, which lay around the Sea of Galilee. From Capernaum, in which He lived for a time (Matthew 4:13, Mark 9:33), He had easy access to the other cities on the Lake, and He also appears to have made wider circuits throughout Gahlee, in the course of which He preached in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16 ff.). At the close of the period He penetrated to the regions beyond-r-being found on the ‘borders’ of Tyre and Sidon (Mark 7:24), then in the heathen district of Decapolis to the east of Jordan (v. 31), afterwards in the towns of Caesarea Philippi in the dominions of the tetrarch Phihp (8:27). Except for the incidental references above referred to, there is nothing to fix the duration of the Gahlaean ministry; but though crowded with labours and incidents, it seems to have been comparatively short. Its importance is measured by the fact that it set the Christian gospel in circulation in the world, and laid the foundation of the Christian Church.

(1) Treatment of the materials. — In dealing with this period, the characteristic task of the historian may almost be said to begin where that of the Evangelists ends. The modern student is not oidy interested in chronology and in the details of the environment, but he tries to bring the course of events under the point of view of development, and to penetrate to the causes which explain the movement and the issue of the history. The Gospels, on the other hand, contribute a picture rather than a history — a picture, moreover, in which the setting is presupposed rather than described, while they leave us in ignorance of much that we should like to know about hidden forces and springs of action. It seems advisable to begin by reproducing in its salient aspects the Synoptic picture of the Gahlaean ministry, based primarily on Mk., and thereafter to advert to some contributions which have been made to the better elucidation of the course of events.

(2) The picture of the Gatilcean Ministry. — The principal source is the sketch in Mk., which sets forth the Ministry from the point of view of one who regarded it as the manifestation of the Messiah. The chronological order of events is necessarily mirrored to some extent, as the narrative describes a mission and its outcome; but the arrangement as well as the selection of the material is largely governed by topical considerations. The topics of Mk. may be summarized as follows: — (a) the preliminary attestation of Jesus as the Messiah; (6) the Messianic activities; (c) the opposition to Jesus, and His self- vindication; (d) the attitude of Jesus Himself to the question of Ilis Messiahship; (c) the results of the Gahlaean Ministry.

The above argument is taken over by Mt., with some change in the order of the sections, while he supplements from the older Apostolic source the meagre account given by Mk. of the contents of the teaching of Jesus. Lk. follows Mk. more closely in the sections deahng with the Gahlaean ministry, but incidentally shows the uncertainty of the chronological scheme by transferring to the beginning the visit to Nazareth (l"-"; cf. Mark 6:1–6, Matthew 13:53–58). on the apparent ground that it could be regarded as in some respects a typical incident.

(a) The preliminary attestation. — The Synoptic tradition puts in the forefront certain credentials of Jesus. John the Baptist predicted His coming (Mark 1:7–8), a voice from heaven proclaimed Him to be the Son (v. 11), the demons knew Him (vv. 23, 24; cf . 6:7) ; while the chosen few, though as yet not knowing Him for what He is, instinctively obeyed His call (1:18), and the multitude recognized in Him an extraordinary man (l^^). Apart from the references to the Baptist and the vision at the Baptism, the facts which underlay this apologetic argument were that demoniacs were peculiarly susceptible to His influence, and that upon the uncorrupted and unprejudiced heart Jesus made the impression of a commanding authority which was entitled to be obeyed.

(6) The Messianic activities. — Upon the credentials follows a description of the labours by which Jesus proceeded to carry out His plan, and which revealed Him as the Messiah. The means employed were three — to teach the nature, the blessings, and the laws of the Kingdom, to exemplify its power and its spirit in mighty works, and to call and train men who should exemplify the new righteousness, and also share and continue His labours.

(i) The ministry of teaching (cf. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, Eng. tr. 1892). — The work which lay nearest to the hand of Jesus, as the Messiah, was to preach. He needed to preach repentance, as the condition of the reception of the Kingdom; He needed to gain entrance for a true conception of its nature; and He had to legislate for the society which was to own Him as its King. It is accordingly as the Messiah prophet that He is introduced: ‘Jesus came into Gahlee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time Ig fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel’ (Mk !"• Following upon a similar notice (4:23), Mt. interpolates the Sermon on the Mount, in which the principles of the gospel of the Kingdom are set forth, on the one hand as a revision of the OT moral code, on the other as an antithesis to the maxims and the practice of contemporary Judaism. The meagre specimens of our Lord’s teaching which Mk. thought it sufficient for his purpose to give, are further supplemented by Mt. in his collection of the parables of the Kingdom, and by Lk. in the peculiar section which includes the parables of the Lost Coin, the Lost Sheep, and the Lost Son.

The synagogues were open, at least in the first period, to Jesus. He also taught wherever opportunity offered — in the house, on the mountain-side, from a boat moored by the shore of the Lake. To a large extent His teaching was unsystematic, being drawn forth by

l-H

H

in

t

Ph H CO

o

o H I

(- o -ij

I joinder made to a question or an objection. On other occasions, e.g. when preacUngin the synagogue, we must suppose Him to have treated of some large subject in a set discourse, but it is unlikely that any one contained more than an exposition of an OT passage (Luke 4:16 ff.). or the message of one of the parables (Mt 13:1 ff.). The grand characteristic of His manner of teaching has been described as the combination of the utmost degree of popular intelligibility with memorable pregnancy of expression (Wendt, § 2). (a) The means by which intelligibilitv was attained was the copious use of the concrete example, and of the comparison of ideas. The comparison is used in three forms — the simile, the metaphor, and the parable. The parables, again, obviously fall into three classes. In one class we have a story which illustrates by a concrete example an attitude which Jesus desired to commend or to condemn (the Good Samaritan, Luke 10 ; the Pharisee and the Publican, IS’"*). Those of a second class draw attention to a law operating in the natural world which has its counterpart in the Kingdom of God (the Seed Growing Secretly, Mark 4:26–29; the Mustard Seed, 4). In a third class there is a description of an event which has occurred in special circumstances, whether in nature or in the dealings of man with man, and the particular event is employed to illustrate some aspect of the Divine message (the Sower, Matthew 13:1 ff.; the Prodigal Son, Luke 15:11 ff.). (6) The second note of the teaching of Jesus, which might perhaps be called indsiveness, is illustrated in the numerous short sayings, or aphorisms, into which He condenses a body of doctrine or precept (Mark 4:22, 24 10:31). It is also seen in the naked, often paradoxical, fashion, in which He states a principle. The doctrine of non-resistance, e.g., He teaches in uncompromising form by means of the special instance (Matthew 5:38–41). and leaves it to the disciple to discover the other considerations which cross and limit its application. The latter observation is of importance as a preservative against the errors of an excessive literalism in the interpretation of the teaching of Jesus. It is also desirable to bear in mind the rule, which is one of the gains of modern exegesis, that each of the parables of Jesus is to be regarded as the vehicle of one great lesson, and that it is illegitimate to treat it as an allegory every detail of which has been consciously filled with didactic meaning. As regards the aim of Jesus in His teaching, it might be thought self-evident that it could be nothing else than to make His message clear to His hearers. It is therefore surprising to read that the parables are spoken by Jesus with the purpose of obscuring to them that are without the truths which they reveal to the disciples — ‘that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand’ (Mark 4:10–12, Mt 13’° i5, Luke 8). That the teaching of Jesus was largely misapprehended is, of course, true, and also that it had the effect of making those worse who rejected it, but this would appear to be an instance in which the Church has misreported a tragic consequence as an original and deliberate intention.

(ii) The mighty works (cf. Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels, 1886). — The teaching ministry was accompanied from the first by acts of healing, and these were followed later by other acts involving superhuman power. The Synoptic account of the mighty works may be briefly summarized. — (1) They were very numerous, and were of different kinds. In addition to the miracles which are described in detail, there are references of a general sort which imply that Jesus’ work was cast to a large extent in the form of a healing ministry (Mark 1:33, 34). Some of the miracles might be understood as faith-cures wrought upon persons suffering from nervous disorders or mental derangement, but those are inextricably bound up with others which are not explained imply a supernatural control of the forces of external nature. The healing miracles may be divided as follows: — (a) cure of organic defects (the blind, Mark 10:46–52; the deaf and dumb, 7) (6) disease (leprosy, Mark 1:40–45. Luke 17:11–16; fever, Mark 1:29–31; dropsy, Luke 14; paralysis, Mark 2:1–12. Matthew 8:5–13) (c) death (Mark 5:22 ff.: Luke 8:41). As a special group, conceived as miracles in the spirit world, are the cures of epilepsy and lunacy (Mark 1:21–28 S’-™ y^-‘" 9:14 ff.). The Naturemiracles have been classified as miracles of creative power (feeding of the multitude, Mark 6:35–44 S^-">; walking on the water, 6) Miracles of Providence, including (i.) miracles of blessing (the miraculous draught of fishes, Luke 5:1–11; the stilling of the tempest, Mark 4:35–41) and (11.) a miracle of judgment (the cursing of the fig-tree, Mark 11:12–14, 20; cf. Westcott, Introd. to the Gospels’, 1896, App. E). — (2) The working of miracles was conditioned in various ways. The general condition on the side of the patients was the presence of faith (the woman with the issue, Mk 5:25–34; Bartimaeus, Mark 10:46–52). In the absence of faith Jesus could do nothing or little (Mark 6. Matthew 13:58). It was not, however, necessary that this faith should be personal: in some cases it was the vicarious faith of a parent or of a friend that had power and prevailed(the centurion’s servant, Matthew 8:5–13: the daughter of the Syrophcenician woman, Mark 7:24–30). In some instances the miracle is represented as having its spring in sympathy, apart from any reference to the spiritual condition of the sufferer (the fever, Mark 1:29–34; dropsy, Luke 14) ; while in cases of possession it could take place in the face of reluctance and antagonism (the unclean spirit. Mark 1:21 ff.: the man in the tombs, 5:1–17). As regards the powers of Jesus, the impression is not given that He was in possession of an omnipotence which He was able to wield at will. For what He is able to accomplish He is dependent on the Father, who supplies Him with power in the measure in which it is needed for the discharge of His mission. In the background of the miracles was the life of communion with God which Jesus lived. ‘This kind,’ He significantly says, ‘can come out by nothing, save by prayer’ (Mark 9:29). It would also appear that the cures made a demand upon His energies which gave rise to a feeling of physical exhaustion (Mark 5:30).) — (3) The significance of the miracles. The leading point of view in which they are regarded in the Gospels Is undeniably the evidential. In the fundamental narrative the argument advances from the testimonies as the first link, to the mighty works as the second link, in the chain of Messianic proof. It would be impossible to state the evidential aspect more strongly than is done in the reply to the question of John the Baptist (Matthew 11:2 ff.).

(ill) The calling and teaching of disciples (cf. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 1877). — The effect of the Ministry was that Jesus, like the prophets of old, John the Baptist, and the Rabbis, gathered around Him a group of disciples. The great body of those who regarded Him as a Divinely sent teacher must have remained in their hornes, and been content to hear Him when they had a convenient opportunity; and there is no reason to think that they were organized in any way into societies, except in so far as a natural instinct would prompt them to meet and speak one to another of the things which they had seen and heard. There was a second body of disciples, sometimes large but fluctuating in size, which accompanied Jesus on His journeys. Some He invited to join this company, others He sternly invited to count the cost (Matthew 8:19 ff.). Within this company He formed an inner circle of twelve, who left all for His sake, and with a few breaks were found constantly at His side. The call of Simon and Andrew, James and John (Mark 1:16 ff.). is related to have occurred in the first days of the Galilsean ministry. An early Christian tradition (Ep. Barn. 5)

2 F speaks of the Apostles as reclaimed sinners of the worst type, but this is manifestly an exaggeration designed to illustrate the regenerative power of the gospel. The leading members of the band were fishermen — of a craft which is pursued under a sense of dependence on Providence, and therefore tends to foster the spirit of piety. The sons of Zebedee seem to have been in better circumstances than the rest, and Matthew the tax-gatherer doubtless wielded a competent pen; but they were ignorant men as tested by the standard of the schools, whether ancient or modern. Humility, sincerity, and prudence, coupled with trust in God and devotion to Himself, were the quaUflcations which chiefly guided Jesus in selecting them (Matthew 10:5 ff. 16:17). In calling the Apostles, Jesus was satisfying a need of His own inner life. It was a maxim of the Rabbis that it was a sin to have no friend with whom to discourse of the Divine Law, and for Jesus this opportunity was provided by their intimate converse. It is also evident that He was wont to feel strengthened by their sympathy (Mark 14:37). On the other hand, He needed them for the work of the Kingdom. It was necessary that in them the righteousness of the Kingdom should be personally manifested, so that men might see their good works and glorify the Father (Matthew 5:16). For this reason we find that it becomes increasingly the peculiar care of Jesus to perfect their training in knowledge and in character. He also looked to them as instruments to aid Him in His work.

‘To the disciples werelef t the details of the daily provision of food; they furnished the boat, they rowed Him across the lake; sometimes one and sometimes another of them executed His commissions; they were His channels of communicationwiththepeople, with thesick, withthePharisees’ (Keim, iii, p. 280).

They were to Jesus ‘arms and eyes,’ and evenina sense ‘an extended personality.’ He assigned to them powers and duties similar to His own. He appointed ‘twelve that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach and to have authority to cast out devils’ (Mark 3:14 f.). ‘And they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them’ (B’^- ").

(c) The opposition and self-vindication. — Two sections in Mk., with parallels in Mt. and Lk., are devoted to explaining why certain classes refused to believe in Jesus, and to showing how He repKed to their objections. The charges may be reduced to three heads — blasphemy, irreligious conduct, and insanity.

(i) The charge of blasphemy was early brought against Jesus by certain of the scribes, on the ground that He professed to forgive sins (Mark 2:7). The reply of Jesus is that in healing the paralytic He gives evidence that He has received this authority from God. The same general charge is implied in the request of the Pharisees, ‘seeking of Him a sign from heaven, tempting him’ (8:11) — the ground taken being that it was impious to teach as He did, unless He could produce satisfying evidence of a Divine sanction. Had the Evangelist edited his material with inventive hcence, we should have expected to this question the same reply as was sent to John the Baptist. Instead, we have the startlingly authentic word, ‘Why doth this generation seek a sign? There shall no sign be given’ (v. 12). It is incredible that this should mean that Jesus disc’ aimed to work miracles; but it certainly imphes that He did not, and probably that He could not, when He was challenged to perform them out of connexion with moral conditions, and as a mere contribution to a controversy.

(ii) Irreligious conduct. — There are charges of sins of omission and of sins of commission. Among the sins of omission charged against Jesus is His neglect of fasting — a recognized exercise of the holy life. which had been enforced by John the Baptist (Mark 2:18). The reply is that there is a time to fast, and that the time will come for His disciples when their Master is taken away (vv. 19, 20, To the same category belongs the accusation which was preferred by the Pharisees and certain of the scribes, that some of His disciples neglected the laws of ceremonial purity and ate with unwashed hands {7^-). Jesus replies that defilement consists in the impure heart, which is the source of all evil (v. 20). Of the sins of commission the chief transgression’charged was that He and His disciples did not keep the Sabbath (2:23–28). and He defended Himself by appealing to OT precedent, and by laying down the principle that the Sabbath law could not be broken by doing good to man on that day. It was also a common ground of accusation that His manner of life, especially His consorting with disreputable persons, stamped Him as wanting in the character of sanctity (2:16). He repUed that He visited them as a physician (v. 17).

(iii) The charge of insanity was also made. The Evangelist does not shrink from recording that some of His friends thought that He was beside Himself (Mark 3:21). Scribes from Jerusalem repeated this in the form that He was the tool of diabolical influences (v. 22). ‘How can Satan,’ He asked, ‘cast out Satan?’ (v. 23).