Jesus Christ (continued) – Jesus Christ (continued)

Jesus Christ (continued)

14. The inner life of Jesus during the period. — The soul of Jesus was agitated by a succession of deep and conflicting emotions. Amid the hosannas of the triumphal entry He wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41). In pain and wrath He contended with His enemies, and in the intervals of conflict He spoke of a peace which the world could not take away, and uttered words of thanksgiving and joy. Hebrews 8 by tokens of faith and devotion from His followers (John 12:3). and He was also wounded in the house of His friends, when one of the Twelve became the tool of His enemies, and even Peter’s faith failed. More and more exclusively He felt Himself thrown for sympathy on the unseen presence of the Father (le’^). ‘Every night he went out, and lodged in the mount that is called the mount of Olives’ (Luke 21). He probably spent the night in the open air and gave hours of vigil to the duty, which He now so earnestly enforced, of watching and praying. It was to look around and before, and to look upward to the Father, that He left the supper-room and ‘went unto a place called Gethsemane’ (Mark 14:32–42). It may well be that there were many thoughts that burdened His mind in the Agony, but the plain sense of the narrative is that He prayed that He might be enabled, in some other way than through shame and death, to accomplish the work which had been given Him. Being truly man. He could shrink from the impending ordeal of humiliation and suffering, and ask to be spared; being the perfect Son, He added, ‘howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt’ (v. 36). ‘To such a prayer the only possible answer waa that He received from the Father the assurance that according to His holy and loving counsel there was no other possible way’ (Weiss, ii. 500). Then Hebrews 9 and went forward to meet the armed band which Judas had guided through the darkness to His retreat. 15. The Passion. — The order of events.—

The arrest, in Gethsemane on the Thursday, some time before midnight (Mark 14 Matthew 26. Luke 22:47–53. John 18:1).

Removal to the palace of the high pries t, private examination by Annas (John 18:13 ff.)

Trial in the eariy morning before the Sanhedrin. meeting in the high priest’s palace, and presided over by Caiaphas, condenmation and buffeting (Mark 14:53–65. Matthew 26:57 Lk 22M-"), Peter’s denial (Mark 14:66–72))).

Trial before Pilate at daybreak, probably in the Fort of Antonia (Mark 12:2, Matthew 27. Luke 23, John 18:33–38).

Jesus before Herod (Luke 23).

The Roman trial resumed, the sentence, the mocking, and the scourging (Mark 15:6–20. Matthew 27:15–30, Luke 23:13–25. John 18 19).

The journey to the Cross (Mark 15:20–23, Matthew 27, Luke 23, 9:16, 17)

The Crucifixion, beginning at 9 a.m. (Mark 15:25). or after noon-day (John 19) death and burial (Mark 15:34–47. Matthew 27:46 ", 23. 9:2).

The primary source is the narrative in Mk., which, however, becomes meagre and somewhat external in its report of the events subsequent to Peter’s fall. The author of the Fourth Gospel claims to have had opportunities for a more intimate view of things (John 18:15). and as a fact gives illuminating information about the more secret proceedings of the authorities. Lk. adds some incidents, notably the appearance before Herod.

(1) The trials. — In the Jewish trial there are usually distinguished two stages — a private examination before Annas (John 18:13 ff.). and the prosecution before the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Caiaphas (Mark 14:53). There is, moreover, reason to suppose that the second of these was a meeting of a committee of the Sanhedrin held during the night, or of the Sanhedrin meeting as a committee, and that it was followed by a regular session of the Council at daybreak, at which the provisional finding was formally ratified (Mark 15).

(i) The examination before Annas. — Annas, who had been deposed from the high priesthood twenty years before, continued to be the de facto leader of the Council, and it was natural for him to wish to see Jesus, with a view to putting matters in train. In reply to his question about His disciples and His teaching, Jesus asked him to call his witnesses — the point being that according to Jewish law a man was held to be innocent, and even unaccused, until hostile witnesses had stated their case.

(ii) The trial before the Sanhedrin. — At the subsequent meeting of the Council the ordinary procedure was followed, and the indictment was made by witnesses. The charge which they brought forward was a constructive charge of blasphemy, founded on the statement that He had attacked sacred institutions in threatening to destroy the Temple (Mark 14:58). The evidence not being consistent (v. 59). the high priest appealed directly to Jesus to say if He claimed to be the Christ (v. 61). Though this question was contrary to law, which forbade any one to be condemned to death on his own confession, Jesua answered ‘I am.’ The supernatural claim was forthwith declared, with signs of horror and indignation, to amount to blasphemy, and He was ‘condemned to be worthy of death’ (v. 64). That a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin was thereafter held to ratify the judgment is implied in Mark 15:1. and was probably necessary to regularize the proceedings, as capital trials might be begun only in the daytime. (On this and cognate points, see Taylor Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ, 1905.)

(iii) The Roman trial. — It is not quite certain whether the Sanhedrin had the right of trying a person on a capital charge; in any case, a death-sentence required to be endorsed by the Roman governor. The Jews obviously took the position that in a case of the kind it was the duty of the governor to give effect to their judgment without going into its merits; but Pilate insisted on his right to make a full review of the charge and its grounds. In this situation, against which they protested, they felt the difficulty of securing sentence on the religious charge of blasphemy, and accordingly fell back on the political charge of treason. ‘They began to accuse him, saying. We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Csesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king’ (Luke 23:2). In reply to Pilate’s question, Jesus claimed to be a king, but doubtless disarmed the governor’s suspicion by some such addition as that He was a king in the realm of the truth (John 18:36). Then follow three devices of Pilate to evade responsibility — the remand to the tribunal of the vassal-prince of Galilee, Herod Antipas (Luke 23:8 ff.) ; the proposal to scourge Him and release Him (v. 16) and the reference to the multitude (Mark 15:6 ff.). Foiled in each attempt, he still hesitated, when the accusers put the matter in a light which overwhelmed his scruples. They threatened to complain that he had not supported them in stamping out treason (John 19:12). Tiberius was known to be peculiarly sensitive on the point of laesa majestas, while Pilate’s hands were not so clean that he could welcome any investigation; and he therefore pronounced Him guilty of sedition as the pretended king of the Jews, and delivered Him to be crucified (v. 16). He was then scourged, dressed with mock emblems of royalty, treated with derision and insult, and led forth to the place of execution (Mark 15).

The action of the judges. — There has been considerable discussion of the action of the judges of Jesus from the point of view of Jewish and Roman law. That the procedureand verdict of the Jewish authorities were according to the law which they were set to administer has been ably argued by Salvador (Hist, des Iristitutions de Mo’is^. 1862), but it seems to have been shown that in the proceedings the mostaacredprinciplesof Jewish jurisprudencewere violated, and that ‘the process had neither the form nor the fairness of a judicial trial’ CTaylor Innes, op. cit.). It has also been argued that, in view of the requirements of the Roman law, and of the duties of his position. Pilate was right in passing sentence of death (Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). On this it must be said that as Pilate did not believe Jesus to be guilty of the crime imputed to Him, he must be held to have transgressed the spirit of Roman justice. On the other hand, it is true that ‘the claim of Jesus was truly inconsistent with the claim of the State which (IlaEaar represented.’ and that in sentencing Jesus to death Pilate faithfully, if unconsciously, interpreted the antagonism of the Roman Empire and the.Christian religion (Taylor Innes, op. dt. p. 122).

(2) The disciples in the crisis. — The disciples made no heroic figure in the catastrophe. They took to fiight at the arrest (Mark 14:50). and Peter, who followed afar off, denied his Master with curses (v. 66 ff.). It is also significant that no attempt was made to capture the Apostles; apart from Jesus it was evidently thought that they were quite negligible. In fairness it should, however, be remembered that the two opportunities which they might have had of showing their courage were denied them — ^they were forbidden by Jesus to resist when He was arrested (Matthew 26:52). and no witnesses were allowed to come forward in His defence at the trial. The beloved disciple, along with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and two other women, was present at the crucifixion (John 19:25).

(3) The bearing of Jems. — The words of Jesus during the last day were few. For the most part He listened to the accusations, and bore the indignities, in silence. The oldest report, while making Him testify that He suffered and died as the Messiah, represents Him as deliberately refusing to answer the false witnesses, or to plead before Klate. The other accounts relate that He condescended, as is probable enough, to point out the iniquity of the procedure (Matthew 26:55, John 18:21), and to explain to Pilate the true nature of His claim (John 18). The decision in Gethsemane gave Him the insight and the resolution that bore Him unshaken through the ordeal of the trials. He expressed the assurance that, had He asked, the Father would have delivered Him by His angels (Matthew 26:53) but He knew the Father’s will, to which He had bowed, to be that, according to the Scriptures (v. 54). He should be led as a lamb to the slaughter. What He felt towards His enemies can only be gathered from His silence — which may have had in it an element of holy scorn, but certainly also involved compassion tor the blinded men who were now fixedly committed to their murderous purpose. Whether actually heard by witnesses or not, the first word on the cross (Luke 23:34) assuredly expresses an authentic thought of Him who had taught, ‘Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you’ (Matthew 5:44). Only less striking is the self-forgetting sympathy that came to expression in the journey of Jesus to the cross, when the women bewailed and lamented Him: ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children’ (Luke 23:28).

(4) The CTudflxion. — The scene of the execution was Golgotha (Mark 15:22). possibly so named from the skulllike contour of the eminence. Crucifixion was a form of death by torture which was reserved by the Romans for slaves and rebels, and that combined the height of Ignominy with the extremity of suffering. ‘Terrible were the sufferings caused by the piercing of the hands and the feet in the most sensitive parts, the extension of the limbs with their burning wounds, the impeding of the circulation of the blood, the growing oppression and exhaustion, the increasing thirst under the long-drawn mortal agonies’ (Weiss, ii. 536). The indignity of such a death was heightened by the spectacle of the soldiers casting lots for His garments (Mark 15:24). and by the taunts of His fellow-sufferers, of the multitude, and of the priests (vv. 29–32) The narcotic draught which was usually offered to the victim, was refused by Jesus (v. 23). For six hours, according to w.^s- ", His torments endured; and late in the afternoon, with a loud cry, He expired (v. 37). The accompanying signs, according to Mk., were a darkness lasting for three hours (v. 33). and the rending of the veil of the Temple (v. 38), to which Mt. adds the portent — ‘many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised* (27). Both, along with Lk. (23), record a confession of faith by the Roman centurion. Jn. relates, with a solemn aflBrmation of the authority of an eye-witness, that a soldier ‘pierced his side with a spear, and straightway there came out blood and water’ (19).

The Seven Words on the cross are commonly supposed to have been spoken in the following order: —

(1) ■ Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’ (Lk 23’**) — assigned to the time when He was being nailed to the cross.

(2) ‘To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise* (v. 43) — spoken to the penitent robber.

(3) ‘Woman, behold thy son’; ‘Behold thy mother* (John 19:26 ") — spoken to Mary, and to the beloved disciple.

(4) ‘I thirat’ (v. 28).

(5) ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34. Matthew 27:46).

(6) ‘It is finished’ (John 19).,

(7) ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit* (Lk 23).

The ‘words’ are not all equally certain. On textual grounds (1) is placed by WH in double brackets, and is regarded by Weiss as unquestionably a second-century gloss. The incident of the penitent robber was unknown to the oldest tradition. Evidently there was also uncertainty as to the last utterance of Jesus. That reported by Mk.-Mt. is certainly authentic; none could have invented a saying which ascribed to Jesus a sense of desertion by the Father in the hour of death. On the other hand, the character of Jesus requires us to believe that upon the agony there supervened the filial trust and resignation which find expression in the Lukan and Johannine words.

(5) The burial. — There were friends of Jesus who, though powerless to resist the general will, were at least able to secure the seemly burial of the body. With Pilate’s permission, Joseph of Arimathaea, with whom Nicodemus is associated (John 19:39). had the corpse removed from the cross, wrapped in a linen cloth, and laid in a rock-hewn tomb — the entrance to which was closed by a great stone (Mark 15:43 ff.))). Mt. adds that, at the request of the Jewish authorities, the stone was sealed, and a guard set over the tomb (27).

16. The Resurrection. — Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples of Jesus believed that, after being crucified, dead and buried. Hebrews 6 from the dead on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter He met and conversed with them in different places. The proof that they believed this is the existence of the Christian Church. It is simply inconceivable that the scattered and disheartened remnant could have found a rallying-point and a gospel in the memory of one who had been put to death as a criminal, if they had not believed that God had owned Him and accredited His mission in raising Him up from the dead. There are many difiiculties connected with the subject, and the narratives, which are disappointingly meagre, also contain irreconcilable discrepancies; but those who approach it under the impression of the uniqueness of Christ’s Person and of His claim on God, find the historical testimony sufficient to guarantee the credibility of the central fact.

(1) The rising on the third day. — There is a consensus of testimony in the Gospels to the following facts — that on the morning of the first day of the week certain women went to the sepulchre, that they found the stone rolled away and the grave empty, that they were informed by an angel that Jesus was risen, and that they were bidden to convey the news to the other disciples. Whether the discovery was first made by Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1). or in company with other women (Mark 16:1) ; whether there was one angel (Matthew 28:2). or two (John 20:12) whether fear or joy preponderated (Mark 16:8. Matthew 28:8), were points on which the report varied. A more serious discrepancy is that, according to the oldest source, the message to the disciples was that they would meet the risen Lord in Galilee (Mark 16:7, Matthew 28:7) ; while as a fact all the Gospels, except the mutilated Mk., proceed to narrate appearances in Jerusalem, and Lk. knows of no other. It cannot, however, be said that the inconsistency is insuperable, as Mt. has consciously combined the GaUlsan promise with a reference to a preliminary appearance in Jerusalem (Matthew 28:8–10).

(2) The places and number of the appearances. — Subject to the possibility of confusion arising from the slightness of the allusions, the Biblical list is as follows: —

( 1) To certain women as they returned from the sepulchre (Matthew 28:8–10).

(2) To Mary Magdalene on the same day (John 20:11–18).

(3) To Peter, on the day of the Resurrection, in Jerusalem (Lk24«, I Co lSs).

(4) To two disciples on the same day on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35) of. Mark 16:12, 13).

(5) To the ten Apostles on the same day in Jerusalem (Mark 16:14–18. Luke 24 John 20:19–23. 1 Corinthians 15:5).

(6) To the eleven Apostles a week later in Jerusalem (John 20).

(7) To several disciolea, including at least four Apostles, at the Sea of Galilee (John 21).

(8) To five hundred brethren (1 Corinthians 16:6) cf. perhaps Matthew 28 "-20).

(9) To James (1 Corinthians 15:7).

(10) To the Apostles at Jerusalem before the Ascension (Luke 24:50–52. Ac !’■ ‘; cf. Mark 16:19), St. Paul adds the appearance to himself on the way to Damascus (1 Corinthians 15:8 9:1). . (Milligan, Resurrection of our Lord, 259-261).

The accounts present many difficulties. Why does Mt. relate the appearance in Jerusalem to the women only, and ignore the all-important manifestations to the Twelve? If, according to the message of the angel, the scene of the intercourse of the risen Lord with His disciples was to be in Galilee, why does Lk. record only appearances in Jerusalem and in the neighbourhood? Further, as the disciples are in Jerusalem eight days after the Resurrection, and again at the Ascension, it seems difiBcult to interpolate a return to Galilee in which the Apostles resumed their former avocations (John 21). It has been supposed by some that after the Crucifixion the disciples returned to Galilee, that it was among the haunts which were instinct with memories of Him that Jesus returned to them in vision, and that this older recollection, though not altogether eradicated, has been blurred in the Gospels by later manipulation. But the most certain of all the facts is that belief in the Resurrection began on the third day — which points to Jerusalem; while the difficulty about fitting the Galilsean appearances into the chronological scheme is reduced by consideration of the rapidity with which the little country could be traversed.

(3) The mode of existence of the risen Christ. — There are two sets of notices which are not easily combined in an intelligible conception. On the one hand, there are several statements which create the impression that Jesus resumed the same mode of bodily existence which was interrupted at His death upon the cross. The story of the empty tomb (Mark 16:1–8))) meant that the body which had hung upon the cross was revivified. That it was a body of flesh and blood, capable of being handled, and sustained by food and drink — not an apparition of a spiritualistic kind, — is a point which is specially emphasized in details of the narratives (John 20:27, Luke 24). On the other hand, it is far from being a normal life in the body. His face and form have a strange aspect. Hebrews 99 suddenly in the midst, the doors being shut (John 20:26), and as suddenly vanishes out of their sight (Luke 24). To this series belong the references of St. Paul, who places the appearance to himself on a level with the others, and speaks of Christ as possessing a body which is not of flesh and blood, but has been transfigured and glorified (1 Corinthians 15:50. Philippians 3:21). The explanation of the phenomena, according to Schleiermacher, is that in the one set of statements we have the matter described from the side of the risen Christ, in the other an account of the impression which He made on the disciples (.Leben Jesu). Others conceive that while after the Resurrection He existed as a spiritual being. He yet assumed material substance and form at special moments for special purposes (Rothe, Theologische Ethik). The primitive theory probably was that after the Resurrection His mode of existence was the same as during the ministry, with an augmentation of the power over His body which He even then possessed (Mark 6), and that only at the Ascension was the body transformed. Some modern theologians hold that the body was raised from the grave as a spiritual body, others that it was gradually spiritualized in the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension. The phenomena belong to a sphere about which we cannot dogmatize.

(4) Denial of the Resurrection. — The negative case has two branches: (1) a critical examination of the historical evidence; (2) a hypothesis which shall explain how the Church came to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. On the first head it has already been suggested that it is unfair to magnify the discrepancies and ignore the important consensus.

The explanations began with (1) ike theory of imposture. The disciples, it was said^ were unwilling to return to work, and in order that they might still have a measage^hey stole the body, and pretended that Christ had risen (Reimarus, Von dern Zwecke Jesu u. seiner JUnger, 1892). No one now believes that any great reli^on, least of all Christianity, was founded on fraud . The disciples might indeed have been themselves deceived by finding the tomb empty. Joseph of Arimathsea might have removed the body to another

f rave without the knowledge of the diaciples(0, Holtzmann, leben Jesu, 1901). But it is difficult to believe that a misapprehension so easily corrected could have been allowed to develop into the universal belief that He had been seen alive.

(2) In the school of Eighteenth Century RationaUam the favourite explanation was that Jesus did not really die on , the cross, but revived in the cool of the sepulchre, and again ‘appeared among His disciples (most recently Hase, Oesch. Jesu^, 727 ff.). It is true that to escape with His life after being nailed to the cross might have been described as a resurrection from the dead; but it is incredible that the Roman soldiers should have failed to carry outthe execution of a condemned man, and equally incredible that a lacerated and emaciated man, who soon afterwards died of His wounds, should have made the impression of having come off as more than a conqueror.

(3) The usual explanation now given from the naturalistic standpointisthattheappearanceswerepureZywsionaT^. Visions are common phenomena of the rehgious life in times of excitement; they are, moreover, often contagious, and it is supposed that they began with the women, probably with Mary Magdalene (Renan, Life of Jesus, Eng. tr. p 296) , and were repeated for a time in the Apostolic circle. Themostweightyobjectionsto thishypothesis are^that while in other cases tne visions have followed faith, in the case before us they created it out of sorrow and despair, and also that while other visions have led to nothing considerable, these brought the Church into existence and immeasurably enriched the higher life of the world.

(4) The hypothesis of Keim is to the effect that the appearances were real in so far that Jesus, whose spirit had returned to God, produced upon the minds of believers impressions which they interpreted as bodily manifestations.

Christian faith oversteps these boundaries (of the natural order) , not merely in the certain assurance that Jeaus took His couise to the higher world of spirits, but also in the conviction that it was He and no other who, as dead yet risen again, as celestially glorified even if not risen, vouchsafed visions to His disciples. It thus completes and illumines what to science remained an obscure point and a vexatious limitation of its knowledge* (Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. vi. p. 360). This theory deserves to be treated with more respect than it has commonly received from apologists. It at least rejects the idea that the visions were hallucinations; and we are not so well-informed as to the nature of existence as to be able to deny reality to what is given in experiences which are due to the power, and which are according to the purpose, of God. The moat serious difficulty for those who follow the records is that it supposes that the grave was not left empty, and that the bod^ underwent corruption.

(5) Another theory, which has recently had some currency (M.aTtineau,SeatofAuthorityinReligiml,]^p.Z63-7).fmd8the basis of the belief in a physical resurrection in a misconceptionof the meaning of^ mystical utterances of the disciples about union arid communion with Christ. It is, however, clear that St. Paul distinguished very clearly between the experience that to him ‘to live was Christ,’ or that ‘Christ lived in him.’ and the appearance which he had witnessed on the way to Damascus. ‘They said they had seen Jesus after His death, and their hearers understood them to mean they had seen Him in the body.’ If they were not put right by the Apostles, it is f airlysaid that this somewhat compromised their character for candour (Bruce, Apologetics\ 396 f .).

The impression conveyed by a review of the various theories is that the phenomena which generated the faith of the Church have not been explained on naturaUstic principles. They are intelligible only as an intermingling of two universes of being ordinarily kept distinct. They have something in common with the phenomena of Spiritualism, and as a fact the SpirituaUst claims to understand elements in the story which Christians have humbly accepted in faith, and to find supremely credible what the ordinary rationalism dismisses as superstition. It is, however, only in a very indirect way, if at all, that Christian faith can derive support from Spiritualism. It seems to be proved that if communication is established at all with the spirit-world, it is merely with ‘the dregs and lees of the unseen universe’ — with spirits who either have not the power or else the will to communicate anything of importance to man; and, this being so, the Resurrection and appearances of Christ, with their unique and far-reaching spiritual result, come under a totally different Divine economy. In the risen Christ we have the one authentic glimpse of the world which othervrise can do no more than attest its existence to those who peep and mutter (Waite, Studies in Mysticism, 1906).

(5) Significance of the Resurrection.—ia) In the Primitive Church the Resurrection was regarded as at once the authentication of Christianity, and a vitally important element of doctrine. Its apologetic value was appraised equally highly in the appeal to Jews and to Gentiles (Acts 4:10 17:31). The argument was that God had accredited Jesus’ mission and accepted His work in raising Him up from the dead. In recent apologetic, at least of the English school, there has been a tendency to stake the truth of Christianity on the evidence for the Resurrection (Row, Christian Evidences, 1887) ; but it is always to be remembered that the evidence for the miracle itself depends for its credibility on the anterior impression of the supernatural made by the Person of Christ. It is not so generally recognized that the Resurrection has the value of a vindication of the ways of God. Had the Ruler of the Universe given no sign when the spotless and loving Christ was made away with by His murderers, the problem of evil would have been well-nigh overwhelming, and faith in the supremacy of a moral order would have lacked one of its strongest supports. (6) Doctrinally the Resurrection was regarded as possessing a high significance for Christ Himself. It is, indeed, an exaggeration to say that for St. Paul the Resurrection had the importance which earlier thought claimed for the Baptism, and later thought for the Virgin Birth, viz. of constituting Jesus Son of God; but he at least regarded it as marking the transition from the foreshadowing to the full reality of the power and glory of the Son of God (Romans 1:4). . It was also the source of the most characteristic and vital elements of his eschatological teaching. In the life of the risen Christ he saw the prototype of the life which awaits those that are His in the future state (Phil S^‘) . He also used the resurrection of Christ, though assuredly without any suggestion that it was only a figure, as a parable of the beginning, the manifestations, and the goal of the new life (Romans 6:4).

16. The character of Jesus. — In this section it is not proposed to deal with the doctrine of the Person of Christ (see Person of Christ), but only to gather up the main features of the character of the Man Christ Jesus as it is portrayed in the Gospels. The point of view is somewhat modern, but does not necessarily imply a naturalistic or Unitarian interpretation of Christ (Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. vol. ii.; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Christian Character, 1906, ch. ii.).

The task of describing the character of Jesus is difficult. Jesus is one of the most real and Uf e-like figures in history, and there is a way of observing, feeling, and judging which is unmistakably Christ-Mke; but when we try to describe Him we are in danger of setting forth ‘a mere personified system of morals and psychology, consisting of a catalogue of all possible virtues and capabilities’ (Hase). There is therefore something to be said for leaving the matter where it is left by the Gospels, which simply reveal the character in telling the story of the life. The general observation which is most convincing is that in Jesus there were combinations of qualities which are usually found in isolation, and regarded as mutually inconsistent. This holds good, first, in the region of temperament. It is easy to show that at least three of the recognized temperaments — the sanguine, the melancholic, and the choleric, were manifested by Jesus, and that what is good in the phlegmatic had its counterpart in His repose and purposefulness. From a similar point of view it has been said that ‘there was in Him the woman-heart as well as the manly brain — all that was most manly and all that was most womanly’ (F. W. Robertson, Serm. ii. 231; but contrariwise Hase: ‘His character was thoroughly masculine,’ §31). It has been held by some that He belonged to the class of ecstatic men, by others that He reasoned and acted with the serenity of the sage: the truth is that repose was the normal condition of His spirit, but that it was intermittently broken by prophetic experiences of vision and tumult. On the intellectual side we find the abstract power which unerringly seizes upon the vital principle, united with the poet’s mind which delights to clothe the idea with form and colour and to find for it the most perfect artistic expression. Another and more impressive contrast is presented in the force and the gentleness of His character. From Him there went out an influence which either awed men into docile submission or roused them to a frenzy of opposition, while the same Jesus spoke words of tender solace to a penitent Magdalene, and called the little children to His side. He also combined with wide outlook and sublime purpose an active interest in small things and in inconsiderable persons. Recognizing it as His vocation to build the Kingdom of God, He did not consider a day lost in which He conversed with a woman of Samaria at a wayside well.

While these and similar traits help to give greater vividness to our conception of Jesus, the essential content of what is called His character lies in His attitude, on the one hand to the Father, on the other to the problems of duty which arise for a man among men.

(1) Beginning with the God-ward side of the character of Jesus, that which we describe as piety, we find that it combines familiar traits with others which are novel and unique. To a large extent it is a fulfilment of the Jewish ideal of piety, but it shows impressive omissions and deviations from the OT pattern. He fulfils it in that He has a constant sense of the presence of God, and regards all events as instinct with a Divine meaning of guidance, of blessing, or of judgment. He lives in habitual prayerfulness, giving thanks, supplicating, interceding for others. He shows a sensitive reverence for all that is called God — His name. His word. His house, and is full of prophetic zeal for His honour. It is His meat and His drink to labour in the tasks which are made known to Him as the will of God. When that will approaches Him as a call to suffer and die. He trusts implicitly in the wisdom and goodness of the Father, and prays that His will be done.

There are, however, two significant particulars in which the religion of Jesus, if we may so term it, differed from the piety of Hebrew saints, as well as of the saints of Christian times, (o) The penitential note is one of the most distinctive features of the OT. The depth of the sense of sin may almost be said to be the measure of sanctity, and the same may be said of those whom the Christian Church has chiefly venerated as its religious heroes. But of penitence the experience of Jesus shows no trace. While teaching His disciples to pray, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ He Himself never confessed sin. Neither in Gethsemane nor on the cross, when the near approach of death challenged Him to pass righteous judgment on His past life, was He conscious of any lapse from fidelity to the Father’s commands. — (6) A second note of Hebrew piety is a sense of dependence upon God, accompanied by the knowledge that to Him belongs the glory, and that the human instrument counts for nothing in comparison. But Jesus, while confessing His dependence on the Father in teaching and healing, does not speak of Himself as a mere agent who delivers a message and accomplishes a work — and is forthwith forgotten. Enjoying a filial intimacy with God which contrasts markedly with the aloofness of God in OT times, and the tear manifested in His presence even by prophets, He claimed prerogatives which they would have regarded as a usurpation of the sphere of God. For He forgave sins, claimed a faith and a devotion toward Himself which were indistinguishable from worship, and foretold that He would return to Judge the world. What makes these utterances the more striking is that He simultaneously invited men to learn of Him as meek and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29). We therefore seem to be driven to the conclusion that Jesus was less than a saint, unless He was more than a man. Unless He was sinless. Hebrews 5 of a self-righteousness which was more blinded than that of the Pharisees; and unless He had a unique dignity and commission. Hebrews 5 of an overweening arrogance. The hypothesis of a unique experience and vocation, or the belief that He was in a unique sense Divine, is more credible than the charge of imperfect piety.

(2) In studying the character of Jesus on the ethical side, it is useful to observe the form in which He recognized and realized the fundamental virtues. Wisdom He would scarcely have described as a virtue. He did not Himself possess or value it in the range which it began to have with the Greeks, but He assuredly had wisdom in the grand way of thinking deep thoughts about God and man wiiich have been worked up in philosophical systems, and also in the homely form of prudent dealing with tasks and dangers. Courage He certainly did not illustrate in the typical form that it assumes in a man of war; but there is abundant proof of physical as well as of moral courage in the heroism which led Him, while discarding force and foreseeing the issue, to go up to confront His powerful enemies in the name of God and truth. One glimpse of His bearing is unforgettable.’ And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them; and they were amazed ; and they that followed were afraid ‘(Mark 10:32). The virtue of temperance or self-control might seem to he on a plane on which He did not condescend to be tried. But in its essence, as the virtue which requires the surrender of the lower for the higher, of the temporary for the enduring good, it has its illustration, not merely in the victory of the Temptation, but in the mould of self -sacrifice in which His whole life was cast. Justice, as the virtue which renders to all their due, entered deeply into the thought and lite of Jesus. The parable of the Unjust Steward, which on a superficial view makes light of dishonesty, is placed in a setting of words of Jesus from which it appears that He thought it useful to give His disciples the test of an honest man, and even made common honesty a condition of admission to life (Luke 16:10–12). It is also noteworthy how often He commends the wise and faithful servant; Willie His own ideal might be summed up as the performance with fidelity of His appointed work. Not even the sympathy of Jesus is more distinctive than His conscientiousness in regard to the claims both of God and of man.

The character of Jesus also exemplified the fundamental quality of steadfastness. He praised it in others: John the Baptist, who was no reed shaken with the wind; Simon, whom He surnamed the rock-like man. His whole ministry, which began with victory in the Temptation, had behind it the force of steady and of resolute purpose. ‘He steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem’ (Lk-S^i) may serve for a description of the way in which He held straight on to His preconceived and predetermined goal.