Chapter VII: Conclusion (2)

[23] The "Gadarene swine" were the subject of a once famous controversy between Huxley and Gladstone (Huxley. Some Controverted Questions. Chaps. XIV, XV). In the course of the wordy battle there occurs a delicious bit of humor which is worth preserving. Huxley starts out by saying that, for himself, he does not believe the miracle ever occurred, and then adds that he should consider that "the wanton destruction of other people's property is a misdemeanor of evil example." Gladstone comments on this that, after eighteen centuries of worship of Jesus, "it has been reserved to a scientific inquirer to discover that He was not better than a law-breaker and an evil-doer." Huxley objects to this accusation, because, as he expressly said he did not believe Jesus ever sent any devils into any swine, he can hardly be guilty of charging Jesus with this evil-doing. In his following article Gladstone states Huxley's position, does not withdraw his accusation, but, in a manner of apology, says: "The difference, _from his point of view_, is probably material, and I therefore regret that I overlooked it."

[24] This miracle occurs in Luke before the healing of Jairus' daughter (Luke VIII:41).

[25] The account of Luke's miracle is so vague as to be very unsatisfactory. The dead man is unnamed and unknown, neither his dwelling nor any of his relatives are identified, no one solicits Jesus to perform the miracle, but the bier is met casually on the street or country road, and none of the witnesses are named, as in the case of Jairus' daughter. The narrator of such an unprecedented event, as the raising of one from the dead, ought at least to furnish some means of identifying the resurrected person. It is small wonder that Matthew, Mark and John know nothing of this miracle.

A "doubting Thomas" might explain all three of these resurrection miracles on the hypothesis of unexpert diagnosis of death, a trance, a cataleptic fit, or other form of suspended animation. This would not be possible in the case of Lazarus, if he had been buried in the ground without the provision of some means of respiration. But he was laid in a cave covered only by a stone, so that ample means of respiration are not excluded.

But in the case of Lazarus, the most unexplainable matter is the silence of Matthew, Mark and Luke on the subject of this miracle. Lazarus and his two sisters were well known to Jesus and His disciples, and the sisters are mentioned by all three of the evangelists. Shortly after the miracle, Jesus comes to Bethany and "there they made Him a supper" (John XII:2), and Lazarus sat at the table and Martha served. "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard very costly and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair" (John XII:3). The disciples were apparently present, because Judas Iscariot objects to the waste of the ointment (John XII:4, 5, 6). Both Matthew and Mark relate this event as occurring in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, except that the ointment is poured over Jesus' head, and neither the name of Mary or of Judas Iscariot is mentioned (Matt. XXVI:6-13; Mark XIV:3-9). Luke speaks of both Martha and Mary on the occasion when Jesus rebukes Martha for being "troubled about many things" (Luke X:38). The raising of Lazarus from the dead was not kept secret but was noised abroad, and was known to many of the Jews in Jerusalem and to the chief priests (John XI:45, 46; XII:9, 10, 11, 17, 18).

Considering the notoriety of this miracle, the intimacy existing between Lazarus' family and Jesus and His disciples, the relation by all the evangelists of other incidents in Jesus' life in which Martha and Mary appear, it is hard to understand why Matthew, Mark and Luke have not a word to say of this, the most marvelous of all of Jesus' deeds.

[26] Bethsaida is on the same (west) side of the sea of Galilee as Capernaum, and but a short distance from it, but this desert place was apparently across the sea, near the land of the Gergesenes (John VI:1, 17; Matt. XIV:22; Mark VI:32). Some claim that there was another Bethsaida on the east side of the sea of Galilee.

[27] It may seem strange that these numerous miracles had so little effect in winning permanent adherents to Jesus' cause. The Jews at this time were, from all accounts, in a state of religious fermentation, expecting the immediate coming of a Messiah, looking for the signs and portents of that coming, ready and willing to welcome any miraculous happenings as proof that their hopes were about to be realized. Yet John the Baptist, who did no miracles (John X:41), had apparently at the time of his death a stronger following than Jesus at the time of His death. (Compare Matt. XIV:5; Mark XI:32; Luke XX:6, with Matt. XIII:57; XXVII:22; John VII:1; VIII:59; X:39; XI:53.)

The earlier miracles attracted large crowds, but the evidence is abundant that, later, the miracles lost their effect, and in some cases, even aroused animosity. Thus Matthew says that Jesus, in the beginning of His prophetic career, "went about all Galilee," teaching and preaching and "healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." "And there followed Him great multitudes of people from Galilee and from Decapolis and from Jerusalem and from Judæa and from beyond Jordan" (Matt. IV:23, 24, 25. See Mark III:7, 8). But, in Chap. XIII:53-58, he relates how Jesus, coming "into His own country" at a later date and preaching there, the people "were offended in Him." "But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country and in his own house. And He did not many mighty works there _because of their unbelief_." Mark says, "And He could there do no mighty work, save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed them. And He marvelled because of their unbelief" (Mark VI:5, 6).

Luke tells how, after He had preached in the synagogue in His home town of Nazareth, "all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city, and led Him unto the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built, that they might cast Him down headlong (Luke IV:28, 29).

Immediately after Jesus had healed the man, or two men, in the country of the Gergesenes, Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that the "whole city," or the "whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about," besought Him to depart out of their coasts (Matt. VIII:34; Mark V:17; Luke VIII:37).

After Jesus had preached in Jerusalem and performed at least one miracle there (John V:5-9), the people were so incensed against Him that "He would not walk in Jewry (Judæa), because the Jews sought to kill Him" (John VII:1).

Later He went secretly into Judæa on the occasion of the feast of the tabernacles (John VII:2, 10), and the people took "up stones to cast at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them and so passed by" (John VIII:59). Again, when He had restored sight to a blind man, they reviled this man and "cast him out" (John IX:7, 34).

Again, when Jesus was at Jerusalem at the feast of the dedication (John X:22), "the Jews took up stones again to stone Him." "Therefore they sought again to take Him; but He escaped out of their hands" (John X:31, 39).

As regards the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the Jews, instead of being favorably affected by that stupendous miracle, were apparently incensed by it. They plotted to put both Lazarus and Jesus to death (John XII:10), and "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim" (John XI:54).

Finally, Jesus Himself bears witness both to His belief that miracles were proof of His messianic claims, and that His miracles had failed to give the support to His cause which He had expected. In one of His most bitter utterances, He denounces the cities of Galilee, because they would not believe in Him notwithstanding the many "mighty works" which He had performed in their midst.

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin. Woe unto thee, Bethsaida."

"But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you."

"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell."

"But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you" (Matt. XI:20-24; Luke X:13-15).

In more temperate language He bewails the coldness and hostility of Jerusalem.

"How often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?" (Matt. XXIII:37; Luke XIII:34. See also Luke XIX:41, 42; Luke XI:31, 32).

The reason why Jesus' miracles produced no lasting effect on the Jews has already been indicated. They expected their Messiah to show them miracles as proof of his claims. But this Messiah must be one of their own creation preaching the doctrines which they wished him to preach. All the miracles in the world would not have convinced them that Jesus was the true Messiah, so long as He offered them only a heavenly kingdom. On the other hand, if He had promised them an earthly kingdom, they would have acclaimed these same miracles which He did, as indubitable proofs of His Messiahship. In this respect they differ not at all from many modern professed followers of Jesus. They follow such parts of His teaching as happen to suit their own ideas or prejudices, and calmly ignore other parts, equally explicit and binding, which do not fit in with their scheme of life. (See Hypocrisy or Truth, _infra_.)

The miracles and, even more, the apparent faith of Jesus in their evidentiary value, form serious stumbling blocks in the way of those who revere Jesus as the greatest "Son of Man"--unequaled in the simplicity and unselfishness of His character and in the sublimity of His teaching--but free from the tawdry tinsel of supernaturalism, which is the usual stock-in-trade of leaders of religious sects. Mohammedanism seems to be the only great religion which has resisted the temptation to ascribe to its founder, either divine parentage or the power to perform supernatural acts.

The attribution to Jesus of the Holy Ghost as His father need cause no difficulty, by reason of the facts set out under sub-head "Conception," _supra_.

But as regards the miracles, it is true that few of them have much scientific value as evidence of the intervention of supernatural powers in their occurrence. For instance, Matthew records nineteen specific miracles, of which only one is attested to by all the three other evangelists, five are attested to by one beside himself, twelve by two, and one by himself alone. Of the nineteen, five are events--stilling the tempest--walking on the waters, two feeding the multitude, and one the blasting of the unfortunate fig tree, which did not bear fruit out of season. Of the remaining fourteen, one is a lunatic, one has a withered hand, one is dumb, one is a leper, two have palsy, three are blind, one has fever, one an issue of blood, two are possessed of devils, and the ailment of Jairus' daughter is not specified. Without examining each in detail, it may be said generally that these accounts are very indefinite as to exact times and places, names of persons cured, or by friends or relatives, and other details, by which the story might be verified. From the insufficient data furnished, it would, for instance, have been almost impossible for a person, starting to investigate these miracles immediately after Jesus' death to have asserted that any particular miracle did not occur, although he could not find a single witness to any of them. Even the names of the disciples present are given only in a few instances. It is also to be regretted that practically all of the personal cures, as is the case with more modern miracle workers, fall within that class of afflictions where ignorance, suggestion, simulation, conscious or unconscious, etc., can so easily confuse the result. If some of these latter-day healers would only go to an old soldiers' home and supply some missing arms and legs, the "doubting Thomases" would be more ready to concede their possession of supernatural powers.

But, notwithstanding all this, the four Gospels are so permeated with these miraculous doings that it would be almost denying them any credibility at all, to claim that Jesus and His apostles did not believe that He performed miracles, and that these miracles were proof of His claim to the Messiahship. It can only be said that Jesus, great as He was, could not entirely escape the influence of the times in which He lived.

[28] Here again Jesus makes clear His antipathy to churchly ceremonies and pharisaical formalism. No ceremony marks the joining of His disciples. He says to them, "Follow me," and they leave everything and follow Him. No more is necessary to make them members of His band. So, no rite, no ceremony marks the choosing or appointing of the twelve apostles, or bishops, as they would now be called. There is no laying on of hands, no formal induction or installation into office, no clothing them in peculiar vestments, or sacerdotal robes, or other visible insignia of their office or rank. Nor are they given any authority or pre-eminence over their fellow disciples. Nothing could have been more foreign to Jesus' ideas than the establishment of a priestly hierarchy. The instructions as to their preaching are of the simplest--"the kingdom of heaven is at hand." No creeds, no theological dogmas are to be impressed on their hearers. But the necessity of their doing good works--healing the sick, etc.--is emphasized. With Jesus works always were of more value than words. The admonition to travel simply, without money or extra raiment, and to depend on the hospitality of the people among whom they came, reminds us of the practice of the itinerant missionaries of frontier days in our own country.

Matthew's account is the only one containing the verse: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace but a sword" (Matt. X:34). This has often been cited, warped from its context, as meaning that Jesus sanctioned war as a means of spreading His religion. But nothing is more contrary to the whole spirit of His teaching and many express utterances. When His disciples would have Him call down fire from heaven to consume those who would not receive Him, He "rebuked them" and said: "For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke IX:56). In this chapter from Matthew, Jesus is predicting that the spread of His Gospel will set individual against individual (even in the same family), and finally nation against nation, and that, owing to the weakness of human nature, this would lead to individual contests and to national contests. Results well justified His prophecy. So long as the Christians were in the minority, they preached, and, to some extent, practiced the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount. But when they became the majority, the sword and torch and the fires of the Inquisition were their favorite arguments in converting recalcitrant heathen.

[29] Moderation was the keynote of Jesus' character. Excess in any direction was contrary to His principles. He had no sympathy with either the zealot or the ascetic. He condemned as well the faster and the prohibitionist as the glutton and the wine-bibber. He was most democratic in His daily intercourse with others. He dined one day with publicans and sinners, and the next with a Pharisee, notwithstanding His bitter antagonism to the Pharisees as a sect (Luke XI:37; XIV:1). This moderation shows itself in the charity of His judgments of others, as in the case of the woman taken in adultery (John VIII:3-11), the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke XV:11). "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Matt. VII:1) and elsewhere. When He is asked to name the first great commandment, He does not choose any of the ten stringent provisions of the Old Testament, but expresses His ideas in the milder forms: To love God, and to love thy neighbor as thyself (Matt. XXII:36-40; Mark XII:28-31).

[30] The prophets of the Old Testament had long before the birth of Jesus inveighed against the disposition among the Jews to magnify _acts of worship_--religious rites and ceremonies--as pleasing to God and indicative of holiness in the participant.

"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?--saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats."

"Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and _Sabbaths_, the calling of assemblies; I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even _the solemn meeting_. Your new moons and your _appointed feasts_ my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them."

"Learn to _do well_; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow" (Isaiah I:11-17).

"Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, _the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul_? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah VI:7, 8).

"For I desired mercy and not _sacrifice_; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" (Hosea VI:6).

But the Jews had not heeded the admonitions of their prophets, and, in the time of Jesus, their religion, under the dominating influence of those zealous laymen--the scribes and Pharisees--had become permeated with the dry-rot of formalism. Prayers, fastings, rites and ceremonies had become all important, like the "burnt offerings of bullocks," "the blood of bullocks," the "incense" and "vain oblations" of earlier days. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23). Their conception of the Lord was that of the Mosaic times--a jealous Deity to be placated by sacrifices, and whose favor was to be won by external worship, and not by inward purity of heart. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also" (Matt. XXIII:25, 26).

The simple, unceremonial religion which Jesus taught, a living force animating each act of one's daily life, nourished by secret prayers in one's chamber, manifesting itself by unobtrusive acts of mercy, not by public prayers, fastings and religious services, was the direct antipodes of the ceremonial formalism then dominant among the Jews. Jesus early recognized this antagonism, and lost no opportunity to combat this, the greatest obstacle to the spreading of His ideas. He can use no words too bitter in denouncing those whom He considers the corrupters of the true worship of God (Matt. XXIII; Mark XII:38-40; Luke XX:46, 47; XI:42-44). To persons deeply imbued with religious feeling, hypocrisy is the cardinal sin. "Ye hypocrites" is His constant term of reproach for the scribes and Pharisees.

Now, the observance of the Sabbath was the keystone in the arch of formalism which the Pharisees had erected. They had filled the day with religious ceremonies. They had surrounded it with minute restrictions and prohibitions, so that even the healing of the sick on that day was considered by them unlawful. Probably their objection to the disciples picking and eating corn was not based so much on that fact, as on the iniquity of Jesus and His disciples taking a pleasant walk through the fields and country on the Sabbath. As Macaulay said of the Puritans, they hated bear baiting, not so much because it gave pain to the bear, as because it gave pleasure to the spectators.

This Sabbath was to Jesus a travesty on the true worship of His Father, and met His instant and repeated condemnation. He intentionally and openly violated its laws, and challenged the Pharisees to defend their position. As in the case of prayer, He again defined His Father's attitude as caring nothing for these outward observances. "I will have mercy and not sacrifice" (Matt. XII:7). The weighty matters of the law are "judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23). In the expressive language of the Old Testament His "soul hateth" their Sabbaths and appointed feasts and solemn assemblies. They were a "trouble" to Him and He was "weary to bear them." "When ye make many prayers, I will not hear" (Isaiah I:13, 14, 15). Jesus sums up His conception of the Sabbath in one of His pregnant sentences, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark II:27; Luke VI:5).

If Jesus were on earth today, He would make our Sunday a day of cheerful rest. Children would rejoice in it, learn to love it, instead of its being to them (more formerly than now) a day of penance and gloom, with their forced attendance on a distasteful Sunday school, to study creeds and catechisms, not suited to their immature years. Attendance at "church" would be a matter of minor importance, to be determined by each one for himself. The desire to worship could be satisfied without these public assemblies, for "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. XVIII:20).

But the significant deliberation of the day, the only one important before God, would be the marking it out as the day especially for the doing of deeds of mercy. Much more righteous in the sight of the Lord would be the man who had spent the day in hunting, fishing or other innocent recreation, but yet had one good deed to his credit, than he who had spent the whole day in religious exercises, and given his "tithe of mint and anise and cummin," but had not helped, or comforted, or made happier a single fellow human being. Jesus would say with the poet:

"_Count that day lost, whose low descending sun
Views from thy hand, no worthy action done._"

[31] Jesus had already told the disciples of His approaching death and resurrection (Matt. XVI:21, 22; Mark VIII:31; Luke IX:22).

[32] Jesus probably spoke to His disciples in the veiled language so often used by Him, since it is clear that His disciples, down to the last days in Jerusalem, had not accepted the idea of His immediate bodily death.

"But they understood not that saying and were afraid to ask Him" (Mark IX:32).

"And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things that were spoken" (Luke XVIII:34; see Matt. XXIV:3).

It is probable that up to the hour of the Crucifixion many of the disciples still clung to the hope that Jesus would exert His miraculous powers to confound His enemies and establish an earthly kingdom.

"They thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear" (Luke XIX:11).

They quarreled among themselves as to who should have precedence in this kingdom.

"And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest" (Luke XXII:24).

[33] None of these multitudes seem to have been on hand a few days later to ask Jesus' release from Pilate (Matt. XXVII:15, 17, 22, 23).

[34] This cleansing of the temple is related by John as one of Jesus' first acts, immediately after the marriage in Cana (John II:14-17).

[35] There is a marked difference between these latest utterances of Jesus and His first preaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Then He was enthusiastic, filled with the hope of converting the Jews, and establishing His Father's spiritual kingdom on earth. Now He is disappointed, realizing that His death is near, that His religious teachings have been rejected by practically all of His people, and that He will leave behind Him a mere handful of followers, few, if any, of whom yet understand the true meaning of His religion. The spirit of the Sermon on the Mount is love for one another, kindness active in every-day life, charity for others' shortcomings, leniency in judging and punishing offenders. But His later sayings abound in bitter censure of the Pharisees and others who have thwarted His work, of denunciation of all evil-doers, of promises of reward to His followers, and of predictions of severe punishment for those who reject His teachings.

Thus in the Sermon on the Mount He says:

"Blessed are the merciful; for they shall obtain mercy" (Matt. V:7).

"Blessed are the peace-makers; for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. V:9).

"Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way; first be reconciled with thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" (Matt. V:23, 24).

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him" (Matt. V:25).

"But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. V:39).

"But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you" (Matt. V:44).

"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. VI:15).

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt. VI:33).

"Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matt. VII:1).

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote of thy brother's eye" (Matt. VII:5).

"Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this _is the Law and the prophets_" (Matt:VII:12).

As to those who heard His sayings and did them not, He speaks no stronger condemnation than to compare them to the foolish man who built his house on the sand (Matt. VII:24-27).

Compare with these the following excerpts from His later preachings:

"Verily I say unto you that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you" (Matt. XXI:31).

"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (Matt. XXI:44).

"Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. XXII:13,14).

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" (Matt. XXIII:13, 14, 15).

"Ye fools and blind" (Matt. XXIII:17, 23, 24).

"Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" (Matt. XXIII:27).

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. XXIII:33).

"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth" (Matt. XXIII:35).

"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days" (Matt. XXIV:19).

"Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left" (Matt. XXIV:40).

"And shall cut him asunder and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. XXIV:51).

"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. XXV:30).

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. XXV:41).

[36] It is impossible for one not versed in the subtleties of Jewish religious ceremonies to understand the references in the four Gospels to the feast of unleavened bread and of the Passover. They do not seem to correspond with the somewhat intricate ritual given in the Old Testament (Ex. XII:1-20). If the Crucifixion occurred in the year A.D. 33, as the authorities generally agree, then the feast of the Passover began on the evening of Friday, the day after this supper and the day of the Crucifixion. This agrees with John's statements (John XIII:1; XVIII:28; XIX:14-31). But the other three Gospels speak of the supper on Thursday, as being the eating of the Passover.

[37] This strife is also given by Luke as of an earlier date (Luke IX:46). (See also Matt. XVIII:1; Mark IX:34; Mark X:35; Matt. XX:24).

[38] Mark tells of a "certain young man" who followed Jesus, until he was driven away by the soldiers (Mark XIV:51, 52). He is not identified, and apparently appears only at this place in the four Gospels.

[39] The motive of Judas in this transaction seems destined to remain an unsettled controversy. Was he simply a traitor, seeking to sell his Lord and Master for a price? Or was he a religious zealot, trying to force Jesus' hand? It has been already noted that the apostles, even at this late date, were expecting the immediate coming of Jesus' kingdom on earth and the installation of themselves into the chief offices of that kingdom (Luke XIX:11; XXII:24). Did Judas, in his supreme confidence in his Master's supernatural powers, feel convinced that, if once a contest were precipitated between the Pharisees and Jesus, the latter would exert those powers and utterly confound His enemies?

The most inexplicable thing in the whole transaction is its utter futility, both on the side of Judas and of the Pharisees also. On other visits to Jerusalem, Jesus had kept His movements more or less secret (John VIII:59; XI:54). But on this last visit there was not the slightest attempt at concealment. His entry into Jerusalem was attended by a great multitude, shouting and acclaiming Him (Matt. XXI:1-10; Mark XI:1-10; Luke XIX:30-40). His cleansing of the temple was an open and public act (Matt. XXI:12-14; Mark XI:15; Luke XIX:45, 46). Every day He taught openly in the temple (Luke XIX:47; XXII:53). The chief priests, elders and Pharisees were present at His teachings and argued with Him (Matt. XXI:23; Mark XI:27; Luke XX:1). They had already employed spies to follow Jesus in His preaching and note any seditious or heretical utterances (Luke XX:20). Every night Jesus and His twelve apostles went out to Bethany, coming back to Jerusalem in the morning, and the movements of so numerous a company could not have been concealed (Matt. XXI:17, 18, 20). Jesus must have been well-known in Bethany, both because of His long friendship with the family of Lazarus, and because of the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead (John XI:45; XII:9). While in Bethany, Jesus and the apostles were entertained publicly at a supper in Simon's house (John XII:2; Matt. XXVI:6). So far as an identification of Jesus was concerned, or any assistance in making His arrest, Judas' services were entirely useless to the Pharisees, and there was no occasion for spending money on him. The most conclusive evidence on this point is that of Jesus Himself. All three of the synoptics agree that Jesus protested against a multitude with their swords and staves coming out to take Him in the night-time, as though He were a thief or a fugitive from justice. As He says, "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me" (Matt. XXVI:55; Mark XIV:49; Luke XXII:53). According to John, who is considered the most accurate of the evangelists on the events of this last week, Judas did not kiss Jesus or make any other identification of Him. On the approach of the band, Jesus comes forth and says, "Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them" (John XVIII:5). The Pharisees seem to have had some trouble in procuring the proof of Jesus' heretical sayings (Matt. XXII:15-16; Mark XII:13; Luke XI:54; Luke XX:20; Matt. XXVI:60). If Judas had offered to furnish this evidence, the bargain with the Pharisees would be understandable.

As to the pecuniary side of the transaction, Matthew is the only one who states that a bargain was made for a definite sum of money. According to the account of Mark and Luke, Judas volunteered his services, and the Pharisees "promised to give him money." John does not mention any money paid or to be paid, although he is especially bitter against Judas (John VI:64, 70, 71; XII:6; XIII:2, 27). Now, Judas was the treasurer of the apostles' company and carried the bag (John XIII:29; XII:6). If avarice were his motive, it would seem strange that he would give up this post and the possibilities of peculation which it offered, for the small sum of money he would get from the Pharisees.

Moreover, the fact that, immediately after the conviction of Jesus, Judas tendered back the money to the Pharisees, and, when they refused it, cast it down in the temple, and went out and hanged himself, tends strongly to support the theory that he was a misguided zealot (Matt. XXVII:3-6).

Against this is the unanimous evidence of the Gospels that he was the betrayer of Jesus, and that Jesus recognized and branded him as such.

[40] This gathering was presumably the Sanhedrim, the high council of the Jews. It had jurisdiction to try and sentence Jews charged with heresy--"corruptors," blasphemers of the temple, destroyers of the true worship, etc. It could not, however, execute a sentence of death (John XVIII:31). In such cases it was necessary that the sentence be confirmed by the Roman tetrarch, procurator, or other governor of the country, and the execution of the sentence be carried out by Roman soldiers.

[41] This was a trial for heredoxy under the Jewish law upon two charges, one for blasphemy of the temple, the other for blasphemy of God. Either, if proved, would warrant a sentence of death. The first was very near the truth. The charge was, "I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." Jesus' exact words were, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John II:19). The Jews did not understand His hidden meaning that He meant the death of His body and its resurrection in three days (John II:20, 21). The other charge was in one sense true, for Jesus had spoken of Himself as the _Son_ of God. But He had not used these words in the sense attributed to Him by the Pharisees, that He was himself God, or the equal of God. But, coupled with His failure to deny these charges, they formed a sufficient legal basis, under the Jewish law, for His conviction and sentence.

[42] The high priest evidently shifted his ground of attack when he brought Jesus before Pilate. The main charge here against Jesus was that He had claimed to be king of the Jews, something that had not appeared in the proceeding before the Sanhedrim. This was more of a political than a heretical crime, and one more likely to arouse the suspicion and hostility of the Romans. Jesus was entirely innocent of this crime, for He had never claimed for Himself an earthly kingdom. This, and the charges of heresy, which probably were also presented, did not make much impression on Pilate. He evidently did not think that Jesus had done anything deserving a sentence of death, and probably regarded the whole matter as one of those vexatious religious quarrels among the Jewish sectaries which were constantly arising to trouble the Roman governors of Jewry, and in which they had no interest or sympathy with either side of the controversy. But he found himself in a difficult position. This demand for Jesus' sentence was backed by all of official Jewishdom, and they presented His legal condemnation by the Sanhedrim. While Pilate was not absolutely bound to approve this sentence of the Sanhedrim, yet his refusal to do so would deeply offend the leaders of the Jewish people and quite possibly involve him in serious trouble with the authorities at Rome. Seeking a way out of this dilemma, he bethought himself of the custom of freeing a prisoner at the feast of the Passover. He tried to induce the multitude to demand the release of Jesus, and, if there had been any difference in opinion, would undoubtedly have declared the vote in favor of Jesus. But the people were unanimous in their demand for the release of Barabbas. Then, only, he consented to confirm Jesus' sentence, and attempted publicly to shift the moral responsibility for his act to the Jewish populace.

[43] There seems to be some question as to whether Antipas was not governor at this time, instead of Herod (Matt. II:19).

[44] This Annas (or Hanan) is supposed by some authorities to be the "power behind the throne," the chief instigator of the proceedings against Jesus.

[45] Pilate evidently inflicted this punishment--milder than death--in the hope that it would pacify the Jews, and they would permit him to let Jesus escape the extreme penalty of crucifixion.

[46] From this narrative it would seem that, for one night, the sepulchre was unsealed and unguarded.

[47] It seems that it was a custom to give criminals this drink in order to, in a measure, stupefy them and lessen the pains of the crucifixion.

[48] This was probably the usual custom, unless the criminal was too weak to bear the burden.

[49] No two of these superscriptions on the cross exactly agree.

[50] None of the other Gospels mention Jesus' mother or any of the apostles as being present at the Crucifixion, and all agree that the women stood "afar off."

[51] These were precautions, probably usual, to ensure that the criminals were really dead.

[52] These instructions are contrary to those given to His disciples in His life-time. He told them expressly not to go to the Gentiles (Matt. X:5) and said nothing about their baptizing either Jews or Gentiles. No time or definite place is assigned for this last appearance of Jesus.

[53] Mark does not tell of any appearance of Jesus to the apostles in Galilee.

[54] The name Cleopas does not appear in the list of the twelve apostles (Matt. X:2-4).

[55] The story of the resurrection and ascension would have even less chance of acceptance by an impartial tribunal, than that of the miraculous conception, or of the birth at Bethlehem. The accounts in the four Gospels, together with that in the Acts, are such a hopeless mass of confusion and contradiction that scarcely a single fact can be extricated, on which they all agree.

As to the time, the place, and the witnesses of the ascension, they are entirely at variance.

Jesus had, in His lifetime, fixed Galilee as the place of meeting His apostles after His rising from the dead (Matt. XXVI:32; Mark XIV:28). So the angel, or the "young man," at the tomb tells the women that Jesus has gone into Galilee, where His disciples should see Him, "as He said unto you" (Matt. XXVIII:7; Mark XVI:7).

Now, Matthew's account is the only one of the five originals which says anything about Jesus appearing to His disciples in Galilee. And, according to Matthew, this was the only time and place that He did appear to any one, except the two Marys (Matt. XXVIII:9, 10), and their statements were not believed by the apostles (Mark XVI:11; Luke XXIV:11).

According to Matthew, at a time not specified, Jesus appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. XXVIII:16), "and when they saw Him, they worshipped Him; _but some doubted_" (Matt. XXVIII:17). Now, from this it is apparent: first, that Jesus did not appear in His natural, earthly form, for then the eleven would at once have recognized His identity; and, second, that we have no means of telling just how many of the eleven would have testified to this being an appearance of the true Jesus, since "some" doubted.

John's original Gospel warrants appearances of Jesus, first, to Mary Magdalene, the other Mary not being with her (John XX:15, 16, 17); second, an appearance on Sunday evening to the apostles, except Thomas (John XX:19); third, an appearance eight days later to all the eleven apostles (John XX:26). Nothing is said about any ascension.

John's Chapter XXI, which, as has been said, appears clearly to have been a later addition to the original Gospel, relates an appearance of Jesus in Galilee, which is materially different from that of Matthew. The appearance is not on a mountain, but on the shores of the sea of Tiberias, and, instead of the eleven apostles being present, there were, at most, only seven, including Nathaniel of Cana (John XXI:2). All of them have considerable trouble in recognizing Jesus (John XXI:4, 12). Nothing is said by Jesus about baptizing, or preaching to, the Gentiles, but, on the contrary, Jesus tells Peter to feed "my sheep," or "my lambs" (John XXI:15, 16, 17). Nothing is said about any ascension of Jesus into heaven.

The Gospels of Mark and Luke, the original Gospel of John, and the Acts, all agree in fixing the after-death appearances and ascension of Jesus in Jerusalem or its neighborhood (Luke XXIV:50; Acts I:12). Apparently the apostles remained for some time in Jerusalem after the Crucifixion (possibly for forty days, Acts I:3; II:1), until they separated and "went forth and preached everywhere" (Mark XVI:20). In the Acts it is said that Jesus "commanded" them to remain in Jerusalem, until the gift of the Holy Ghost should be sent to them (Acts I:4).

It is evident, in all these accounts, that the apostles had never understood, or had entirely forgotten, the predictions of Jesus in His lifetime that He would rise from the dead (Matt. XVI:21; XVII:23; XX:19; Mark VIII:31; IX:31; X:34; Luke IX:22; XVIII:33). They were not expecting any resurrection. They were not waiting at the tomb for it to occur, and, by the unanimous testimony of all the writers, they showed the greatest surprise and incredulity at the first reports of Jesus' appearance alive (Matt. XXVIII:17; Mark XVI:11, 13; Luke XXIV:11, 16, 37, 41; John XX:9, 14, 25).

Furthermore, it is also evident that Jesus, in these appearances, must have assumed some form or shape different from His natural earthly body. Otherwise His intimate friends and associates could not have been in such uncertainty about recognizing His identity.

Thus Matthew says that when He appeared to the eleven "some doubted." But if He had appeared in His natural form, how could any of the apostles have doubted as to whether the apparition was He or some other person?

According to Mark, the apostles questioned the accuracy of the report by Mary and the two disciples that they had seen Jesus (Mark XVI:13, 14).

Luke relates that Jesus spent a considerable portion of one day with two of the disciples, and joined them at their evening meal. But they did not recognize Him until He blessed some bread, brake it, and gave to them, and then "He vanished out of their sight" (Luke XXIV:13-31). On His first appearance in the midst of the apostles, "they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit." Even after He showed them His hands and feet, their doubts were not dissipated, and, although He ate a piece of fish and some honey comb, it is not explicitly stated that this removed all their uncertainty (Luke XXIV:36-43).

According to John, Mary Magdalene, who was well acquainted with Jesus in His lifetime, when she saw this apparition, "knew not that it was Jesus." She spoke to Him, "supposing Him to be the gardener." He gives her a message to His disciples, and it is implied in the narrative that she then recognizes Him as Jesus, although it is not explained how this change came about (John XX:14-17). On His appearance to the apostles, He shows them His hands and feet, as though that were necessary to confirm their recognition of His identity. Thomas, apparently, will not trust to the story of the other apostles; nor even to the personal appearance of Jesus, until he has put his fingers into the prints on Jesus' hands and feet (John XX:19-28). If Jesus had worn His earthly form these prints, which the apostles had never before seen, could not have aided in His identification.

The account in John, Chap. XXI, shows that the seven assembled at the sea of Tiberias did not at first recognize Jesus, although one of them was Thomas, who had already identified Him in Jerusalem. "But the disciples knew not that it was Jesus" (John XXI:4). A little later it is said: "And none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou? Knowing that it was the Lord" (John XXI:12). No explanation is given as to how this knowledge finally came to them.

Out of this welter of confusion and contradictions, it is impossible to select any one coherent, authoritative story. With equal warrant of authority it may be asserted that He appeared to the apostles only in Galilee (Matt.) or never in Galilee, but only in Jerusalem (Mark, Luke, Acts); that Jesus' first appearance was to the two Marys (Matthew), or was to Mary Magdalene alone (Mark, John), or that He did not appear to them at all, but two men "in shining garments" gave them the message to the apostles (Luke); that He made a special appearance to two of the apostles (Mark, Luke), or that He did not make this appearance (Matthew, John); that He never appeared to the apostles but once (in Galilee according to Matthew, in Jerusalem, according to Mark and Luke), or that He appeared to them twice in Jerusalem (John XX) and once in Galilee (John XXI), or that He was with the apostles in Jerusalem for forty days, apparently in frequent communication with them (Acts I).

As to the ascension, it either occurred at some indefinite time on some unidentified mountain in Galilee and could be testified to by the unspecified number of the eleven who did not "doubt" (Matt.); or it (impliedly) occurred at some indefinite time on some unspecified shore of the sea of Tiberias, in Galilee, and was witnessed only by the seven (John XXI); or it occurred in Jerusalem at some unspecified time or place, and, so far as appears, in the presence of no one (Mark XVI:19); or it occurred at Bethany at some indefinite time in the presence of some unspecified number of His disciples (Luke XXIV:50, 51); or it occurred at least forty days after the Crucifixion on "the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey," in the presence of persons who are only identified as "they" (Acts I); or, so far as the Gospel of John is concerned, even including Chapter XXI, it could fairly be claimed that He did not know of any specific ascension.

While the exact date of the writing of the four Gospels and of the Acts cannot be determined, yet, in any event, they must have been composed when there were many living witnesses to the events of Jesus' life. If such a stupendous miracle as the ascension had occurred shortly after Jesus' death, it is inexplicable that these historians should not have shown some practical unanimity as to the time, place and witnesses of the event.

[56] "The attitude of slave-holders towards freedom in the abstract was grotesque in its lack of logic; but the attitude of many other classes of men, both abroad and home, towards it was equally full of a grimly unconscious humor. The southern planters, who loudly sympathized with Kossuth and the Hungarians, were entirely unconscious that their tyranny over their own black bondsmen made their attacks upon Austria's despotism absurd." Roosevelt's Life of Benton, American Statesmen Series, p. 275.

[57] Compare his severe criticism of the abolition revolt from the Whig party in 1844 with his own revolt from the Republican party in 1912. Life of Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 291.

[58] If this had been written after the Spanish war, he might, with equal logic, have said the same thing of Porto Rico and the Philippines.

[59] It would be interesting if President Roosevelt had cited some international controversies in which one nation did not claim that the matter in dispute was "of great importance" and that there was no "doubt as to which side was right."

[60] From the context he evidently means here any shadow or pretense of title.

[61] If, as Mr. Roosevelt concedes, the war with Mexico was unjustifiable, it is rather difficult to understand how the morals of the people of the United States could have been improved by the consciousness that they had unjustly slaughtered many thousands of innocent Mexicans and robbed them of immense areas of their lands.

[62] It is apparent that Matthew uses the word "drinking" in the sense of "drinking wine," and undoubtedly Luke uses the word "drink" in the same sense. In all, or nearly all, instances in the four Gospels where these words are used in connection with eating or fasting, they refer to the drinking of wine. As to the words "wine," or "fruit of the vine," when used in the Gospels, meaning some unfermented liquid, the undeviating practice of the early Christian churches in celebrating the Holy Communion with actual wine, stamps this claim as too absurd to merit discussion. Undoubtedly Peter, James, John, Paul and the other founders of the infant churches knew and followed the example of Jesus in prescribing wine as a part of this solemn ceremony. If the "universal tradition of the church" is not to be believed on this point, of what value is it on any other? It would be as sensible to claim that there has never been any difference between Moslems and Christians in the use of wine, because, in truth, the orthodox Christian was never authorized to use anything but some unfermented drink that a Moslem might also have used.

Transcriber's notes:

The following is a list of changes made to the original.
The first line is the original line, the second the corrected one.

_Joseph,_ not _Mary_, as being af the house of David (Luke II:4).
_Joseph,_ not _Mary_, as being of the house of David (Luke II:4).

like Judaea, and that it was taken at least ten years after
like Judæa, and that it was taken at least ten years after

[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed", and,
[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed," and,

and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan" (Matt. XIX:1).
and came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan" (Matt. XIX:1).

(Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII! XXIII; XXIV; XXV).
(Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII; XXIII; XXIV; XXV).

the children of God; whosover, therefore, shall humble himself
the children of God; whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself

sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7.) When prayers are regarded
sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7). When prayers are regarded

International Cyclopaedia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.
International Cyclopædia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.

of that day advised "_panem et circenses_"--food and amusement
of that day advised "_panem et circenses_"--food and amusement.