Difference between revisions of "Jesus Christ"

== Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible <ref name="term_52110" /> ==

<p> <strong> JESUS CHRIST </strong> . There is no historical task which is more important than to set forth the life and teaching of [[Jesus]] Christ, and none to which it is so difficult to do justice. The importance of the theme is sufficiently attested by the fact that it is felt to be His due to reckon a new era from the date of His birth. From the point of view of [[Christian]] faith there is nothing in time worthy to be set beside the deeds and the words of One who is adored as [[God]] manifest in the flesh, and the [[Saviour]] of the world. In the perspective of universal history. His influence ranks with [[Greek]] culture and [[Roman]] law as one of the three most valuable elements in the heritage from the ancient world, while it surpasses these other factors in the spiritual quality of its effects. On the other hand, the superlative task has its peculiar difficulties. It is quite certain that a modern European makes many mistakes when trying to reproduce the conditions of the distant province of Oriental antiquity in which Jesus lived. The literary documents, moreover, are of no great compass, and are reticent or obscure in regard to many matters which are of capital interest to the modern biographer. And when erudition has done its best with the primary and auxiliary sources, the historian has still to put the heart-searching question whether he possesses the qualifications that would enable him to understand the character, the experience, and the purpose of Jesus. ‘He who would worthily write the Life of Jesus [[Christ]] must have a pen dipped in the imaginative sympathy of a poet, in the prophet’s fire, in the artist’s charm and grace, and in the reverence and purity of the saint’ (Stewart, <em> The Life of Christ </em> , 1906, p. vi.). </p> <p> <strong> 1. The Literary Sources </strong> </p> <p> (A) Canonical </p> <p> (1) <em> The [[Gospels]] and their purpose </em> . It is now generally agreed that the <strong> [[Gospel]] according to Mk </strong> . is the oldest of the four. Beginning with the [[Baptism]] of Jesus, it gives a sketch of His Public Ministry, with specimens of His teaching, and carries the narrative to the morning of the Resurrection. The original conclusion has been lost, but there can be no doubt that it went on to relate at least certain Galilæan appearances of the risen Lord. This Gospel supplies most of our knowledge of the life of Jesus, but its main concern is to bring out the inner meaning and the religious value of the story. It is, in short, a history written with the purpose of demonstrating that Jesus was the expected Messiah. In proof of this it is sufficient to point out that it describes itself at the outset as setting forth the gospel of Jesus Christ, the [[Son]] of God ( Mark 1:1 ), that the faith of the disciples culminates in Peter’s confession that He is the Christ ( Mark 8:29 ), that the ground of His condemnation is that He claims to be ‘the Christ, the Son of the Blessed’ ( Mark 14:61-62 ), and that the accusation written over His cross is ‘The King of the Jews’ ( Mark 15:26 ). </p> <p> The <strong> Gospel according to Mt </strong> . is now usually regarded as a second and enlarged edition of an [[Apostolic]] original. The earlier version, known as the <em> [[Logia]] </em> on the ground of a note of [[Papias]] (Euseb. <em> HE </em> iii. 39), was a collection of the Memorabilia of Jesus. As the Logia consisted mainly of the sayings of our Lord, the later editor combined it with the narrative of Mk. in order to supply a more complete picture of the Ministry, and at the same time added fresh material from independent sources. Its didactic purpose, like that of Mk., is to exhibit Jesus as the Messiah, and it supports the argument by citing numerous instances of the fulfilment in the life of Jesus of OT prediction. It is sometimes described as the Gospel of the [[Jewish]] Christians; and it appears to have addressed itself specially to the difficulties which they felt in view of the destruction of Jerusalem. [[Could]] Jesus, they may well have asked, be the Messiah, seeing that His mission had issued, not in the deliverance of Israel, but in its ruin? In answer to this the Gospel makes it plain that the overthrow of the Jewish [[State]] was a punishment which was foreseen by Jesus, and also that He had become the head of a vaster and more glorious kingdom than that of which, as Jewish patriots, they had ever dreamed ( Matthew 28:18-20 ). </p> <p> The <strong> Gospel according to Luke </strong> is also dependent on Mk. for the general framework, and derives from the original Mt. a large body of the teaching. It follows a different authority from Mt. for the Nativity, and to some extent goes its own way in the history of the Passion; while ‘the great interpolation’ ( Luke 9:51 to Luke 18:14 ), made in part from its special source, forms a priceless addition to the Synoptic material. Lk. approached his task in a more consciously scientific spirit than his predecessors, and recognized an obligation to supply dates, and to sketch in the political background of the biography ( Luke 2:2 , Luke 3:1; Luke 3:23 ). But for him also the main business of the historian was to emphasize the religious significance of the events, and that by exhibiting Jesus as the Saviour of the world, the Friend of sinners. He is specially interested, as the companion and disciple of St. Paul, in incidents and sayings which illustrate the graciousness and the universality of the gospel. Prominence is given to the rejection of Jesus by [[Nazareth]] and [[Jerusalem]] ( Luke 4:16-30 , Luke 19:41-44 ), and to His discovery among the [[Gentiles]] of the faith for which He sought ( Luke 17:18-19 ). It is also characteristic that Lk. gives a full account of the beginnings of the missionary activity of the [[Church]] ( Luke 10:1-20 ). </p> <p> The author of the <strong> Fourth Gospel </strong> makes considerable use of the narratives of the Synoptists, but also suggests that their account is in important respects defective, and in certain particulars erroneous. The serious defect, from the Johannine point of view, is that they represent [[Galilee]] as the exclusive scene of the [[Ministry]] until shortly before the end, and that they know nothing of a series of visits, extending over two years, which Jesus made to Jerusalem and Judæa in fulfilment of His mission. That there was a design to correct as well as to supplement appears from the displacement of the [[Cleansing]] of the [[Temple]] from the close to the beginning of the Ministry, and from the emphatic way in which attention is drawn to the accurate information as to the day and the hour of the Crucifixion. And still more designedly than in the earlier Gospels is the history used as the vehicle for the disclosure of the secret and the glory of the [[Person]] of Jesus. The predicate of the [[Messiah]] is reaffirmed, and as the Saviour He appears in the most sublime and tender characters, but the [[Prologue]] furnishes the key to the interpretation of His Person in a title which imports the highest conceivable dignity of origin, being, and prerogative: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth’ ( John 1:1; John 1:14 ). </p> <p> <em> Trustworthiness of the Gospels </em> . It is impossible to proceed on the view that we possess four biographies of Jesus which, being given by inspiration, are absolutely immune from error. The means by which they were brought into shape was very different from the method of [[Divine]] dictation. The [[Evangelists]] were severely limited to the historical data which reached them by ordinary channels. They copied, abridged, and amplified earlier documents, and one document which was freely handled in this fashion by Mt. and Lk. was canonical Mk. That mistakes have been made as to matters of fact is proved by the occurrence of conflicting accounts of the same events, and by the uncertainty as to the order of events which is often palpable in Mt. and Mk., and which to some extent baffled Lk. in his attempt ‘to trace the course of all things accurately.’ There is also considerable diversity in the report of many of our Lord’s sayings, which compels us to conclude that the report is more or less inaccurate. [[Whether]] giving effect to their own convictions, or reproducing changes which had been made by the mind of the Church on the oral tradition, writers coloured and altered to some extent the sayings of our Lord. At the same time the Synoptics, when tested by ordinary canons, must be pronounced to be excellent authorities. They may be dated within a period of forty to fifty years after the death of Christ Mk. about a.d. 69, Mt. and (probably) Lk. not later than a.d. 80. ‘The great mass of the Synoptic Gospels had assumed its permanent shape not later than the decade a.d. 60 70, and the changes which it underwent after the great catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem were but small, and can without difficulty be recognized’ (Sanday, <em> Outlines </em> ). Further, that Gospels composed in the second generation can be trusted to have reproduced the original testimony with general accuracy may be held on two grounds. There is every reason to believe the ecclesiastical traditions that the contents of original Mt. were compiled by one of the Twelve, and that the reminiscences of Peter formed the staple of Mk. (Euseb. <em> HE </em> iii. 39). It is also certain that the Synoptic material was used throughout the intervening period in the Christian meetings for worship, and the memory of witnesses must thus have been in a position to ensure the continuity of the report, and to check any serious deviations from the oldest testimony. The general trustworthiness is further supported by the consideration of the originality of the Synoptic picture of Jesus and His teaching. The character of Jesus, and the acts in which it is revealed, form a whole which has the unmistakable stamp of historical reality, and forbids us to think that to any great extent it can have been the product of the collective Christian mind. Jesus, in short, is needed to explain the Church and cannot be Himself explained as the product of His own creation. It is also to be noticed that the Synoptic teaching has a clear-cut individuality of its own which shows that it has sturdily refused to blend with the Apostolic type of theology. </p> <p> With the Fourth Gospel the case stands somewhat differently. If it be indeed the work of John the ‘beloved disciple, its authority stands higher than all the rest. In that case the duty of the historian is to employ it as his fundamental document, and to utilize the Synoptics as auxiliary sources. In the view of the present writer the question is one of great difficulty. It is true that there is a powerful body of Patristic testimony in support of the tradition that the Fourth Gospel was composed by the [[Apostle]] Johnin [[Ephesus]] in his old age about a.d. 95. It is also true that the Gospel solemnly stakes its credit on its right to be accepted as the narrative of an eye-witness (John 19:35; John 21:24 ). And its claim is strengthened by the fact that, in the judgment even of many unsympathetic witnesses, it embodies a larger or smaller amount of independent and valuable information. On the other hand, it is a serious matter that a Gospel, appearing at the close of the century, should practically recast the story of Jesus which had circulated in the Church for sixty years, and should put forward a view of the course of the Ministry which is not even suspected in the other Apostolic sources. Passing to the teaching, we find that the process which was in discoverable in the Synoptic report has here actually taken place, and that the discourses of Jesus are assimilated to a well-marked type of Apostolic doctrine. There is reason to believe that for both history and doctrine the author had at his disposal Memorabilia of Jesus, but in both cases also it would seem that he has handled his data with great freedom. The treatment of the historical matter, it may be permitted to think, is more largely topical, and the chronological framework which it provides is less reliable, than is commonly supposed. The discourses, again, have been expanded by the reporter, and cast in the moulds of his own thought, so that in them we really possess a combination of the words of Jesus of Nazareth with those of the glorified Christ speaking in the experience of a disciple. The hypothesis which seems to do justice to both sets of phenomena is that John was only the author in a similar sense to that in which Peter was the author of Mk., and Matthew of canonical Mt., and that the actual composer of the Fourth Gospel was a disciple of the second generation who was served heir to the knowledge and faith of the Apostle, and who claimed considerable powers as an executor. In view of these considerations, it is held that a sketch of the life of Jesus is properly based on the Synoptic record, and that in utilizing the Johannine additions it is desirable to take up a critical attitude in regard to the form and the chronology. There is also much to be said for expounding the teaching of Jesus on the basis of the Synoptics, and for treating the Johannine discourses as primarily a source for Apostolic doctrine. It is a different question whether the interpretation of Christ which the Fourth Gospel supplies is trustworthy, and on the value of this, its main message, two remarks may be made. It is, in the first place, substantially the same valuation of Christ which pervades the [[Pauline]] Epistles, and which has been endorsed by the saintly experience of the Christian centuries as answering to the knowledge of Christ that is given in intimate communion with the risen Lord. Moreover, the doctrine of [[Providence]] comes to the succour of a faith which may be distressed by the breakdown of the hypothesis of inerrancy. For it is a reasonable belief that God, in whose plan with the race the work of Christ was to be a decisive factor, took order that there should be given to the after world a record which should sufficiently instruct men in reply to the question, ‘What think ye of Christ?’ </p> <p> (2) <em> The [[Epistles]] </em> . From the Epistles it is possible to collect the outstanding facts as to the earthly condition, the death, and the resurrection of Christ. Incidentally St. [[Paul]] shows that he could cite His teaching on a point of ethics ( 1 Corinthians 7:11 ), and give a detailed account of the institution of the Lord’s [[Supper]] ( 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff.). It is also significant that in allusions to the [[Temptation]] ( Hebrews 4:15 ), the [[Agony]] ( Hebrews 5:7 ), and the [[Transfiguration]] ( 2 Peter 1:17 ), the writers can reckon on a ready understanding. </p> <p> (B) Extra-Canonical Sources </p> <p> (1) <em> Christian </em> </p> <p> ( <em> a </em> ) <em> Patristic references </em> . The [[Fathers]] make very trifling additions to our knowledge of the facts of the life of Jesus. There is nothing more important than the statement of Justin, that as a carpenter Jesus made ploughs and yokes ( <em> [[Dial]] </em> . 88). More valuable are the additions to the canonical sayings of Jesus (Westcott, <em> Introd. to the Gospels </em> 8 , 1895; Resch, <em> [[Agrapha]] </em> 2 , 1907). Of the 70 Logia which have been claimed, Ropes pronounces 43 worthless, 13 of possible value, and 14 valuable ( <em> [[Die]] Sprüche [[Jesu]] </em> , 1896). The following are deemed by Huck to be noteworthy ( <em> Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien </em> 3 , 1906): </p> <p> (1) ‘Ask great things, and the small shall be added to you; and ask heavenly things, and the earthly shall be added to you’ (Origen, <em> de Orat </em> . § 2). </p> <p> (2) ‘If ye exalt not your low things, and transfer to your right hand the things on your left, ye shall not enter into my kingdom’ ( <em> Acta [[Philippi]] </em> , ch. 34). </p> <p> (3) ‘He who is near me is near the fire, he who is far from me is far from the kingdom’ (Origen, <em> Hom. in Jeremiah 20:3 </em> ). </p> <p> (4) ‘If ye kept not that which is small, who will give you that which is great?’ (Clem. Rom. ii. 8). </p> <p> (5) ‘Be thou saved and thy soul’ (Exc. e. Theod. <em> ap </em> . Clem. Alex. [Note: lex. Alexandrian.] § 2). </p> <p> (6) ‘Show yourselves tried bankers’ (Clem. Alex. [Note: lex. Alexandrian.] <em> Strom </em> . i. 28). </p> <p> (7) ‘Thou hast seen thy brother, thou hast seen God’ <em> ib. </em> i. 19). </p> <p> More recent additions to the material are to be found in Grenfell and Hunt, <em> Sayings of our Lord </em> (1897) and <em> New Sayings of Jesus </em> (1904). </p> <p> ( <em> b </em> ) <em> Apocryphal Gospels </em> . These fall into three groups according as they deal with the history of [[Joseph]] and [[Mary]] ( <em> [[Protevangelium]] of James </em> ), the [[Infancy]] ( <em> Gospel of [[Thomas]] </em> ), and [[Pilate]] ( <em> Acts of Pilate </em> ). They are worthless elaborations, with the addition of grotesque and sometimes beautiful fancies (‘Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Revelations,’ vol. xvi. of the <em> Ante-Nicene [[Library]] </em> , 1870). Of more value are the fragments of the Gospels of the <em> Hebrews </em> , the <em> [[Egyptians]] </em> , and <em> Peter </em> (Hilgenfeld, <em> NT extra canonem receptum </em> 2 , 1876 84; Swete, <em> The Akhmim [[Fragment]] of the Gospel of Peter </em> , 1903). </p> <p> (2) <em> Jewish sources </em> . [[Josephus]] mentions Jesus ( <em> [[Ant]] </em> . XX. ix. 1), but the most famous passage (XVIII. iii. 3) is mainly, if not entirely, a Christian interpolation. The [[Jews]] remembered Him as charged with deceiving the people, practising magic and speaking blasphemy, and as having been crucified; but the calumnies of the [[Talmud]] as to the circumstances of His birth appear to have been comparatively late inventions (Huldricus, <em> Sepher Toledot Jeschua </em> , 1705; Laible, <em> Jesus Christus im Talmud </em> , 1900). </p> <p> (3) <em> Classical sources </em> . There is evidence in the classical writers for the historical existence, approximate date, and death of Jesus, but otherwise their attitude was ignorant and contemptuous (Tac. <em> Ann </em> . xv. 44; Suetonius, <em> [[Lives]] of [[Claudius]] and [[Nero]] </em> ; the younger Pliny, <em> Epp </em> . x. 97, 98; Lucian, <em> de Morte Peregrini </em> ; [[Celsus]] in Origen; cf. Keim, <em> Jesus of Nazara </em> [Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] ], 1876, i. pp. 24 33). </p> <p> <strong> 2. Presuppositions </strong> . It is impossible to write about Christ without giving effect to a philosophical and religious creed. The claim to be free from presuppositions commonly means that a writer assumes that the facts can be accommodated to a purely naturalistic view of history. As a fact, there is less reason to construe Christ in naturalistic terms than to revise a naturalistic philosophy in the light of ‘the fact of Christ.’ A recent review of the whole literature of the subject (Schweitzer, <em> Von [[Reimarus]] zu Wrede </em> , 1906) shows how profoundly the treatment has always been influenced by a writer’s attitude towards ultimate questions, and how far the purely historical evidence is from being able to compel a <em> consensus sapientium </em> . There are, in fact, as many types of the Life of Christ as there are points of view in theology, and it may be convenient at this stage to indicate the basis from which the work has been done in the principal monographs. </p> <p> [[Types]] of the Life of Christ </p> <p> I. Elimination of the supernatural, from the standpoint of (1) Eighteenth Century [[Deism]] Paulus, <em> Das Leben Jesu </em> , 1828; (2) Modern [[Pantheism]] D. F. Strauss, <em> Leben Jesu </em> , 1835 36 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1846); (3) Philosophical [[Scepticism]] Renan, <em> La Vie de Jésus </em> , 1863 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1864). </p> <p> II. Reduction of the supernatural, with eclectic reservation, from the standpoint of [[Theism]] Seeley, <em> Ecce Homo </em> , 1866; Hase, <em> Die Gesch. Jesu </em> , 1876; Keim, <em> Die Gesch. Jesu von Nazara </em> , 1867 72 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1873 77); O. Holtzmann, <em> Das Leben Jesu </em> , 1901 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1904). </p> <p> [[Within]] the rationalistic school there have emerged somewhat radical differences in the conception formed of Jesus and His message. One group conceives of Him as a man who is essentially modern because the value of His ideas and of His message is perennial (Harnack, <em> Das Wesen des Christenthums </em> , Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1901); another regards Him as, above all, the spokesman of unfulfilled apocalyptic dreams (J. Weiss, <em> Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes </em> , 1892). Bousset mediates between the two views ( <em> Jesus </em> . 1906). </p> <p> III. Reproduction of the Biblical account in general agreement with the faith of the Church Neander, <em> Das Leben Jesu [[Christi]] </em> , 1837 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1848); B. Weiss, Das <em> Leben Jesu </em> , 1882 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1883); Edersheim, <em> The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah </em> , 1884; Didon, <em> Jesus Christ </em> , 1891; Sanday, <em> Outlines of the Life of Christ </em> , 1906. </p> <p> The books of this group have a second common feature in their acceptance of the Fourth Gospel as a valuable history. The works of Weiss and Sanday dispose of the arrogant assumption of Schweitzer ( <em> op. cit. </em> ) that competent scholarship now regards the cardinal questions as settled in a negative sense. (For a full bibliography see Schweitzer, <em> op. cit. </em> , art. ‘Jesus Christ’ in <em> PRE </em> <em> [Note: RE Real-Encykl. für protest. Theol. und Kirche] </em> 3 ). </p> <p> <strong> 3. The [[Conditions]] in [[Palestine]] </strong> (Schürer, <em> GJV </em> <em> [Note: JV Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes.] </em> 3 [ <em> HJP </em> <em> [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] </em> ii. i. 1 ff.]). The condition of the Jews at the birth of Christ may be summarily described as marked by political impotence and religious decadence. </p> <p> (1) <em> The political situation </em> . From the age of the Exile, the Jews in Palestine were subject to a foreign domination Persian, Greek, Egyptian, Syrian, in rapid succession. Following upon a century of independence under the Maccabees, the country was incorporated in the Roman [[Empire]] as a division of the province of Syria. In certain circumstances, which have a parallel in British India, the Romans recognized a feudatory king, and it was with this status that [[Herod]] the Great reigned over Palestine. At his death in b.c. 4, his dominions were divided among his three sons; but on the deposition of [[Archelaus]] in 6 a.d., Judæa and [[Samaria]] were placed under a Roman procurator. Herod [[Antipas]] and [[Philip]] continued to rule as vassal princes, with the title of tetrarchs, over Galilee and Ituræa respectively. The pressure of the Roman rule was felt in the stern measures which were taken to suppress any dangerous expressions of national feeling, and also in the exactions of the publicans to whom the taxes were farmed. Internal administration was largely an affair of the Jewish Church. To a highly spirited people like the Jews, with memories of former freedom and power, the loss of national independence was galling; and their natural restlessness under the foreign yoke, combined as it was with the Messianic hopes that formed a most vital element of their religion, was a source of anxiety not only to the Roman authorities but to their own leaders. </p> <p> (2) <em> The religious situation </em> . From the religious point of view it was a decadent age. No doubt there is a tendency to exaggerate the degradation of the world at our Lord’s coming, on the principle that the darkest hour must have preceded the dawn; and in fairness the indictment should be restricted to the statement that the age marked a serious declension from the highest level of OT religion. It had, in fact, many of the features which have re-appeared in the degenerate periods of the Christian Church. ( <em> a </em> ) One such feature was the disappearance of the prophetic man, and his replacement as a religious authority by representatives of sacred learning. As the normal condition of things in the Christian Church has been similar, it cannot in itself be judged to be symptomatic of anything worse than a silver age that the exponents of the [[Scriptures]] and of the tradition were now the chief religious guides of the people (see Scribes). Moreover, a very genuine religious originality and fervour had continued to find expression in the [[Apocalyptic]] literature of later [[Judaism]] (see Apocalyptic Literature). ( <em> b </em> ) A more decisive proof of degradation is the exaltation of the ceremonial and formal side of religion as a substitute for personal piety and righteousness of life. This tendency had its classic representatives in the Pharisees. The best of their number must have exhibited, as Josephus shows, a zeal for God and a self-denial like that of Roman [[Catholic]] saints otherwise the veneration of the people, which Josephus shared, would be inexplicable ( <em> Ant </em> . XVII. ii. 4); but as a class our Lord charges them with sins of covetousness and inhumanity, which gave the colour of hypocrisy to their ritualistic scruples ( Matthew 24:1-51; see Pharisees). ( <em> c </em> ) A further characteristic of decadence is that the religious organization tends to come in the place of God, as the object of devotion, and there appears the powerful ecclesiastic who, though he may be worldly and even sceptical, is indispensable as the symbol and protector of the sacred institution. This type was represented by the [[Sadducees]] in their general outlook men of the world, in their doctrine sceptics with an ostensible basis of conservatism, who filled the priestly offices, controlled the Sanhedrin, and endeavoured to maintain correct relations with their Roman masters. It can also well be believed that, as Josephus tells us, they professed an aristocratic dislike to public business, which they nevertheless dominated; and that they humoured the multitude by an occasional show of religious zeal (see Sadducees). </p> <p> In this world presided over by pedants, formalists, and political ecclesiastics, the common people receive a fairly good character. Their religion was the best that then had a footing among men, and they were in earnest about it. They had been purified by the providential discipline of centuries from the last vestiges of idolatry. It is noteworthy that Jesus brings against them no such sweeping accusations of immorality and cruelty as are met with in Amos and Hosea. Their chief fault was that they were disposed to look on their religion as a means of procuring them worldly good, and that they were blind and unreceptive in regard to purely spiritual blessings. The influence which the [[Pharisees]] had over them shows that they were capable of reverencing, and eager to obey, those who seemed to them to speak for God; and their response to the preaching of John the [[Baptist]] was still more to their honour. There is evidence of a contemporary strain of self-renouncing idealism in the existence of communities which sought deliverance from the evil of the world in the austerities of an ascetic life (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] <em> Ant </em> . XVIII. i. 5; see Essenes). The Gospels introduce us to not a few men and women who impress us as exemplifying a simple and noble type of piety nourished as they were on the religion of the OT, and waiting patiently for the salvation of God. Into a circle pervaded by this atmosphere Jesus was born. </p> <p> <strong> 4. [[Date]] of Christ’s Birth </strong> (cf. art. Chronology, p. 135 b , and in Hastings’ <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> ). If John began to baptize in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Cæsar ( Luke 3:1 ) being a.d. 29 and if Jesus Was thirty years of age when He was baptized (v. 23), the traditional date fixed by [[Dionysius]] Exiguus would be approximately correct. But it is probable that the reign of Tiberius was reckoned by Lk. from his admission to joint-authority with [[Augustus]] in a.d. 11 12, so that Jesus would be thirty in a.d. 25 6, and would be born about b.c. 5. This agrees with the representation of Mt. that He was born under Herod, since Herod died b.c. 4, and a number of events of the Infancy are mentioned as occurring before his death. A reference in John 2:20 to the forty-six years during which the Temple had been in course of construction leads to a similar result viz. a.d. 26 for the second year of the Ministry, and b.c. 5 for the Birth of Jesus. </p> <p> <strong> 5. Birth and Infancy </strong> (cf. Sweet, <em> The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ </em> , 1907). Mt. and Lk. have a narrative of the Infancy, and agree in the following points that Jesus was of David’s line, that He was miraculously conceived, that He was born in Bethlehem, and that the [[Holy]] [[Family]] permanently settled in Nazareth. The additional incidents related by Mt. are the appearance of the angel to Joseph ( Matthew 1:18-24 ), the adoration of the [[Magi]] ( Matthew 2:1-12 ), the flight into [[Egypt]] ( Matthew 2:13-15 ), the massacre at [[Bethlehem]] ( Matthew 2:16-18 ). Lk.’s supplementary matter includes the promise of the birth of John the Baptist ( Matthew 1:5-23 ), the [[Annunciation]] to Mary ( Luke 1:26-38 ), the visit of Mary to [[Elisabeth]] ( Luke 1:39-56 ), the birth of the Baptist ( Luke 1:57-80 ), the census ( Luke 2:1 ff.), the vision of angels ( Luke 2:8-14 ), the adoration of the shepherds ( Luke 2:15-20 ), the circumcision ( Luke 2:21 ), the presentation in the Temple Luke 2:22-23 ). </p> <p> The narratives embody two ideas which are singly impressive, and in conjunction make a profound appeal to the feelings and the imagination. The humiliation of the Saviour is emphasized by one set of events the lowly parentage, the birth in a stable, the rage of Herod, the flight of His parents to a distant land. The other series shows Him as honoured and accredited by heaven, while earth also agrees, in the representatives of its wealth and its poverty, its wisdom and its ignorance, to do Him honour at His coming. ‘A halo of miracles is formed around the central miracle, comparable to the rays of the rising sun’ (Lange, <em> Life of Christ </em> , Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] i. 257, 258). </p> <p> At this point the influence of theological standpoint makes itself acutely felt. In the ‘Lives’ written from the naturalistic and Unitarian standpoints, the mass of the material is described as mythical or legendary, and the only points left over for discussion are the sources of invention, and the date at which the stories were incorporated with the genuine tradition. The residuum of historical fact, according to O. Holtzmann, is that ‘Jesus was born at Nazareth in Galilee, the son of Joseph and Mary, being the eldest of five brothers and several sisters, and there He grew up’ ( <em> Life of Jesus </em> , Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] p. 89). The chief grounds on which the negative case is rested may be briefly considered. </p> <p> (1) The narratives of the Infancy are not a part of the original tradition, since they are known to only two of the Evangelists, and have no Biblical support outside these Gospels. To this it seems a sufficient reply that additions may have been made later from a good source, and that there were obvious reasons why some at least of the incidents should have been treated for a time with reserve. </p> <p> (2) The two Gospels which deal with the Infancy discredit one another by the incompatibility of their statements. Mt., it is often said, supposes that Bethlehem was Joseph’s home from the beginning; Lk. says that he made a visit to Bethlehem on the occasion of a census. According to Mt., the birth in Bethlehem was followed by a flight into Egypt; according to Lk., they visited Jerusalem and then returned to Nazareth. But the difficulties have been exaggerated. Though it is quite possible that Mt. did not know of an original residence in Nazareth, he does not actually deny it. And although neither [[Evangelist]] may have known of the other’s history, it is quite possible, without excessive harmonistic zeal, to work the episodes of Mt. into Lk.’s scheme. ‘The accounts may be combined with considerable plausibility if we suppose that Joseph and Mary remained a full year in Bethlehem, during which the presentation in the Temple took place, and that the visit of the Magi was much later than the adoration of the shepherds’ (Gloag, <em> Introd. to the Synoptic Gospels </em> , pp. 136, 137). </p> <p> (3) The events narrated are said to be inconsistent with the indirect evidence of other portions of the Gospels. If they really occurred, why was Mary not prepared for all that followed? and why aid Jesus’ brethren not believe in Him? (Mark 3:21; Mark 3:31 ff., Matthew 12:46-50 ). In particular, the body of the Gospels contains, it is said, evidence which is inconsistent with the Virgin-birth. The difficulty is a real one, but hardly greater than the difficulty presented in the fact that the mighty works of the Ministry did not overbear doubt and disbelief in those who witnessed them. </p> <p> (4) The narratives in question are also said to have had their origin in man’s illusory ideas as to the proper manner of the coming of a Divine messenger. The history of the founders of other religions <em> e.g. </em> [[Confucius]] and [[Gautama]] shows a fond predisposition to invest the birth of a Saviour or a mighty prophet with a miraculous halo; and it is suggested that similar stories were invented about Christ, with the effect of obscuring the distinctive thought and purpose of God. They are ‘deforming investitures, misplaced, like courtdresses on the spirits of the just’ (Martinean, <em> [[Loss]] and [[Gain]] </em> ). There is undeniable force in this, but it will be noticed that it is an observation which would make an end, as indeed those who use it intend, of the whole miraculous element in the life. If, on the other hand, we believe that the life of Christ was supernatural, it is easily credible that the rising of the [[Sun]] was heralded, in Lange’s image, by rays of glory. </p> <p> Of the events of the glorious cycle which have the joint support of Mt. and Lk. there are three which have been felt to have religious significance. </p> <p> (1) <em> The Davidic descent </em> . It was an article of common belief in the primitive Church that Jesus was descended from [[David]] ( Romans 1:3 ). Mt. and Lk. supply genealogies which have the purpose of supporting the belief, but do not strengthen it <em> prima facie </em> , as one traces the descent through [[Solomon]] ( Matthew 1:6 ), the other through a son of David called [[Nathan]] ( Luke 3:31 ). The favourite way of harmonizing them is to suppose that Mt. gives the descent through Joseph, Lk. through Mary, while others think that Mt. gives the list of heirs to the Davidic throne, Lk. the actual family-tree of Jesus. It may well be believed that descendants of the royal house treasured the record of their origin; and on the other hand it seems unlikely that Jesus could have been accepted as Messiah without good evidence of Davidic origin, or that a late fabrication would have been regarded as such. </p> <p> (2) <em> The Virgin-birth </em> (cf. Gore, <em> Dissertations on the [[Incarnation]] </em> , 1895; Lobstein, <em> The Virgin-Birth of Christ </em> , Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1903). The student is referred for a full statement on both sides to the works above cited, but a remark may be made on the two branches of the evidence. ( <em> a </em> ) The objections based on historical and literary grounds, as distinct from anti-dogmatic prejudice, are of considerable weight. No account of Mk.’s purpose satisfactorily explains his omission if he knew of it, and it seems incredible that, if known, it would not have been utilized in the Pauline theology. [[Upon]] this it can only be said that it may have been a fact, although it had not yet come to the knowledge of Mk. and Paul. Further, Mt. and Lk. themselves raise a grave difficulty, since the whole point of the genealogies seems to be that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph. The usual, though not quite convincing, answer is, that Jesus was legally the son of Joseph, and therefore David’s heir. It must probably be admitted that the original compilers of the genealogies shared the ignorance of the earliest Gospel, but ignorance or silence is not decisive as to a fact. ( <em> b </em> ) It has been common to exaggerate the doctrinal necessity of the tenet. It is usually held to have been necessary to preserve Jesus from the taint of original sin; but as Mary was truly His mother, an additional miracle must have been necessary to prevent the transmission of the taint through her, and this subsidiary miracle could have safeguarded the sinlessness of Jesus without the miraculous conception. Nor can it be said that it is a necessary corollary of the [[Eternal]] Sonship of Christ; since it is found in the Gospels which say nothing of His pre-existence, and is absent from the Gospel which places this in the forefront. And yet it would be rash to say that it has no value for Christian faith. The unique character of Christ, with its note of sinless perfection, cannot be explained by purely natural factors; and the doctrine of the Virgin-birth at least renders the service of affirming the operation of a supernatural causality in the constitution of that character. It must also be said that the negation is generally felt to be a phase of an anti-supernatural campaign to which the overthrow of this position means the capture of an outwork, and a point of departure for a more critical attack. It is also difficult for a Christian thinker to abandon the dogma without feeling puzzled and distressed by the alternative explanations which open up. </p> <p> (3) <em> The Birth at Bethlehem </em> (cf. Ramsay, <em> Was Christ born at Bethlehem? </em> 1902). For the birth at Bethlehem we have the statement of the Gospels. Lk. seems to have investigated the point with special care, and explains the presence of Joseph and Mary at Bethlehem as due to a census which had been ordered by Augustus ( Luke 2:1 ). It has frequently been assumed that Lk. has blundered, as <strong> [[Quirinius]] </strong> was not governor of [[Syria]] until a.d. 6, when he made an enrolment; and the impossible date to which we are thus led seems to discredit the whole combination. In defence of Lk. it is pointed out that Quirinius held a military appointment in Syria about b.c. 6 which may have been loosely described as a governorship, and that there is evidence for a twelve years’ cycle in Imperial statistics which would give a first enrolment about the same date. </p> <p> <strong> 6. Years of [[Preparation]] </strong> (cf. Keim, vol. 2 Peter 2 ). The silence of the Gospels as to the boyhood and early manhood of Jesus is broken only by the mention of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem ( Luke 2:41 ff.). Even if it be true that none of His townsfolk believed on Him, it might have been expected that the piety of His disciples would have recovered some facts from the public memory, and that in any case the tradition would have been enriched at a later date by members of the family circle. The only possible explanation of the silence is that during the years in Nazareth Jesus did and said nothing which challenged notice. It is also evident that the silence is an indirect testimony to the credibility of the great events of the later years, as there was every reason why the tradition, had it not been bound by facts, should have invested the earlier period with supernatural surprises and glories. </p> <p> (1) <em> [[Education]] of Jesus </em> . 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. <em> [[Apion]] </em> , 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 <em> chazzan </em> 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, <em> The Education of Christ </em> , 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. </p> <p> (2) <em> [[Knowledge]] of Jesus </em> . 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, <em> Natürliche Gesch. des grossen Propheten von Nazareth </em> , 1800 2), that He had acquired esoteric wisdom among the Essenes. It has also become difficult 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, conflict, 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. </p> <p> <strong> 7. Jesus and the Baptist </strong> . The religious common-placeness of the age, which has been described above, was at length broken by the appearance of John the Baptist, who recalled the ancient prophets. He proclaimed 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 Galilæans 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 ( Mark 3:14 ); while the Fourth Gospel states that he explicitly pointed Him out as the Messiah to his disciples ( Mark 1:29; Mark 1:36 ). 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’ ( Mark 1:10-11 ). 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. </p> <p> <strong> 8. The Temptation </strong> . 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 4:1-13 ). 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 life 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 kind which the people generally expected, or a kingdom of a spiritual order. To found and maintain an earthly kingdom. 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 ( Matthew 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 (4:5ff.). 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. </p> <p> <strong> 9. Duration of the Ministry </strong> (cf. art. [[Chronology]] above and in <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> ). The Synoptics give no certain indication of the length of the period. It is argued that the incident of plucking the ears of corn ( 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]] ( John 2:13 ), four months to harvest ( John 4:35 ), a feast of the Jews ( John 5:1 ), another Passover ( John 6:4 ), the feast of [[Tabernacles]] ( John 7:2 ), the feast of [[Dedication]] ( John 10:22 ), the last Passover ( John 11:55 ). The first four ‘can be combined in more than one way to fit into a single year <em> e.g. (a </em> ) Passover May any lesser feast Passover; or ( <em> b </em> ) Passover January [[Purim]] (February) Passover.’ ‘From John 6:4 to John 11:55 the space covered is exactly a year, the autumn Feast of Tabernacles ( John 7:2 ), and the winter Feast of Dedication ( John 10:22 ), being signalized in the course of it’ (art. ‘Chronology’ in <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> i. 409 a , 408 a ). </p> <p> 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, <em> Greek Test. </em> ; Briggs, <em> New [[Light]] on the Life of Jesus </em> ). On the other hand, it was asserted by Irenæus ( <em> adv. Hær </em> . 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 <em> must </em> , not more than two years <em> can </em> , be allowed for the interval from John 2:13; John 2:23 to John 11:55 ’ (art. ‘Chronology’ in <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> ). </p> <p> <strong> 10. Periods of the Life of Christ </strong> . The divisions are necessarily affected by the view which is taken of the value of the chronological scheme of the Fourth Gospel. </p> <p> Keim, who generally follows the guidance of the Synoptics, divides as follows: </p> <p> Preliminary period of self-recognition and decision. </p> <p> 1. The Galilæan spring-time, beginning in the spring of a.d. 34 [certainly much too late], and lasting for a few months. Characteristics: the optimism of Jesus, and the responsiveness of the people. </p> <p> 2. The Galilæan storms, extending over the summer and autumn of a.d. 34 and the spring of the following year. Scene: Galilee and the neighbouring regions. Characteristics: increasing opposition, and intensification of the polemical note in the teaching of Jesus. </p> <p> 3. The Messianic progress to Jerusalem, and the Messianic death at the Passover of a.d. 35. Scene: Peræa and Jerusalem ( <em> Jesus of Nazara </em> ). </p> <p> 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: </p> <p> Preliminary history. </p> <p> 1. The ‘acceptable year of the Lord,’ marked by hopefulness, active labour, and much outward success. Scene: Judæa 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). </p> <p> 2. The year of conflict. Scene: Galilee, Peræa, Judæa. Time: from the second to the last Passover. </p> <p> 3. The [[Passion]] and Resurrection. Scene: Jerusalem. Time: Passover ( <em> Gesch. Jesu </em> ). </p> <p> The months between the Baptism and the first Passover may be regarded as a period with distinct characteristics, and we may distinguish (1) the year of obscurity, (2) the year of public favour, (3) the year of opposition (Stalker, <em> Life of Jesus Christ </em> , 1879). </p> <p> The division into sub-periods has been most elaborately carried out by Dr. Sanday ( <em> Outlines of the Life of Jesus Christ </em> ). </p> <p> A. Preliminary period from the Baptism to the call of the leading Apostles. Sources: Matthew 3:1 to Matthew 4:11 , Mark 1:1-13 , Luke 3:1 to Luke 4:13 , John 1:6 to John 4:54 . Scene: mainly in Judæa, but in part also in Galilee. Time: winter a.d. 26 to a few weeks before Passover, a.d. 27. </p> <p> B. First active or constructive period. Sources: Matthew 4:13 to Matthew 13:53 , Mark 1:14 to Mark 6:13 , Luke 4:14 to Luke 9:6 , John 5:1-47 . Scene: mainly in Galilee, but also partly in Jerusalem. Time: from about Pentecost, a.d. 27, to shortly before Passover, a.d. 28. </p> <p> C. [[Middle]] or culminating period of the active ministry. Sources: Matthew 14:1 to Matthew 18:35 , Mark 6:14 to Mark 9:50 , Luke 9:7-50 , John 6:1-71 . Scene: Galilee. Time: Passover to shortly before Tabernacles, a.d. 28. </p> <p> D. [[Close]] of the active period the Messianic crisis in view. Sources: Matthew 19:1 to Matthew 20:34 , Mark 10:1-52 , Luke 9:51 to Luke 19:28 , John 7:1 to John 11:57 . Scene: Judæa and Peræa. Time: Tabernacles, a.d. 28, to Passover, a.d. 29. </p> <p> E. The Messianic crisis the last week, passion, resurrection, ascension. Sources: Matthew 21:1 to Matthew 28:20 , Mark 11:1 to Mark 16:8 [ Mark 16:9-20 ], Luke 19:29 to Luke 24:52 , John 12:1 to John 21:23 . Scene: mainly in Jerusalem. Time: six days before Passover to ten days before Pentecost, a.d. 29. </p> <p> Weiss’s scheme agrees with the above so far as regards the duration of the ministry (from 2 Timothy 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 Galilee; (2) the seed-time, including the remainder of ‘the preliminary period,’ and the first active or constructive period; (3) the period of first conflicts, and (4) the period of crisis, corresponding to the ‘middle or culminating period’; (5) the Jerusalem period, corresponding to the close of the active period; (6) the Passion and the subsequent events. </p> <p> 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 Judæan ministry which ran parallel with the Galilæan 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 Galilæan perio </p>

<p> The Lord and [[Saviour]] of mankind. He is called [[Christ]] (anointed, ) because he is anointed, furnished, and sent by [[God]] to execute his mediatorial office; and [[Jesus]] (Saviour, ) because he came to save his people from their sins. For an account of his nativity, offices, death, resurrection, &c. the reader is referred to those articles in this work. We shall here more particularly consider his divinity, humanity, and character. The divinity of Jesus Christ seems evident, if we consider, </p> <p> 1. The language of the New Testament, and compare it with the state of the [[Pagan]] world at the time of its publication. If Jesus Christ were not God, the writers of the New [[Testament]] discovered great injudiciousness in the choice of their words, and adopted a very incautions and dangerous style. The whole world, except the small kingdom of Judea, worshipped idols at the time of Jesus Christ's appearance. Jesus Christ; the evangelists, who wrote his history; and the apostles, who wrote epistles to various classes of men, proposed to destroy idolatry, and to establish the worship of one only living and true God. To effect this purpose, it was absolutely necessary for these founders of [[Christianity]] to avoid confusion and obscurity of language, and to express their ideas in a cool and cautious style. </p> <p> The least expression that would tend to deify a creature, or countenance idolatry, would have been a source of the greatest error. Hence [[Paul]] and [[Barnabas]] rent their clothes at the very idea of the multitude's confounding the creature with the Creator, Acts 14:1-28 : The writers of the New Testament knew that in speaking of Jesus Christ, extraordinary caution was necessary; yet, when we take up the New Testament, we find such expressions as these: "The word was God, John 1:1 . God was manifest in the flesh, 1 Timothy 3:16 . God with us, Matthew 1:23 . The [[Jews]] crucified the Lord of glory, 1 Corinthians 2:8 . Jesus Christ is Lord of all, Acts 10:36 . Christ is over all; God blessed for ever, Rom.ix. 5." These are a few of many propositions, which the New Testament writers lay down relative to Jesus Christ. If the writers intended to affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ, these are words of truth and soberness; if not, the language is incautious and unwarrantable; and to address it to men prone to idolatry, for the purpose of destroying idolatry, is a strong presumption against their inspiration. It is remarkable, also, that the richest words in the [[Greek]] language are made use of to describe Jesus Christ. This language, which is very copious, would have afforded lower terms to express an inferior nature; but it could have afforded none higher to express the nature of the [[Supreme]] God. </p> <p> It is worthy of observation, too, that these writers addressed their writings not to philosophers and scholars, but to the common people, and consequently used words in their plain popular signification. The common people, it seems, understood the words in our sense of them; for in the Dioclesian persecution, when the [[Roman]] soldiers burnt a Phrygian city inhabited by Christians; men, women, and children submitted to their fate, calling upon Christ, THE GOD OVER ALL. </p> <p> 2. Compare the style of the New Testament with the state of the Jews at the time of its publication. In the time of Jesus Christ, the Jews were zealous defenders of the unity of God, and of that idea of his perfections which the [[Scriptures]] excited. Jesus Christ and his apostles professed the highest regard for the [[Jewish]] Scriptures; yet the writers of the New Testament described Jesus Christ by the very names and titles by which the writers of the Old Testament had described the Supreme God. Compare Exodus 3:14 . with John 8:58 . Is. 44: 6. with Revelation 1:11; Revelation 1:17 . Deuteronomy 10:17 . with Revelation 17:14 . Psalms 24:10 . with 1 Corinthians 2:8 . Hosea 1:7 . with Luke 2:1-52 . Daniel 5:23 . with 1 Corinthians 15:47 . 1 Chronicles 29:11 . with Colossians 2:10 . If they who described Jesus Christ to the Jews by these sacred names and titles intended to convey an idea of his deity, the description is just and the application safe; but if they intended to describe a mere man, they were surely of all men the most preposterous. They chose a method of recommending Jesus to the Jews the most likely to alarm and enrage them. Whatever they meant, the Jews understood them in our sense, and took Jesus for a blasphemer, John 10:33 . </p> <p> 3. Compare the perfections which are ascribed to Jesus Christ in the Scriptures, with those which are ascribed to God. Jesus Christ declares, "All things that the Father hath are mine, " John 16:15 . a very dangerous proposition, if he were not God. The writers of revelation ascribe to him the same perfections which they ascribe to God. Compare Jeremiah 10:10 . with Isaiah 9:6 . Exodus 15:13 . with Hebrews 1:8 . Jeremiah 32:19 . with Is. 9: 6. Psalms 102:24; Psalms 102:27 . with Hebrews 13:8 . Jeremiah 23:24 . with Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 1:23 . 1 Samuel 2:5 . with John 14:30 . If Jesus Christ be God, the ascription of the perfections of God to him is proper; if he be not, the apostles are chargeable with weakness or wickedness, and either would destroy their claim of inspiration. </p> <p> 4. [[Consider]] the works that are ascribed to Jesus Christ, and compare them with the claims of Jehovah. Is creation a work of God? "By Jesus Christ were all things created, " Colossians 1:1-29 . Is preservation a work of God? "Jesus Christ upholds all things by the word of his power, " Hebrews 1:3 . Is the mission of the prophets a work of God? Jesus Christ is the Lord God of the holy prophets; and it was the [[Spirit]] of Christ which testified to them beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow, Nehemiah 9:30 . Revelation 22:6; Revelation 22:16 . 1 Peter 1:11 . Is the salvation of sinners a work of God? Christ is the Saviour of all that believe, John 4:42 . Hebrews 5:9 . Is the forgiveness of sin a work of God? The [[Son]] of Man hath power to forgive sins, Matthew 9:6 . The same might be said of the illumination of the mind; the sanctification of the heart; the resurrection of the dead: the judging of the world; the glorification of the righteous; the eternal punishment of the wicked; all which works, in one part of Scripture, are ascribed to God; and all which, in another part of Scripture, are ascribed to Jesus Christ. Now, if Jesus Christ be not God, into what contradictions these writers must fall! They contradict one another: they contradict themselves. [[Either]] Jesus Christ is God, or their conduct is unaccountable. </p> <p> 5. Consider that divine worship which Scriptures claim for Jesus Christ. It is a command of God, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, " Matthew 4:20 . yet the Scriptures command "all the angels of God to worship Christ, " Hebrews 1:6 . [[Twenty]] times, in the New Testament, grace, mercy, and peace, are implored of Christ, together with the Father. [[Baptism]] is an act of worship performed in his name, Matthew 28:19 . [[Swearing]] is an act of worship; a solemn appeal in important cases to the omniscient God; and this appeal is made to Christ, Romans 9:1 . The committing to the soul to God at death is a sacred act of worship: in the performance of this act, [[Stephen]] died, saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit, Acts 7:59 . The whole host of heaven worship him that sitteth upon the throne, and the Lamb, for ever and ever, Revelation 5:14; Revelation 15:1-8 : </p> <p> 6. [[Observe]] the application of Old Testament passages which belong to Jehovah, to Jesus in the New Testament, and try whether you can acquit the writers of the New Testament of misrepresentation, on supposition that Jesus is not God. St. Paul says, "We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ." That we shall all be judged, we allow; but how do you prove that Christ shall be our Judge? Because, adds the apostle, it is written, "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God, " Romans 14:10-11 , with Is. 45: 20, &c. What sort of reasoning is this? How does this apply to Christ, if Christ be not God? And how dare a man quote one of the most guarded passages in the Old Testament for such a purpose? John the [[Baptist]] is he who was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, [[Prepare]] ye the way, Matthew 3:1; Matthew 3:3 . Isaiah saith, Prepare ye the way of THE LORD; make straight a highway for OUR GOD, Is. 40: 3, &c. But what has John the Baptist to do with all this description if Jesus Christ be only a messenger of Jehovah, and not [[Jehovah]] himself? for Isaiah saith, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah. Compare also Zechariah 12:10 . with John 19:1-42 . Is. 6: with John 12:39 . Is. 8: 13, 14. with 1 Peter 2:8 . [[Allow]] Jesus Christ to be God, and all these applications are proper. If we deny it, the New Testament, we must own is one of the most unaccountable compositions in the world, calculated to make easy things hard to be understood. </p> <p> 7. [[Examine]] whether events have justified that notion of Christianity which the prophets gave their countrymen of it, if Jesus Christ be not God. The calling of the [[Gentiles]] from the worship of idols to the worship of the one living and true God, is one event, which, the prophets said, the coming of the [[Messiah]] should bring to pass. If Jesus Christ be God, the event answers the prophecy; if not, the event is not come to pass, for [[Christians]] in general worship Jesus, which is idolatry, if he be not God, Isaiah 2:1-22 : Zephaniah 2:11 . Zechariah 14:9 . the primitive Christians certainly worshipped Him as God. Pliny, who was appointed governor of the province of [[Bithynia]] by the emperor Trajan, in the year 103, examined and punished several Christians for their non-conformity to the established religion of the empire. In a letter to the emperor, giving an account of his conduct, he declares, "they affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was that they met on a certain slated day, before it was light, and addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ as to some God." </p> <p> Thus Pliny meant to inform the emperor that Christians worshipped Christ. [[Justin]] Martyr, who lived about 150 years after Christ, asserts, that the Christians worshipped the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Besides his testimony, there are numberless passages in the fathers that attest the truth in question; especially in Tertullian, Hippolytus, Felix, &c. Mahomet, who lived in the sixth century, considers Christians in the light of infidels and idolaters throughout the Koran; and indeed, had not Christians worshipped Christ, he could have had no shadow of a pretence to reform their religion, and to bring them back to the worship of one God. That the far greater part of Christians have continued to worship Jesus, will not be doubted; now, if Christ be not God, then the Christians have been guilty of idolatry; and if they have been guilty of idolatry, then it must appear remarkable that the apostles, who foretold the corruptions of Christianity, 2 Timothy 3:1-17 : should never have foreseen nor warned us against worshiping Christ. In no part of the [[Scripture]] is there the least intimation of Christians falling into idolatry in this respect. [[Surely]] if this had been an error which was so universally to prevail, those Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation, would have left us warning on so important a topic. Lastly, consider what numberless passages of Scripture have no sense, or a very absurd one, if Jesus Christ be a mere man. </p> <p> See Romans 1:3 . 1 Timothy 3:16 . John 14:9; John 17:5 . Philippians 2:6 . Psalms 110:1; Psalms 110:4 . 1 Timothy 1:2 . Acts 22:12; Acts 9:17 . </p> <p> But though Jesus Christ be God, yet for our sakes, and for our salvation, he took upon him human nature; this is therefore called his humanity. Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, and many other heretics, denied Christ's humanity, as some have done since. But that Christ had a true human body, and not a mere human shape, or a body that was not real flesh, is very evident from the sacred Scriptures, Is. 7: 12. Luke 24:39 . Hebrews 2:14 . Luke 1:42 . Philippians 2:7-8 . John 1:14 . Besides, he ate, drank, slept, walked, worked, and was weary, He groaned, bled, and died, upon the cross. It was necessary that he should thus be human, in order to fulfil the divine designs and prophecies respecting the shedding of his blood for our salvation, which could not have been done had he not possessed a real body. It is also as evident that he assumed our whole nature, soul as well as body. If he had not, he could not have been capable of that sore amazement and sorrow unto death, and all those other acts of grieving, feeling, rejoicing, &c. ascribed to him. It was not, however, our sinful nature he assumed, but the likeness of it, Romans 8:2 . for he was without sin, and did no iniquity. His human nature must not be confounded with his divine; for though there be an union of natures in Christ, yet there is not a mixture or confusion of them or their properties. </p> <p> His humanity is not changed into his deity, nor his deity into humanity; but the two natures are distinct in one person. How this union exists is above our comprehension; and, indeed, if we cannot explain how our own bodies and souls are united, it is not to be supposed we can explain this astonishing mystery of God manifest in the flesh. </p> <p> See MEDIATOR. We now proceed to the character of Jesus Christ, which, while it affords us the most pleasing subject for meditation., exhibits to us an example of the most perfect and delightful kind. "Here, " as an elegant writer observes "every grace that can recommend religion, and every virtue that can adorn humanity, are so blended, as to excite our admiration, and engage our love. In abstaining from licentious pleasures, he was equally free from ostentatious singularity and churlish sullenness. When he complied with the established ceremonies of his countrymen, that compliance was not accompanied by any marks of bigotry or superstition: when he opposed their rooted prepossessions, his opposition was perfectly exempt from the captious petulance of a controversialist, and the undistinguishing zeal of an innovator. His courage was active in encountering the dangers to which he was exposed, and passive under the aggravated calamities which the malice of his foes heaped upon him: his fortitude was remote from every appearance of rashness, and his patience was equally exempt from abject pusillanimity: he was firm without obstinacy, and humble without meanness. </p> <p> Though possessed of the most unbounded power, we behold him living continually in a state of voluntary humiliation and poverty; we see him daily exposed to almost every species of want and distress; afflicted without a comforter, persecuted without a protector; and wandering about, according to his own pathetic complaint, because he had not where to lay his head. Though regardless of the pleasures, and sometimes destitute of the comforts of life, he never provokes our disgust by the sourness of the misanthrope, or our contempt by the inactivity of the recluse. His attention to the welfare of mankind was evidenced not only by his salutary injunctions, but by his readiness to embrace every opportunity of relieving their distress and administering to their wants. In every period and circumstance of his life, we behold dignity and elevation blended with love and pity; something, which, though it awakens our admiration, yet attracts our confidence. We see power; but it is power which is rather our security than our dread; a poser softened with tenderness, and soothing while it awes. With all the gentleness of a meek and lowly mind, we behold an heroic firmness, which no terrors could restrain. In the private scenes of life, and in the public occupation of his ministry; whether the object of admiration or ridicule, of love or of persecution; whether welcomed with hosannas, or insulted with anathemas, we still see him pursuing with unwearied constancy the same end, and preserving the same integrity of life and manners. </p> <p> " White's Sermons, ser. 5. [[Considering]] him as a [[Moral]] Teacher, we must be struck with the greatest admiration. As Dr. Paley observes, "he preferred solid to popular virtues, a character which is commonly despised, to a character universally extolled, he placed, in our licentious vices, the check in the right place, viz. upon the thoughts; he collected human duty into two well-devised rules; he repeated these rules, and laid great stress upon them, and thereby fixed the sentiments of his followers; he excluded all regard to reputation in our devotion and alms, and, by parity of reason, in our other virtues; his instructions were delivered in a form calculated for impression; they were illustrated by parables, the choice and structure of which would have been admired in any composition whatever: he was free from the usual symptoms of enthusiasm, heat, and vehemence in devotion, austerity in institutions, and a wild particularity in the description of a future state; he was free also from the depravities of his age and country; without superstition among the most superstitious of men, yet not decrying positive distinctions or external observances, but soberly recalling them to the principle of their establishment, and to their place in the scale of human duties; there was nothing of sophistry or trifling, though amidst teachers, remarkable for nothing so much as frivolous subtilties and quibbling expositions: he was candid and liberal in his judgment of the rest of mankind, although belonging to a people who affected a separate claim to divine favour, and, in consequence of that opinion, prone to uncharitableness, partiality, and restriction; in his religion there was no scheme of building up a hierarchy, or of ministering to the views of human governments; in a word, there was every thing so grand in doctrine, and so delightful in manner, that the people might well exclaim </p> <p> Surely, never man spake like this man!" As to his example, bishop Newcome observes, "it was of the most perfect piety to God, and of the most extensive benevolence and the most tender compassion to men. He does not merely exhibit a life of strict justice, but of overflowing benignity. His temperance has not the dark shades of austerity; his meekness does not degenerate into apathy; his humility is signal, amidst a splendour of qualities more than human; his fortitude is eminent and exemplary in enduring the most formidable external evils, and the sharpest actual sufferings. His patience is invincible; his resignation entire and absolute. [[Truth]] and sincerity shine throughout his whole conduct. Though of heavenly descent, he shows obedience and affection to his earthly parents; he approves, loves, and attaches himself to amiable qualities in the human race; he respects authority, religious and civil; and he evidences regard for his country, by promoting its most essential good in a painful ministry dedicated to its service, by deploring its calamities, and by laying down his life for its benefit. Every one of his eminent virtues is regulated by consummate prudence: and he both wins the love of his friends, and extorts the approbation and wonder of his enemies. </p> <p> [[Never]] was a character at the same time so commanding and natural, so resplendent and pleasing, so amiable and venerable. There is a peculiar contrast in it between an awful greatness, dignity, and majesty, and the most conciliating loveliness, tenderness, and softness. He now converses with prophets, lawgivers, and angels; and the next instant he meekly endures the dulness of his disciples, and the blasphemies and rage of the multitude. He now calls himself greater than Solomon; one who can command legions of angels; and giver of life to whomsoever he pleaseth; the Son of God, who shall sit on his glorious throne to judge the world: at other times we find him embracing young children; not lifting up his voice in the streets, nor quenching the smoking flax; calling his disciples not servants, but friends and brethren, and comforting them with an exuberant and parental affection. [[Let]] us pause an instant, and fill our minds with the idea of one who knew all things, heavenly and earthly; searched and laid open the inmost recesses of the heart; rectified every prejudice, and removed every mistake of a moral and religious kind; by a word exercised a sovereignty over all nature, penetrated the hidden events of futurity, gave promises of admission into a happy immortality, had the keys of life and death, claimed an union with the Father; and yet was pious, mild, gentle, humble, affable, social, benevolent, friendly, and affectionate. Such a character is fairer than the morning star. Each separate virtue is made stronger by opposition and contrast: and the union of so many virtues forms a brightness which fitly represents the glory of that God 'who inhabiteth light inaccessible.'" </p> <p> See Robinson's [[Plea]] for the [[Divinity]] of Christ, from which many of the above remarks are taken; [[Bishop]] Bull's [[Judgment]] of the [[Catholic]] Church; Abbadie, Waterland, Hawker, and Hey, on the Divinity of Christ; Reader, Stackhouse, and Doyley's [[Lives]] of Christ; Dr. Jamieson's [[View]] of the [[Doctrine]] of Scripture, and the Primitive [[Faith]] concerning the [[Deity]] of Christ; Owen on the [[Glory]] of Christ's Person; Hurrion's Christ Crucified; Bishop Newcome's [[Observation]] on our Lord's Conduct; and Paley's Evidences of Christianity. </p>

<p> Je´sus Christ, The ordinary designation of the incarnate [[Son]] of God, and [[Savior]] of mankind. This double designation is not, like [[Simon]] Peter, John Mark, [[Joses]] Barnabas, composed of a name and a surname, but, like John the Baptist, Simon Magus, [[Bar-Jesus]] Elymas, of a proper name, and an official title. [[Jesus]] was our Lord's proper name, just as Peter, James, and John were the proper names of three of his disciples. The name seems not to have been an uncommon one among the [[Jews]] . To distinguish our Lord from others bearing the name, he was termed Jesus of [[Nazareth]] (, etc.), and Jesus the son of [[Joseph]] (, etc.). </p> <p> The conferring of this name on our Lord was not the result of accident, or of the ordinary course of things, there being 'none of his kindred,' so far as we can trace from the two genealogies, 'called by that name' . It was the consequence of a twofold miraculous interposition. The angel who announced to his virgin mother that she was to be 'the most honored of women,' in giving birth to the Son of [[God]] and the Savior of men, intimated also to her the name by which the holy child was to be called: 'Thou shall call his name Jesus' . And it was probably the same heavenly messenger who appeared to Joseph, and, to remove his suspicions and quiet his fears, said to him, 'That which is conceived in thy wife [[Mary]] is of the [[Holy]] Ghost, and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus' . The pious pair were 'not disobedient to the heavenly vision.' 'When eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb' . </p> <p> The precise import of the name has been a subject of doubt and debate among interpreters. As to its general meaning there is all but an unanimous concurrence. It was intended to denote that he who bore it was to be a [[Deliverer]] or Savior. But while some interpreters hold that it simply signifies 'he shall save,' others hold that it is a compound word equivalent to 'The [[Salvation]] of the Lord,' or 'The Lord the Savior.' It is not a matter of vital importance. </p> <p> The 'name of Jesus' is not the name Jesus, but 'the name above every name' , i.e. the supreme dignity and authority with which the Father has invested Jesus Christ, as the reward of his disinterested exertions in the cause of the divine glory and human happiness; and the bowing 'at the name of Jesus' is obviously not an external mark of homage when the name Jesus is pronounced, but the inward sense of awe and submission to him who is raised to a station so exalted. </p> <p> [[Christ]] </p> <p> This is not, strictly speaking, a proper name, but an official title. Jesus Christ, or rather, as it generally ought, to be rendered, Jesus the Christ, is a mode of expression of the same kind as John the Baptist, or Baptizer. In consequence of not adverting to this, the force and even the meaning of many passages of [[Scripture]] are misapprehended. When it is stated that [[Paul]] asserted, 'This Jesus whom I preach unto you is Christ' , that he 'testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ' , the meaning is, that he proclaimed and proved that Jesus was the Christ, or Messiah—the rightful owner of a title descriptive of a high official station which had been the subject of ancient prediction. When Jesus himself says that 'it is life eternal to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent' , he represents the knowledge of himself as the Christ, the Messiah, as at once necessary and sufficient to make men truly and permanently happy. When he says, 'What think ye of Christ? whose son is He?' , he does not mean, What think ye of me, or of my descent? but, What think ye of the Christ—the Messiah—and especially of his paternity. There can be no doubt that the word, though originally an appellative, and intended to bring before the mind a particular official character possessed by him to whom it is applied, came at last, like many other terms of the same kind, to be often used very much as a proper name, to distinguish our Lord from other persons bearing the name Jesus. This is a sense, however, of comparatively rare occurrence in the New Testament. </p> <p> Proceeding, then, on the principle that Christ is an appellative, let us inquire into its origin and signification as applied to our Lord. Christ is the English form of a [[Greek]] word, corresponding in meaning to the [[Hebrew]] word Messiah, and the English word Anointed. 'The Christ' is just equivalent to 'the [[Anointed]] One.' The important question, however, remains behind, What is meant, when the Savior is represented as the Anointed One? To reply to this question satisfactorily, it will be necessary to go somewhat into detail. </p> <p> Unction, from a very early age, seems to have been the emblem of consecration, or setting apart to a particular, and especially to a religious, purpose. Under the Old [[Testament]] economy high-priests and kings were regularly set apart to their offices, both of which were, strictly speaking, sacred ones, by the ceremony of anointing, and the prophets were occasionally designated by the same rite. This rite seems to have been intended as a public intimation of a [[Divine]] appointment to office. Thus [[Saul]] is termed 'the Lord's anointed' David, 'the anointed of the God of Israel' and Zedekiah, 'the anointed of the Lord' . The high-priest is called 'the anointed priest' . </p> <p> From the origin and design of the rite, it is not wonderful that the term should have, in a secondary and analogical sense, been applied to persons set apart by God for important purposes, though not actually anointed. Thus Cyrus, the King of Persia, is termed 'the Lord's anointed' the Hebrew patriarchs, when sojourning in Canaan, are termed 'God's anointed ones' and the [[Israelitish]] people receive the same appellation from the prophet Habakkuk . </p> <p> In the prophetic [[Scriptures]] we find this appellation given to an illustrious personage, who, under various designations, is so often spoken of as destined to appear in a distant age as a great deliverer. The royal prophet [[David]] seems to have been the first who spoke of the great deliverer under this appellation (;; ). In all the passages in which the great deliverer is spoken of as 'the anointed one,' by David, he is plainly viewed as sustaining the character of a king. </p> <p> The prophet Isaiah also uses the appellation, 'the anointed one,' with reference to the promised deliverer, but, when he does so, he speaks of him as a prophet or great teacher. He introduces him as saying, 'The [[Spirit]] of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord God hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them who are bound, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all that mourn,' etc. (, etc.). </p> <p> Daniel is the only other of the prophets who uses the appellation 'the anointed one' in reference to the great deliverer, and he plainly represents him as not only a prince, but also a high-priest, an expiator of guilt . </p> <p> During the period which elapsed from the close of the prophetic canon till the birth of Jesus, no appellation of the expected deliverer seems to have been so common as the [[Messiah]] or Anointed One; and this is still the name which the unbelieving Jews ordinarily employ when speaking of him whom they still look for to avenge their wrongs and restore them to more than their former honors. </p> <p> Messiah, Christ, Anointed, is, then, a term equivalent to consecrated, sacred, set apart; and as the record of Divine revelation is called, by way of eminence, The Bible, or book, so is the Great Deliverer called The Messiah, or Anointed One, much in the same way as he is termed The Man, The Son of Man. </p> <p> The import of this designation as given to Jesus of Nazareth may now readily be apprehended.—( 1.) When he is termed the Christ it is plainly indicated that He is the great deliverer promised under that appellation, and many others in the Old Testament Scriptures, and that all that is said of this deliverer under this or any other appellation is true of Him. No attentive reader of the Old Testament can help noticing that in every part of the prophecies there is ever and anon presented to our view an illustrious personage destined to appear at some future distant period, and, however varied may be the figurative representations given of him, no reasonable doubt can be entertained as to the identity of the individual. It is quite obvious that the Messiah is the same person as the 'seed of the woman' who was to 'bruise the head of the serpent' 'the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed' the great 'prophet to be raised up like unto Moses,' whom all were to be required to hear and obey the 'priest after the order of Melchizedek;' 'the rod out of the stem of Jesse, which should stand for an ensign of the people to which the [[Gentiles]] should seek' ; the virgin's son whose name was to be [[Immanuel]] 'the branch of Jehovah' 'the [[Angel]] of the Covenant' 'the Lord of the Temple,' etc. etc. (ib.). When we say, then, that Jesus is the Christ, we in effect say, 'This is He of whom Moses, in the law, and the prophets did write' and all that they say of Him is true of Jesus. </p> <p> Now what is the sum of the prophetic testimony respecting him? It is this—that he should belong to the very highest order of being, the incommunicable name [[Jehovah]] being represented as rightfully belonging to him; that 'his goings forth have been from old, from everlasting' that his appropriate appellations should be 'Wonderful, Counsellor, the [[Mighty]] God' that he should assume human nature, and become 'a child born' of the Israelitish nation of the tribe of [[Judah]] , of the family of David that the object of his appearance should be the salvation of mankind, both Jews and Gentiles that he should be 'despised and rejected' of his countrymen; that he should be 'cut off, but not for himself;' that he should be 'wounded for men's transgressions, bruised for their iniquities, and undergo the chastisement of their peace;' that 'by his stripes men should be healed;' that 'the Lord should lay on him the iniquity' of men; that 'exaction should be made and he should answer it;' that he should 'make his soul an offering for sin;' that after these sufferings he should be 'exalted and extolled and made very high;' that he should 'see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied, and by his knowledge justify many' (Isaiah 53 passim ); that Jehovah should say to him, 'Sit at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool' that he should be brought near to the [[Ancient]] of Days, and that to him should be given 'dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, and nations, and languages should serve him—an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away,—a kingdom that shall not be destroyed' . All this is implied in saying Jesus is the Christ. In the plainer language of the New Testament 'Jesus is the Christ' is equivalent to Jesus is 'God manifest in the flesh' ,—the Son of God, who, in human nature, by his obedience, and sufferings, and death in the room of the guilty, has obtained salvation for them, and all power in heaven and earth for himself, that he may give eternal life to all coming to the Father through him. </p> <p> (2.) While the statement 'Jesus is the Christ' is thus materially equivalent to the statement 'all that is said of the Great Deliverer in the Old Testament Scriptures is true of Him,' it brings more directly before our mind those truths respecting him which the appellation 'the Anointed One' naturally suggests. He is a prophet, a priest, and a king. He is the great revealer of divine truth; the only expiator of human guilt, and reconciler of man to God; the supreme and sole legitimate ruler over the understandings, consciences, and affections of men. In his person, and work, and word, by his spirit and providence, he unfolds the truth with respect to the divine character and will, and so conveys it into the mind as to make it the effectual means of conforming man's will to God's will, man's character to God's character. He has by his spotless, all-perfect obedience, amid the severest sufferings, 'obedience unto death even the death of the cross,' so illustrated the excellence of the divine law and the wickedness and danger of violating it, as to make it a righteous thing in 'the just God' to 'justify the ungodly,' thus propitiating the offended majesty of heaven; while the manifestation of the divine love in appointing and accepting this atonement, when apprehended by the mind under the influence of the Holy Spirit, becomes the effectual means of reconciling man to God and to his law, 'transforming him by the renewing of his mind.' And now, possessed of 'all power in heaven and earth,' 'all power over all flesh,' 'He is Lord of All.' All external events and all spiritual influences are equally under his control, and as a king he exerts his authority in carrying into full effect the great purposes which his revelations as a prophet, and his great atoning sacrifice as a high-priest, were intended to accomplish. </p> <p> (3.) But the full import of the appellation the Christ is not yet brought out. It indicates that He to whom it belongs is the anointed prophet, priest, and king—not that he was anointed by material oil, but that he was divinely appointed, qualified, commissioned, and accredited to be the Savior of men. These are the ideas which the term anointed seems specially intended to convey. Jesus was divinely appointed to the offices he filled. He did not ultroneously assume them, 'he was called of God as was Aaron' . He was divinely commissioned: 'The Father sent him' . He is divinely accredited . Such is the import of the appellation Christ. </p> <p> If these observations are clearly apprehended there will be little difficulty in giving a satisfactory answer to the question which has sometimes been proposed—when did Jesus become Christ? when was he anointed of God? We have seen that the expression is a figurative or analogical one, and therefore we need not wonder that its references are various. The appointment of the Savior, like all the other divine purposes, was, of course, from eternity. 'He was set up from everlasting' he 'was foreordained before the foundation of the world' . His qualifications, such of them as were conferred, were bestowed in or during his incarnation, when 'God anointed him with the Holy [[Ghost]] and with power' . His commission may be considered as given him when called to enter on the functions of his office. He himself, after quoting, in the synagogue of Nazareth, in the commencement of his ministry, the passage from the prophecies of Isaiah in which his unction to the prophetical office is predicted, declared 'This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.' And in his resurrection and ascension, God, as the reward of his loving righteousness and hating iniquity, 'anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows' , i.e. conferred on him a regal power, fruitful in blessings to himself and others, far superior to that which any king had ever possessed, making him, as the [[Apostle]] Peter expresses it, 'both Lord and Christ' . As to his being accredited, every miraculous event performed in reference to him or by him may be viewed as included in this species of anointing—especially the visible descent of the Spirit on him in his baptism. </p> <p> These statements, with regard to the import of the appellation 'the Christ,' show us how we are to understand the statement of the Apostle John, 'Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' , i.e. is 'a child of God,' 'born again,' 'a new creature;' and the similar declaration of the Apostle Paul, 'No man can say that Jesus is the Lord,' i.e. the Christ, the Messiah, 'but by the Holy Ghost' . It is plain that the proposition,' Jesus is the Christ,' when understood in the latitude of meaning which we have shown belongs to it, contains a complete summary of the truth respecting the divine method of salvation. To believe that principle rightly understood is to believe the Gospel—the saving truth, by the faith of which a man is, and by the faith of which only a man can be, brought into the relation or formed to the character of a child of God; and though a man may, without divine influence, be brought to acknowledge that 'Jesus is the Lord,' 'Messiah the Prince,' and even firmly to believe that these words embody a truth, yet no man can be brought really to believe and cordially to acknowledge the truth contained in these words, as we have attempted to unfold it, without a peculiar divine influence. </p>

<ref name="term_52110"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-bible/jesus+christ Jesus Christ from Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible]</ref>

<ref name="term_70320"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/people-s-dictionary-of-the-bible/jesus+christ Jesus Christ from People's Dictionary of the Bible]</ref>

<ref name="term_73408"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/smith-s-bible-dictionary/jesus+christ Jesus Christ from Smith's Bible Dictionary]</ref>

<ref name="term_16447"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/american-tract-society-bible-dictionary/jesus+christ Jesus Christ from American Tract Society Bible Dictionary]</ref>

<ref name="term_47999"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hawker-s-poor-man-s-concordance-and-dictionary/jesus+christ Jesus Christ from Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary]</ref>

<ref name="term_56300"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-new-testament/jesus+christ Jesus Christ from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament]</ref>

<ref name="term_45999"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/cyclopedia-of-biblical-theological-and-ecclesiastical-literature/jesus+christ Jesus Christ from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature]</ref>