Difference between revisions of "Jesus Christ"

<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 (&nbsp; Mark 1:1 ), that the faith of the disciples culminates in Peter’s confession that He is the Christ (&nbsp; Mark 8:29 ), that the ground of His condemnation is that He claims to be ‘the Christ, the Son of the Blessed’ (&nbsp; Mark 14:61-62 ), and that the accusation written over His cross is ‘The King of the Jews’ (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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’ (&nbsp; Luke 9:51 to &nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; Luke 2:2 , &nbsp; Luke 3:1; &nbsp; 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]] (&nbsp; Luke 4:16-30 , &nbsp; Luke 19:41-44 ), and to His discovery among the [[Gentiles]] of the faith for which He sought (&nbsp; Luke 17:18-19 ). It is also characteristic that Lk. gives a full account of the beginnings of the missionary activity of the Church (&nbsp; 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’ (&nbsp; John 1:1; &nbsp; 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 (&nbsp;John 19:35; &nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 1 Corinthians 7:11 ), and give a detailed account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (&nbsp; 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff.). It is also significant that in allusions to the [[Temptation]] (&nbsp; Hebrews 4:15 ), the [[Agony]] (&nbsp; Hebrews 5:7 ), and the [[Transfiguration]] (&nbsp; 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 &nbsp;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 (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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 &nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; Matthew 1:18-24 ), the adoration of the [[Magi]] (&nbsp; Matthew 2:1-12 ), the flight into Egypt (&nbsp; Matthew 2:13-15 ), the massacre at [[Bethlehem]] (&nbsp; Matthew 2:16-18 ). Lk.’s supplementary matter includes the promise of the birth of John the Baptist (&nbsp; Matthew 1:5-23 ), the [[Annunciation]] to Mary (&nbsp; Luke 1:26-38 ), the visit of Mary to [[Elisabeth]] (&nbsp; Luke 1:39-56 ), the birth of the Baptist (&nbsp; Luke 1:57-80 ), the census (&nbsp; Luke 2:1 ff.), the vision of angels (&nbsp; Luke 2:8-14 ), the adoration of the shepherds (&nbsp; Luke 2:15-20 ), the circumcision (&nbsp; Luke 2:21 ), the presentation in the Temple &nbsp; 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? (&nbsp;Mark 3:21; &nbsp; Mark 3:31 ff., &nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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]] (&nbsp; Matthew 1:6 ), the other through a son of David called [[Nathan]] (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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. &nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; Mark 3:14 ); while the Fourth Gospel states that he explicitly pointed Him out as the Messiah to his disciples (&nbsp; Mark 1:29; &nbsp; 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’ (&nbsp; Mark 1:10-11 ). This is more probable than the statement that it was a public revelation (&nbsp; Luke 3:21-22 ), or that it was the Baptist to whom the vision was vouchsafed (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; Mark 1:12-13 , &nbsp; Matthew 4:1-11 , &nbsp; 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’ (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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 (&nbsp; 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,’ &nbsp; 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]] (&nbsp; John 2:13 ), four months to harvest (&nbsp; John 4:35 ), a feast of the Jews (&nbsp; John 5:1 ), another Passover (&nbsp; John 6:4 ), the feast of [[Tabernacles]] (&nbsp; John 7:2 ), the feast of [[Dedication]] (&nbsp; John 10:22 ), the last Passover (&nbsp; 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 &nbsp; John 6:4 to &nbsp; John 11:55 the space covered is exactly a year, the autumn Feast of Tabernacles (&nbsp; John 7:2 ), and the winter Feast of Dedication (&nbsp; 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’ (&nbsp;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 &nbsp; John 8:57 , and of an alleged Johannine tradition, that from ten to twenty years elapsed between the Baptism and the Crucifixion. &nbsp; 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 &nbsp; John 2:13; &nbsp; John 2:23 to &nbsp; 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: &nbsp;Matthew 3:1 to &nbsp; Matthew 4:11 , &nbsp; Mark 1:1-13 , &nbsp; Luke 3:1 to &nbsp; Luke 4:13 , &nbsp; John 1:6 to &nbsp; 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: &nbsp;Matthew 4:13 to &nbsp; Matthew 13:53 , &nbsp; Mark 1:14 to &nbsp; Mark 6:13 , &nbsp; Luke 4:14 to &nbsp; Luke 9:6 , &nbsp; 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: &nbsp;Matthew 14:1 to &nbsp; Matthew 18:35 , &nbsp; Mark 6:14 to &nbsp; Mark 9:50 , &nbsp; Luke 9:7-50 , &nbsp; 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: &nbsp;Matthew 19:1 to &nbsp; Matthew 20:34 , &nbsp; Mark 10:1-52 , &nbsp; Luke 9:51 to &nbsp; Luke 19:28 , &nbsp; John 7:1 to &nbsp; 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: &nbsp;Matthew 21:1 to &nbsp; Matthew 28:20 , &nbsp; Mark 11:1 to &nbsp; Mark 16:8 [&nbsp; Mark 16:9-20 ], &nbsp; Luke 19:29 to &nbsp; Luke 24:52 , &nbsp; John 12:1 to &nbsp; 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 &nbsp;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 son of God, the Messiah, and Saviour of the world, the first and principal object of the prophecies, prefigured and promised in the Old Testament, expected and desired by the patriarchs; the hope of the Gentiles; the glory, salvation, and consolation of Christians. The name Jesus, or, as the Hebrews pronounce it, יהושוע , <em> [[Jehoshua]] </em> or <em> Joshua, </em> ‘Ιησους , signifies, <em> he who shall save. </em> No one ever bore this name with so much justice, nor so perfectly fulfilled the signification of it, as Jesus Christ, who saves even from sin and hell, and hath merited heaven for us by the price of his blood. It is not necessary here to narrate the history of our Saviour's life, which can no where be read with advantage except in the writings of the four evangelists; but there are several general views which require to be noticed under this article. </p> <p> <strong> 1. </strong> Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or Messiah promised under the Old Testament. That he professed himself to be that Messiah to whom all the prophets gave witness, and who was, in fact, at the time of his appearing, expected by the Jews; and that he was received under that character by his disciples, and by all Christians ever since, is certain. And if the Old Testament Scriptures afford sufficiently definite marks by which the long announced Christ should be infallibly known at his advent, and these presignations are found realized in our Lord, then is the truth of his pretensions established. From the books of the Old Testament we learn that the Messiah was to authenticate his claim by <em> miracles; </em> and in those <em> predictions </em> respecting him, so many circumstances are recorded, that they could meet only in one person; and so, if they are accomplished in him, they leave no room for doubt, as far as the evidence of prophecy is deemed conclusive. As to MIRACLES, we refer to that article; here only observing, that if the miraculous works wrought by Christ were really done, they prove his mission, because, from their nature, and having been wrought to confirm his claim to be the Messiah, they necessarily imply a <em> divine attestation. </em> With respect to [[Prophecy]] the principles under which its evidence must be regarded as conclusive will be given under that head; and here therefore it will only be necessary to show the completion of the prophecies of the sacred books of the Jews relative to the Messiah in one person, and that person the founder of the Christian religion. </p> <p> The time of the Messiah's appearance in the world, as predicted in the Old Testament, is defined, says Keith, by a number of concurring circumstances, which fix it to the very date of the advent of Christ. The last blessing of Jacob to his sons, when he commanded them to gather themselves together that he might tell them what should befall them in the last days, contains this prediction concerning Judah: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until [[Shiloh]] come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be," &nbsp;Genesis 49:10 , The date fixed by this prophecy for the coming of Shiloh, or the Saviour, was not to exceed the time during which the descendants of Judah were to continue a united people, while a king should reign among them, while they should be governed by their own laws, and while their judges should be from among their brethren. The prophecy of Malachi adds another standard for measuring the time: "Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall come suddenly to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts," &nbsp;Malachi 3:1 . No words can be more expressive of the coming of the promised Messiah; and they as clearly imply his appearance in the second temple before it should be destroyed. In regard to the advent of the Messiah before the destruction of the second temple, the words of Haggai are remarkably explicit: "The desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, and in this place will I give peace," </p> <p> &nbsp;Haggai 2:7 . The Saviour was thus to appear, according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, during the time of the continuance of the kingdom of Judah, previous to the demolition of the temple, and immediately subsequent to the next prophet. But the time is rendered yet more definite. In the prophecies of Daniel, the kingdom of the Messiah is not only foretold as commencing in the time of the fourth monarchy, or Roman empire, but the express number of years that were to precede his coming are plainly intimated: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks," </p> <p> &nbsp;Daniel 9:24-25 . Computation by weeks of years was common among the Jews, and every seventh was the sabbatical year; seventy weeks, thus amounted to four hundred and ninety years. In these words the prophet marks the very time, and uses the very name of Messiah, the Prince; so entirety is all ambiguity done away. The plainest inference may be drawn from these prophecies. All of them, while, in every respect, they presuppose the most perfect knowledge of futurity; while they were unquestionably delivered and publicly known for ages previous to the time to which they referred; and while they refer to different contingent and unconnected events, utterly undeterminable and inconceivable by all human sagacity; accord in perfect unison to a single precise period where all their different lines terminate at once,—the very fulness of time when Jesus appeared. A king then reigned over the Jews in their own land; they were governed by their own laws; and the council of their nation exercised its authority and power. Before that period, the other tribes were extinct or dispersed among the nations. Judah alone remained, and the last sceptre in Israel had not then departed from it. Every stone of the temple was then unmoved; it was the admiration of the Romans, and might have stood for ages. But in a short space, all these concurring testimonies to the time of the advent of the Messiah passed away. During the very year, the twelfth of his age, in which Christ first publicly appeared in the temple, Archelaus the king was dethroned and banished; [[Coponius]] was appointed procurator; and the kingdom of Judea, the last remnant of the greatness of Israel, was debased into a part of the province of Syria. The sceptre was smitten from the tribe of Judah; the crown fell from their heads; their glory departed; and, soon after the death of Christ, of their temple one stone was not left upon another; their commonwealth itself became as complete a ruin, and was broken in pieces; and they have ever since been scattered throughout the world, a name but not a nation. After the lapse of nearly four hundred years posterior to the time of Malachi, another prophet appeared who was the herald of the Messiah. And the testimony of Josephus confirms the account given in Scripture of John the Baptist. Every mark that denoted the time of the coming of the Messiah was erased soon after the crucifixion of Christ, and could never afterward be renewed. And with respect to the prophecies of Daniel, it is remarkable, at this remote period, how little discrepancy of opinion has existed among the most learned men, as to the space from the time of the passing out of the edict to rebuild Jerusalem, after the [[Babylonish]] captivity, to the commencement of the Christian era, and the subsequent events foretold in the prophecy. </p> <p> The predictions contained in the Old Testament respecting both the family out of which the Messiah was to arise, and the place of his birth, are almost as circumstantial, and are equally applicable to Christ, as those which refer to the time of his appearance. He was to be an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, and of the town of Bethlehem. That all these predictions were fulfilled in Jesus Christ; that he was of that country, tribe, and family, of the house and lineage of David, and born in Bethlehem, we have the fullest evidence in the testimony of all the evangelists; in two distinct accounts of the genealogies, by natural and legal succession, which, according to the custom of the Jews, were carefully preserved; in the acquiescence of the enemies of Christ in the truth of the fact, against which there is not a single surmise in history; and in the appeal made by some of the earliest Christian writers to the unquestionable testimony of the records of the census, taken at the very time of our Saviour's birth by order of Caesar. Here, indeed, it is impossible not to be struck with the exact fulfilment of prophecies which are apparently contradictory and irreconcilable, and with the manner in which they were providentially accomplished. The spot of Christ's nativity was distant from the place of the abode of his parents, and the region in which he began his ministry was remote from the place of his birth; and another prophecy respecting him was in this manner verified: "In the land of [[Zebulun]] and Naphtali, by the way of the sea beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations, the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined," &nbsp;Isaiah 9:1-2; &nbsp;Matthew 4:16 . Thus, the time at which the predicted Messiah was to appear; the nation, the tribe, and the family from which he was to be descended; and the place of his birth,—no populous city, but of itself an inconsiderable place,—were all clearly foretold; and as clearly refer to Jesus Christ; and all meet their completion in him. </p> <p> But the facts of his life, and the features of his character, are also drawn with a precision that cannot be misunderstood. The obscurity, the meanness, and the poverty of his external condition are thus represented: "He shall grow up before the Lord like a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form or comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Thus saith the Lord to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship," &nbsp;Isaiah 53:2; &nbsp;Isaiah 49:7 . That such was the condition in which Christ appeared, the whole history of his life abundantly testifies. And the Jews, looking in the pride of their hearts for an earthly king, disregarded these prophecies concerning him, were deceived by their traditions, and found only a stone of stumbling, where, if they had searched their Scriptures aright, they would have discovered an evidence of the Messiah. "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not this the son of Mary? said they; and they were offended at him." His riding in humble triumph into Jerusalem; his being betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, and scourged, and buffered, and spit upon; the piercing of his hands and of his feet; the last offered draught of vinegar and gall; the parting of his raiment, and casting lots upon his vesture; the manner of his death and of his burial, and his rising again without seeing corruption, were all expressly predicted, and all these predictions were literally fulfilled, &nbsp;Zechariah 9:9; &nbsp;Zechariah 11:12; &nbsp;Isaiah 50:6; &nbsp;Psalms 22:16; &nbsp;Psalms 69:21; &nbsp;Psalms 22:18; &nbsp;Isaiah 53:9; &nbsp;Psalms 16:10 . If all these prophecies admit of any application to the events of the life of any individual, it can only be to that of the Author of Christianity. And what other religion can produce a single fact which was actually foretold of its founder? </p> <p> The death of Christ was as unparalleled as his life; and the prophecies are as minutely descriptive of his sufferings as of his virtues. Not only did the paschal lamb, which was to be killed every year in all the families of Israel, which was to be taken out of the flock, to be without blemish, to be eaten with bitter herbs, to have its blood sprinkled, and to be kept whole that not a bone of it should be broken; not only did the offering up of Isaac, and the lifting up of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, by looking upon which the people were healed, and many ritual observances of the Jews, prefigure the manner of Christ's death, and the sacrifice which was to be made for sin; but many express declarations abound in the prophecies, that Christ was indeed to suffer. But Isaiah, who describes, with eloquence worthy of a prophet, the glories of the kingdom that was to come, characterizes, with the accuracy of a historian, the humiliation, the trials, and the agonies which were to precede the triumphs of the [[Redeemer]] of a world; and the history of Christ forms, to the very letter, the commentary and the completion of his every prediction. In a single passage, &nbsp;Isaiah 52:13 , &c; 53, the connection of which is uninterrupted, its antiquity indisputable, and its application obvious, the sufferings of the servant of God (who under that same denomination, is previously described as he who was to be the light of the Gentiles, the salvation of God to the ends of the earth, and the elect of God in whom his soul delighted, &nbsp;Isaiah 42:10; &nbsp;Isaiah 49:6 ) are so minutely foretold, that no illustration is requisite to show that they testify of Jesus. The whole of this prophecy thus refers to the Messiah. It describes both his debasement and his dignity; his rejection by the Jews; his humility, his affliction, and his agony; his magnanimity and his charity; how his words were disbelieved; how his state was lowly; how his sorrow was severe; how he opened not his mouth but to make intercession for the transgressors. In diametrical opposition to every dispensation of Providence which is registered in the records of the Jews, it represents spotless innocence suffering by the appointment of Heaven; death as the issue of perfect obedience; God's righteous servant as forsaken of him; and one who was perfectly immaculate bearing the chastisement of many guilty; sprinkling many nations from their iniquity, by virtue of his sacrifice; justifying many by his knowledge; and dividing a portion with the great and the spoil with the strong, because he hath poured out his soul in death. This prophecy, therefore, simply as a prediction prior to the event, renders the very unbelief of the Jews an evidence against them, converts the scandal of the cross into an argument in favour of Christianity, and presents us with an epitome of the truth, a miniature of the Gospel in some of its most striking features. The simple exposition of it sufficed at once for the conversion of the eunuch of Ethiopia. To these prophecies may, in fact, be added all those which relate to his spiritual kingdom, or the circumstances of the promulgation, the opposition, and the triumphs of his religion; the accomplishment of which equally proves the divine mission of its Author, and points him out as that great personage with whom they stand inseparably connected. </p> <p> <strong> 2. </strong> But if Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, in that character his [[Deity]] also is necessarily involved, because the Messiah is surrounded with attributes of divinity in the Old Testament; and our Lord himself as certainly lays claim to those attributes as to the office of "the Christ." Without referring here to the Scriptural doctrine of a Trinity of divine [[Persons]] in the unity of the Godhead, (see <em> Trinity, </em> ) it is sufficient now to show that both in the Old and New Testament Scriptures, the Messiah is contemplated as a divine Person. In the very first promise of redemption, his superiority to that great and malignant spirit who destroyed the innocence of man, and blighted the fair creation of God, is unquestionably implied; while the Angel of the Divine Presence, the Angel of the Covenant, who appears so prominent in the patriarchal times, and the early periods of Jewish history, and was understood by the early Jews as the future Messiah, is seen at once as a being distinct from Jehovah and yet Jehovah himself; bearing that incommunicable name; and performing acts, and possessing qualities of unquestionable divinity. As the "Redeemer" of Job, he is the object of his trust and hope, and is said to be then a "living Redeemer;" to see whom at the last was to "see God." As "Shiloh," in the prophecy of Jacob, he is represented as having an indefinitely extensive reign over "the people" gathered to him; and in all subsequent predictions respecting this reign of Christ, it is represented so vast, so perfect, so influential upon the very thoughts, purposes, and affections of men, that no mere creature can be reasonably supposed capable of exercising it. Of the second Psalm, so manifestly appropriated to the Messiah, it has been justly said, that the high titles and honours ascribed in this Psalm to the extraordinary person who is the chief subject of it, far transcend any thing that is ascribed in Scripture to any mere creature. But if the Psalm be inquired into more narrowly, and compared with parallel prophecies; if it be duly considered, that not only is the extraordinary person here spoken of called "the Son of God," but that title is so ascribed to him as to imply, that it belongs to him in a manner that is absolutely singular, and peculiar to himself, seeing he is said to be begotten of God, &nbsp;Isaiah 49:7 , and is called, by way of eminence, "the Son," &nbsp;Isaiah 49:12; that the danger of provoking him to anger is spoken of in so very different a manner from what the Scripture uses in speaking of the anger of any mere creature, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little;" that when the kings and judges of the earth are commanded to serve God with fear, they are at the same time commanded to kiss the Son, which in those times and places was frequently an expression of adoration; and, particularly, that, whereas other Scriptures contain awful and just threatenings against those who trust in any mere man, the [[Psalmist]] nevertheless expressly calls them blessed who trust in the Son here spoken of;—all these things taken together make up a character of unequivocal divinity: and, on the other hand, when it is said, that God would set this his Son as his King on his holy hill of Zion, &nbsp;Isaiah 49:6 , this, and various other expressions in this Psalm, contain characters of that subordination which is appropriate to that divine Person who was to be incarnate, and engage in a work assigned to him by the Father. The former part of the forty-fifth Psalm is by the inspired authority of St. Paul applied to the Christ, who is addressed in these lofty words, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." In the same manner &nbsp;Psalms 102:25-28 , is applied to Christ by the same authority, and there he is represented as the creator of all things, changing his creations as a vesture, and yet himself continuing the same unchanged being amidst all the mutations of the universe. In Psalm cx, David says, "Jehovah said unto my Lord, ( <em> Adonai, </em> ) [[Sit]] thou upon my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." And in Isaiah vi, the same [[Adonai]] is seen by the prophet "seated upon a throne, high and lifted up," receiving the adoration of seraphs, and bearing the title, "Jehovah, Lord of Hosts," of which passage St. John makes a direct application to Christ. Isaiah predicts his birth of a virgin, under the title of "Immanuel, God with us." The same prophet gives to this wonderful child the style of "the [[Mighty]] God," "the [[Everlasting]] Father," and the "Prince of Peace;" so that, as Dr. Pye Smith justly observes, "if there be any dependence on words, the Messiah is here drawn in the opposite characters of humanity and Deity,—the nativity and frailty of a mortal child, and the incommunicable attributes of the omnipresent and eternal God." Twice is he called by Jeremiah, "Jehovah our righteousness." Daniel terms him the "Ancient of Days," or "The Immortal;" and Micah declares, in a passage which the council of the Jews, assembled by Herod, applied to the Messiah, that he who was to be born in Bethlehem was "even he whose comings forth are from eternity, from the days of the everlasting period." Thus the prophetic testimony describes him, as entitled to the appellation of "Wonderful," since he should be, in a sense peculiar to himself, the Son of God, &nbsp;Psalms 2:7; &nbsp;Isaiah 9:6; as existing and acting during the patriarchal and the Jewish ages, and even from eternity, &nbsp;Psalms 40:7-9; &nbsp;Micah 5:2; as the guardian and protector of his people, &nbsp;Isaiah 40:9-11; as the proper object of the various affections of piety, of devotional confidence for obtaining the most important blessings, and of religious homage from angels and men, &nbsp;Psalms 2:12; &nbsp;Psalms 97:7; and, finally, declares him to be the eternal and immutable Being, the Creator, God, the Mighty God, Adonai, Elohim, Jehovah. </p> <p> In perfect accordance with these views, does our Saviour speak of himself. He asserts his preexistence, as having "come down from heaven;" and as existing "before Abraham;" and as being "in heaven" while yet before the eyes of his disciples on earth. In the same peculiar manner does he apply the term "Son of God" to himself, and that with so manifest an intention to assume it in the sense of divinity, that the Jews attempted on that account to stone him as a blasphemer. The whole force of the argument by which he silenced the Pharisees when he asked how the Messiah, who was to be the Son of David, could be David's Lord, in reference to the passage in the Psalms before quoted, arose out of the doctrine of the Messiah's divinity; and when he claims that all men should honour him as they honour the Father, and asserts that as the Father hath life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself, that he "quickeneth whom he will," that "where two or three meet in his name he is in the midst of them," and would be with his disciples "to the end of the world;" who does not see that the Jews concluded right, when they said that he made himself "equal with God,"—an impression which he took no pains to remove, although his own moral character bound him to do so, had he not intended to confirm that conclusion. So numerous are the passages in which divine titles, acts, and qualities, are ascribed to Christ in the apostolical epistles, and so unbroken is the stream of testimony from the apostolic age, that the Deity of their Saviour was the undoubted and universal faith of his inspired followers, and of those who immediately succeeded them, that it is not necessary to quote proofs. The whole argument is this: If the Old Testament Scriptures represent the Messiah as a divine Person; the proofs which demonstrate Jesus to be the Messiah, demonstrate him also by farther and necessary consequence to be divine. Yet, though there is a union of natures in Christ, there is no mixture or confusion of their properties: his humanity is not changed into his Deity, nor his Deity absorbed by his 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 bodies and souls are united, it is not to be supposed that we can comprehend the mystery of "God manifest in the flesh." So truly does Christ bear the name given to him in prophecy,— "Wonderful." </p> <p> <strong> 3. </strong> The doctrine of the Deity of Christ derives farther confirmation from the consideration, that in no sound sense can the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments be interpreted so as to make their very different and often apparently contradictory statements respecting him harmonize. How, for instance, is it that he is arrayed in the attributes of divinity, and yet is capable of being raised to a kingdom and glory?—that he is addressed, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," and yet that it should follow "God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows?"—that he should be God, and yet, by a human birth, "God with us?"—that he should say, "I and my Father are one," and, "My Father is greater than I?"—that he is supreme, and yet a servant?—that he is equal and yet subordinate?—that he, a man, should require and receive worship and trust?—that he should be greater than angels, and yet "made lower than the angels?"—that he should be "made flesh," and yet be the [[Creator]] of all things?—that he should raise himself from the dead, and yet be raised by the power of the Father? These and many other declarations respecting him, all accord with the orthodox view of his person; and are intelligible so far as they state the facts respecting him; but are wholly beyond the power of interpretation into any rational meaning on any theory which denies to him a real humanity on the one hand, or a real and personal divinity on the other. So powerfully, in fact, has this been felt, that, in order to evade the force of the testimony of Scripture, the most licentious criticisms have been resorted to by the deniers of his divinity; such as would not certainly have been tolerated by scholars in the case of an attempt to interpret any other ancient writing. </p> <p> <strong> 4. </strong> Being, therefore, not only "a teacher sent from God," but the divine Son of God himself, it might be truly said by his wondering hearers, "Never man spake like this man." On our Lord's character as a teacher, therefore, many striking and just remarks have been made by different writers, not excepting some infidels themselves, who, in this respect, have been carried into admiration by the overwhelming force of evidence. This article, however, shall not be indebted to a desecrated source for an estimate of the character of his teaching, and shall rather be concluded with the following admirable remarks of a Christian prelate:— </p> <p> "When our Lord is considered as a teacher, we find him delivering the justest and most sublime truths with respect to the divine nature, the duties of mankind, and a future state of existence; agreeable in every particular to reason, and to the wisest maxims of the wisest philosophers; without any mixture of that alloy which so often debased their most perfect production; and excellently adapted to mankind in general, by suggesting circumstances and particular images on the most awful and interesting subjects. We find him filling, and, as it were, overpowering our minds with the grandest ideas of his own nature; representing himself as appointed by his Father to be our Instructer, our Redeemer, our Judge, and our King; and showing that he lived and died for the most benevolent and important purposes conceivable. He does not labour to support the greatest and most magnificent of all characters; but it is perfectly easy and natural to him. He makes no display of the high and heavenly truths which he utters; but speaks of them with a graceful and wonderful simplicity and majesty. </p> <p> [[Supernatural]] truths are as familiar to his mind, as the common affairs of life are to other men. He revives the moral law, carries it to perfection, and enforces it by peculiar and animating motives: but he enjoins nothing new beside praying in his name, mutual love among his disciples, as such, and the observance of two simple and significant positive laws which serve to promote the practice of the moral law. All his precepts, when rightly explained, are reasonable in themselves and useful in their tendency: and their compass is very great, considering that he was an occasional teacher, and not a systematical one. If from the matter of his instructions we pass on to the manner in which they were delivered, we find our Lord usually speaking as an authoritative teacher; though occasionally limiting his precepts, and sometimes assigning the reasons of them. He presupposes the original law of God, and addresses men as rational creatures. From the grandeur of his mind, and the magnitude of his subjects, he is often sublime; and the beauties interspersed throughout his discourses are equally natural and striking. He is remarkable for an easy and graceful manner of introducing the best lessons from incidental objects and occasions. The human heart is naked and open to him; and he addresses the thoughts of men, as others do the emotions of their countenance or their bodily actions. [[Difficult]] situations, and sudden questions of the most artful and ensnaring kind, serve only to display his superior wisdom, and to confound and astonish all his adversaries. Instead of showing his boundless knowledge on every occasion, he checks and restrains it, and prefers utility to the glare of ostentation. He teaches directly and obliquely, plainly and covertly, as wisdom points out occasions. He knows the inmost character, every prejudice and every feeling of his hearers; and, accordingly, uses parables to conceal or to enforce his lessons; and he powerfully impresses them by the significant language of actions. He gives proofs of his mission from above, by his knowledge of the heart, by a chain of prophecies, and by a variety of mighty works. </p> <p> "He sets an example 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 his 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. 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, the [[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, not breaking the bruised reed, 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 a union with the Father; and yet was pious, mild, gentle, humble, affable, social, benevolent, friendly, 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.' Such a character must have been a real one. There is something so extraordinary, so perfect, and so godlike in it, that it could not have been thus supported throughout by the utmost stretch of human art, much less by men confessedly unlearned and obscure." We may add, that such a character must also have been <em> divine. </em> His virtues are human in their class and kind, so that he was our "example;" but they were sustained and heightened by that divinity which was impersonated in him, and from which they derived their intense and full perfection. </p> <p> <strong> 5. </strong> A great deal has been written concerning the form, beauty, and stature of Jesus Christ. Some have asserted, that he was in person the noblest of all the sons of men. Others have maintained, that there was no beauty nor any graces in his outward appearance. The fathers have not expressed themselves on this matter in a uniform manner. St. Jerom believes that the lustre and majesty which shone about our Saviour's face were capable of winning all hearts: it was this that drew the generality of his [[Apostles]] with so much ease to him; it was this majesty which struck those down who came to seize him in the olive garden. St. [[Bernard]] and St. Chrysostom contend in like manner for the beauty of Jesus Christ's person; but the most ancient fathers have acknowledged, that he was not at all handsome. <em> Homo indecorus et passibilis, </em> says Irenaeus. Celsus objected to the Christians, that Jesus Christ, as a man, was little, and ill made, which [[Origen]] acknowledged in his answer to have been written of him. [[Clemens]] Alexandrinus owns, in several places, that the person of Jesus Christ was not beautiful, as does also [[Cyril]] of Alexandria. Tertullian says plainly, <em> vultu et aspectu inglorius; </em> that his outward form had nothing that could attract consideration and respect. St. [[Austin]] confesses, that Jesus Christ, as a man, was without beauty and the advantage of person; and the generality of the ancients, as Eusebius, Basil, Theodoret, Ambrose, Isidore, &c, explain the passage in the Psalm, "Thou art fairer than the children of men," as relating to the beauty of Jesus Christ according to his divinity. This difference in opinion shows that no certain tradition was handed down on this subject. The truth probably is, that all which was majestic and attractive in the person of our Lord, was in the <em> expression </em> of the countenance, the full influence of which was displayed chiefly in his confidential intercourse with his disciples; while his general appearance presented no striking peculiarity to the common observer. </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, &nbsp;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, &nbsp; John 1:1 . God was manifest in the flesh, &nbsp;1 Timothy 3:16 . God with us, &nbsp;Matthew 1:23 . The Jews crucified the Lord of glory, &nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:8 . Jesus Christ is Lord of all, &nbsp;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 &nbsp;Exodus 3:14 . with &nbsp;John 8:58 . Is. 44: 6. with &nbsp;Revelation 1:11; &nbsp;Revelation 1:17 . &nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:17 . with &nbsp;Revelation 17:14 . &nbsp;Psalms 24:10 . with &nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:8 . &nbsp;Hosea 1:7 . with &nbsp;Luke 2:1-52 . &nbsp;Daniel 5:23 . with &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:47 . &nbsp;1 Chronicles 29:11 . with &nbsp;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, &nbsp;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, " &nbsp;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 &nbsp;Jeremiah 10:10 . with &nbsp;Isaiah 9:6 . &nbsp;Exodus 15:13 . with &nbsp;Hebrews 1:8 . &nbsp;Jeremiah 32:19 . with Is. 9: 6. &nbsp;Psalms 102:24; &nbsp;Psalms 102:27 . with &nbsp;Hebrews 13:8 . &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:24 . with &nbsp;Ephesians 1:20; &nbsp;Ephesians 1:23 . &nbsp;1 Samuel 2:5 . with &nbsp;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, " &nbsp;Colossians 1:1-29 . Is preservation a work of God? "Jesus Christ upholds all things by the word of his power, " &nbsp;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, &nbsp;Nehemiah 9:30 . &nbsp;Revelation 22:6; &nbsp;Revelation 22:16 . &nbsp;1 Peter 1:11 . Is the salvation of sinners a work of God? Christ is the Saviour of all that believe, &nbsp;John 4:42 . &nbsp;Hebrews 5:9 . Is the forgiveness of sin a work of God? The Son of Man hath power to forgive sins, &nbsp;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, " &nbsp;Matthew 4:20 . yet the Scriptures command "all the angels of God to worship Christ, " &nbsp;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, &nbsp;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, &nbsp;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, &nbsp;Acts 7:59 . The whole host of heaven worship him that sitteth upon the throne, and the Lamb, for ever and ever, &nbsp;Revelation 5:14; &nbsp;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, " &nbsp;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, &nbsp;Matthew 3:1; &nbsp;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 &nbsp;Zechariah 12:10 . with &nbsp;John 19:1-42 . Is. 6: with &nbsp;John 12:39 . Is. 8: 13, 14. with &nbsp;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, &nbsp;Isaiah 2:1-22 : &nbsp; Zephaniah 2:11 . &nbsp;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, &nbsp;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 &nbsp;Romans 1:3 . &nbsp;1 Timothy 3:16 . &nbsp;John 14:9; &nbsp;John 17:5 . &nbsp;Philippians 2:6 . &nbsp;Psalms 110:1; &nbsp;Psalms 110:4 . &nbsp;1 Timothy 1:2 . &nbsp;Acts 22:12; &nbsp;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. &nbsp;Luke 24:39 . &nbsp;Hebrews 2:14 . &nbsp;Luke 1:42 . &nbsp;Philippians 2:7-8 . &nbsp;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, &nbsp;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> '''Jesus Christ.''' The name of the Saviour, signifying his work and authority; Jesus (the Greek form of the Hebrew Joshua) means ''Jehovah Saves,'' or Saviour, &nbsp;Matthew 1:21. Christ (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah) means anointed. Jesus was his common, name during his life on earth) generally used in the gospels. Christ is his official name, frequently used alone or with Jesus in the epistles. Jesus occurs in the Bible 711 times; Christ 304 times; Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, and Christ Jesus (anointed Saviour), 244 times, and Messiah 4 times. He has many other titles and names in Scripture, as "Immanuel," &nbsp;Matthew 1:23; "Son of God," &nbsp;John 1:34; "Son of man," &nbsp;John 8:28; "Son of David," etc., &nbsp;Mark 10:47-48; in all, upwards of 100 titles, indicating his character, life, and work. </p> <p> The predictions concerning Christ were many—about 150 or more—and were made at various periods of Old Testament history. He was to be born in Bethlehem, a small village, &nbsp;Micah 5:2; he was to be a king with a universal and perpetual empire, &nbsp;Psalms 2:6; &nbsp;Psalms 45:2-7; &nbsp;Psalms 72:1-20; &nbsp;Isaiah 9:6-7; yet would be despised and rejected. &nbsp;Isaiah 53:1-12. He was to open the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf, &nbsp;Isaiah 35:5-6, and yet to be betrayed, sold and slain and his grave appointed with the wicked. Yet his sufferings should make many righteous. &nbsp;Isaiah 11:1-9; &nbsp;Isaiah 60:1-11. He was to do the work of a prophet, &nbsp;Isaiah 42:1-7; of a priest, &nbsp;Psalms 110:4; &nbsp;Zechariah 6:13; and of a king. &nbsp;Daniel 7:14. These predictions, and many others of like nature, were all fulfilled in Jesus the Son of Mary. </p> <p> He is the centre of all Jewish and Christian history; the "Holy of Holies" in the history of the world. There is space here for the briefest outline only of his human life, Ms mysterious person, and his work. </p> <p> His Life.—While Augustus was emperor of Rome, and Herod the Great king in Jerusalem, Jesus was born four years before 1 a.d., the Christian era having been fixed by Dionysius Exiguus of the sixth century, four years too late. Mary, a virgin, betrothed to Joseph of Nazareth, gave birth to Jesus at Bethlehem according to Micah's prophecy. &nbsp;Micah 5:2. Angels celebrated it with songs, and wise men from the East brought precious gifts to the new-born babe. To escape Herod's threats, the child Jesus was taken to Egypt, but later settled with his parents at Nazareth. Only one event of his childhood is known—a visit when 12 years old to Jerusalem, when he astonished the doctors by his words and questions. He was trained as other Jewish lads of his station. At three the boy was weaned, and wore for the first time the fringed or tasselled garment prescribed by &nbsp;Numbers 15:38-41 and &nbsp;Deuteronomy 22:12. His education began at first under the mother's care. At five he was to learn the law, at first by extracts written on scrolls of the more important passages, the ''Shemà'' or creed of &nbsp;Deuteronomy 2:4; the [[Hallel]] or festival psalms, &nbsp;Psalms 114:1-8; &nbsp;Psalms 118:1-29; &nbsp;Psalms 136:1-26, and by catechetical teaching in school. At 12 he became more directly responsible for Ms obedience to the law; and on the day when he attained the age of 13, put on for the first time the phylacteries which were worn at the recital of his daily prayer. In addition to this, Jesus learned the carpenter's trade of Joseph. </p> <p> ''Ministry.'' —His public ministry is usually regarded as lasting upwards of three years. John records more of the Judæan ministry, Luke more of his Peræan ministry, while Matthew and Mark give his Galilean ministry, as does Luke also. John the Baptist, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, &nbsp;Luke 3:1, produced a deep impression by preaching repentance. Jesus sought baptism at his hands, and was tempted of the devil. He then went to Cana of Galilee, where he worked his first miracle at a wedding. With some disciples, he set out for Jerusalem to keep the passover. His first work was the cleansing of the temple from traffickers and money-changers—which he repeated near the close of his ministry. &nbsp;Matthew 21:12. He received a visit by night from Nicodemus. [[Presently]] the Baptist was thrown into prison and the Saviour withdrew to Galilee. On his way through Samaria he conversed with a woman at Jacob's well. At Nazareth ho was rejected by the people, and went to Capernaum, which henceforth became "his own city." Here he called Peter and Andrew and James and John, and made his first tour through Galilee, performing many miracles. Early in the second year of his ministry Jesus went up to Jerusalem to a feast of the Jews, &nbsp;John 5:1, and healed a lame man at the pool of Bethesda, explained the right use of the Sabbath, a subject which he resumed when his disciples were plucking ears of corn on Ms return to Galilee. When he reached the Sea of Galilee multitudes followed him. He appointed the twelve apostles and delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and commenced a second tour in Galilee, during which he delivered the series of parables in &nbsp;Matthew 13:1-58, stilled the storm on Galilee, healed the demoniacs of Gadara, raised the daughter of Jairus, and after other miracles came again to Nazareth, where he was again rejected. He then made a third tour in Galilee, and sent forth the apostles, giving the instructions recorded in &nbsp;Matthew 10:11. After an interval of some months the twelve returned, and with them he retired to the Sea of Galilee, fed the 5000, walked on the water, and delivered his sermon on the bread or life, &nbsp;John 6:1-71, in the synagogue at Capernaum. Early in the third year of his ministry, Jesus disputed with the Pharisees about eating with unwashed hands, and went toward the northwest, healed the daughter of the Syrophœnician woman, and then passed around to Decapolis, where he wrought many miracles and fed 4000. Near [[Cæsarea]] Philippi Peter made his confession of faith, and then Jesus foretold his own death and resurrection and the trials of Ms followers. The transfiguration followed, and the next morning the healing of an epileptic child. On the way back to Capernaum he again foretold his sufferings, and exhorted the disciples to humility, forbearance, and brotherly love. About this time he instructed and sent out the 70 on their mission. Then he left Galilee, and having cleansed ten lepers came to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles. &nbsp;John 7:2. Here he taught in public, and answered a lawyer's question with the parable of the Good Samaritan. The healing of the man born blind led to a long discourse, which aroused the rulers, and Jesus retired beyond Jordan. In Peræa, on his way to Jerusalem, he uttered the parables of the lost sheep, the unjust steward, the rich man and Lazarus, and the pharisee and the publican; five precepts concerning divorce: blessed little children; taught the rich young ruler. He raised Lazarus at Bethany. A third time he foretold his death and resurrection, and approaching Jericho healed blind men, called Zacchæus, and gave the parable of the pounds. He arrived at Bethany six days before the passover. At supper, in Simon's house, he is anointed. At the beginning of the last week before the crucifixion Jesus made a public entry into the city, spoke parables and warnings, lamented over Jerusalem, praised the widow's mite, met certain [[Greeks]] and predicted his second coming with solemn warnings confirmed by the parables of the ten virgins, the five talents, and the sheep and the goats. At the last or fourth passover with the twelve, Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, delivered his farewell discourses, and withdrew to Gethsemane. After the agony in the garden he was arrested and in the night brought before Annas, and then Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, and in the morning before Pilate and Herod. Pilate yielded to the Jews, delivered Jesus to be mocked and crucified. He was buried and a watch set upon the tomb. On the morning of the third day the tomb was found empty, and soon he appeared to the women, then to the disciples, who could hardly believe the fact. During 40 days he taught them, and then, near Bethany, ascended to heaven in their sight. </p> <p> ''Mysterious Person.—'' The great peculiarity of the Scripture doctrine of the ''Person'' of Christ is that he is God and man united, two natures forming one personality. "He is not divine alone, nor human alone, but divine-human." He is the Eternal Word, &nbsp;John 1:1-51, the Son of God, and he is also the Son of man. &nbsp;Mark 11:13. This may be difficult for us to comprehend; but if a finite mind could comprehend the whole of Christ's nature, Christ could not be the infinite God he is declared to be. &nbsp;John 1:4. </p> <p> ''Work And [[Offices]] Of Christ.—'' These are usually presented as threefold. The Bible and [[Evangelical]] creeds describe the Mediator as a prophet, priest, and king. As prophet he perfectly reveals the will of the Father to man; as priest he is the perfect offering for sin, procuring redemption for all who will accept of it; as king, he is and will become rightful ruler and judge of this world, and be exalted above every name that is named, putting all things under him, receiving the praises of all created intelligences. </p>

<p> The Son of God, the Messiah and [[Savior]] of the World, the first and principal object of the prophecies; who was prefigured and promised in the Old Testament; was expected and desired by the patriarchs; the hope and salvation of the Gentiles; the glory, happiness, and consolation of Christians. The name JESUS, in Hebrew [[Jehoshuah]] or Joshua, signifies Savior, or Jehovah saves. No one ever bore this name with so much justice, nor so perfectly fulfilled the signification of it, as Jesus Christ, who saves from sin and hell, and has merited heaven for us by the price of his blood. It was given to him by divine appointment, &nbsp;Matthew 1:21 , as the proper name for the Savior so long desired, and whom all the myriads of the redeemed in heaven will for ever adore as their only and all-glorious Redeemer. </p> <p> JESUS was the common name of the Savior; while the name Christ , meaning the [[Anointed]] One, The Messiah, was his official name. Both names are used separately, in the gospels and also in the epistles; but JESUS generally stands by itself in the gospels, which are narratives of his life; while in the epistles, which treat of his divine nature and of his redeeming work, he is called Christ , [[Christ Jesus]]  or THE [[Lord Jesus Christ]]  See Christ . </p> <p> Here, under the Redeemer's human name, belong the facts relating to his human nature and the history of his life upon earth. His true and complete humanity, having the soul as well as the body of man, is everywhere seen in the gospel history. He who is "God over all, blessed forever," was an [[Israelite]] "as concerning the flesh," &nbsp;Romans 9:5 , and took upon him our whole nature, in order to be a perfect Savior. As a man, Jesus was the King of men. No words can describe that character in which such firmness and gentleness, such dignity and humility, such enthusiasm and calmness, such wisdom and simplicity, such holiness and charity, such justice and mercy, such sympathy with heaven and with earth, such love to God and love to man blended in perfect harmony. Nothing in it was redundant, and nothing was wanting. The world had never produced, nor even conceived of such a character, and its portraiture in the gospels is a proof of their divine origin, which the infidel cannot gainsay. Could the whole human race, of all ages, kindreds, and tongues, be assembled to see the crucified Redeemer as he is, and compare earth's noblest benefactors with Him, there would be but one voice among them. Every crown of glory and every meed of praise would be given to Him who alone is worthy-for perfection of character, for love to mankind, for sacrifices endured, and for benefits bestowed. His glory will forever be celebrated as the Friend of man; the Lamb sacrificed for us. </p> <p> The visit of [[Jesus Christ]] to the earth has made it forever glorious above less favored worlds, and forms the most signal event in its annals. The time of his birth is commemorated by the Christian era, the first year of which corresponds to about the year 753 from the building of Rome. It is generally conceded, however, that the Savior was born at least four years before A. D. 1, and four thousand years after the creation of Adam. His public ministry commenced when he was thirty years of age; and continued, according to the received opinion, three and a half years. Respecting his ancestors, see [[Genealogy]] . </p> <p> The life of the Redeemer must be studied in the four gospels, where it was recorded under the guidance of supreme wisdom. Many efforts have been made, with valuable results, to arrange the narrations of the evangelists in the true order of time. But as neither of the gospels follows the exact course of events, many incidents are very indeterminate, and are variously arranged by different harmonists. No one, however, has been more successful than Dr. Robinson in his valuable "Harmony of the Gospels". </p> <p> The divine wisdom is conspicuous not only in what is taught us respecting the life of Jesus, but in what is withheld. Curiosity, and the higher motives of warm affection, raise numerous questions to which the gospels give no reply; and in proportion as men resort to dubious traditions, they lose the power of a pure and spiritual gospel. See further, concerning Christ, [[Messiah, Redeemer]]  etc. </p> <p> Jesus was not an uncommon name among the Jews. It was the name of the father of [[Elymas]] the sorcerer, &nbsp;Acts 13:6; and of Justus, a fellow-laborer and friend of Paul, &nbsp;Colossians 4:11 . It is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, or Jeshua, borne by the high priest in Ezra's time, and by the well-known leader of the Jews in to the [[Promised]] Land. See also &nbsp;1 Samuel 6:14 &nbsp; 2 Kings 23:8 . The Greek form of the word, Jesus, is twice used in the New Testament when Joshua the son of [[Nun]] is intended, &nbsp;Acts 7:45 &nbsp; Hebrews 4:8 . </p>