International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Jemimah — Jibsam
Jemimah
Jemimah - je-mi'-ma (yemimah, perhaps a diminutive meaning "little dove"): The first daughter of Job (42:14), born after his restoration from affliction.
Jemnaan
Jemnaan - jem'-na-an (Iemnaan): A city on the coast of Palestine; mentioned among those affected by the expedition of Holofernes (Judith 2:28; 3:1 ff). The name is used for Jabniel, generally called "Jamnia" by the Greek writers.
Jemuel
Jemuel - je-mu'-el (yemu'el, meaning unknown): A "son" of Simeon (Genesis 46:10; Exodus 6:15) = "Nemuel" in Numbers 26:12; 1 Chronicles 4:24.
The Syriac version has "Jemuel" in the 4 passages, but Gray (H P N, 307, note 6) thinks "Jemuel" is more probably a correction in Gen than "Nemuel" in Numbers.
Jeopard; Jeopardy
Jeopard; Jeopardy - jep'-ard, jep'-ar-di: The Eng, word referred originally to a game where the chances were even (from OFr. jeu parti); transferred thence to designate any great risk. In the New Testament, represented by the Greek verb kinduneuo (Luke 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:30). In the Old Testament (Judges 5:18) for a Hebrew idiom, "despise the soul," i.e. they placed a small value upon their lives (Vulgate "offered their souls to death"); for elliptical expression, "went with their lives," in 2 Samuel 23:17 m.
Jephthah
Jephthah - jef'-tha (yiphtach, "opened," or "opener," probably signifying "Yahweh will open"; Iephthae; used as the name of a place, as in Joshua 15:43; 19:14; of a man, Judges 10:6 through Judges 12:7): Ninth judge of the Israelites. His antecedents are obscure. Assuming Gilead to be the actual name of his father, his mother was a harlot. He was driven from home on account of his illegitimacy, and went to the land of Tobit in Eastern Syria (Judges 11:2-3). Here he and his followers lived the life of freebooters.
The Israelites beyond the Jordan being in danger of an invasion by the Ammonites, Jephthah was invited by the elders of Gilead to be their leader (Judges 11:5-6). Remembering how they had expelled him from their territory and his heritage, Jephthah demanded of them that in the event of success in the struggle with the Ammonites, he was to be continued as leader. This condition being accepted he returned to Gilead (Judges 11:7-11). The account of the diplomacy used by Jephthah to prevent the Ammonites from invading Gilead is possibly an interpolation, and is thought by many interpreters to be a compilation from Numbers 20:1-29 through Numbers 21:1-35. It is of great interest, however, not only because of the fairness of the argument used (Judges 11:12-28), but also by virtue of the fact that it contains a history of the journey of the Israelites from Lower Egypt to the banks of the Jordan. This history is distinguished from that of the Pentateuch chiefly by the things omitted. If diplomacy was tried, it failed to dissuade the Ammonites from seeking to invade Israel. Jephthah prepared for battle, but before taking the field paused at Mizpeh of Gilead, and registered a vow that if he were successful in battle, he would offer as a burnt offering to Yahweh whatsoever should first come from his doors to greet him upon his return (Judges 11:29-31). The battle is fought, Jephthah is the victor, and now his vow returns to him with anguish and sorrow. Returning to his home, the first to greet him is his daughter and only child. The father's sorrow and the courage of the daughter are the only bright lights on this sordid, cruel conception of God and of the nature of sacrifice. That the sacrifice was made seems certain from the narrative, although some critics choose to substitute for the actual death of the maiden the setting the girl apart for a life of perpetual virginity. The Israelite laws concerning sacrifices and the language used in Judges 11:39 are the chief arguments for the latter interpretation. The entire narrative, however, will hardly bear this construction (Judges 11:34-40).
Jephthah was judge in Israel for 6 years, but appears only once more in the Scripture narrative. The men of Ephraim, offended because they had had no share in the victory over the Ammonites, made war upon Gilead, but were put to rout by the forces under Jephthah (Judges 12:1-6).
C. E. Schenk
Jephunneh
Jephunneh - je-fun'-e (yephunneh, meaning uncertain):
(1) Father of Caleb (Numbers 13:6; 6, 30, etc.).
According to Numbers 13:6, he was of the tribe of Judah; according to Numbers 32:12; Joshua 14:6, a Kenizzite; the Kenizzites were incorporated in Judah (compare 1 Chronicles 4:13-15).
(2) A son of Jether, an Asherite (1 Chronicles 7:38).
Jerah
Jerah - je'-ra (yerach): A son of Joktan (Genesis 10:26 parallel 1 Chronicles 1:20). No district Jerah has been discovered. However, Yurakh in Yemen and Yarach in Hijaz are places named by the Arabic geographers. The fact that the word in Hebrew means "moon" has led to the following suggestions: the Banu Hilal ("sons of the new moon") in the North of Yemen; Ghubb el-Qamar ("the bay of the moon"), Jebel el-Qamar ("the mountains of the moon") in Eastern Chadramant. But in Southern Arabia worship of the moon has caused the word to bulk largely in place-names.
Jerahmeel; Jerahmeelites
Jerahmeel; Jerahmeelites - je-ra'-me-el, je-ra'-me-el-its (yerachme'el, "may God have compassion!"):
(1) In 1 Chronicles 2:9, 25, 26, 27, 33, 42, he is described as the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah by Tamar his daughter-in-law (Genesis 38:1-30). In 1 Samuel 27:10 is mentioned the neghebh of the (ha-yerach-me'eli, a collective noun), the Revised Version (British and American) "the South of the Jerahmeelites." The latter is a tribal name in use probably before the proper name, above; their cities are mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:29. Cheyne has radical views on Jerahmeel. See EB , under the word; also T. Witton Davies in Review of Theology and Philosophy, III, 689-708 (May, 1908); and Cheyne's replies in Hibbert Journal, VII, 132-51 (October, 1908), and Decline and Fall of the Kingdom of Judah.
(2) A Merarite Levite, son of Kish (1 Chronicles 24:29).
(3) "The king's son," the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version margin (Jeremiah 36:26). the Revised Version margin, the King James Version have "son of Hammelech," taking the word ha-melek as a proper name. He was "probably a royal prince, one who had a king among his ancestors but not necessarily son of the ruling king; so Jeremiah 38:6; 1 Kings 222:21Ki 6:1-38b; especially Zephaniah 1:8 written at a time when the reigning king, Josiah, could not have had a grown-up `son' " (Driver, Jeremiah, 224, note e). Jerahmeel was with two others commanded by Jehoiakim to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch.
David Francis Roberts
Jerechu; Jerechus
Jerechu; Jerechus - jer'-e-ku, jer'-e-kus the King James Version (1 Esdras 5:22).
See JERICHO.
Jered
Jered - je'-red (yeredh, "descent"): A Judahite, father of Gedor (1 Chronicles 4:18).
See also JARED.
Jeremai
Jeremai - jer'-e-mi, jer-e-ma'-i (yeremay, meaning unknown): One of those who had married foreign wives (Ezra 10:33).
See JEREMIAS (1 Esdras 9:34).
Jeremiah (1)
Jeremiah (1) - jer-e-mi'-a ((a) yirmeyahu, or (b) shorter form, yirmeyah, both differently explained as "Yah establishes (so Giesebrecht), whom Yahweh casts," i.e. possibly, as Gesenius suggests, "appoints" (A. B. Davidson in HDB, II, 569a), and "Yahweh looseneth" (the womb); see BDB ): The form (b) is used of Jeremiah the prophet only in Jeremiah 27:1; Jeremiah 28:5-6, 10-111,12b,Jeremiah 15:1-21; 29:1; Ezra 1:1; Daniel 9:2, while the other is found 116 times in Jeremiah alone. In 1 Esdras 1:28, 32, 47, 57; 2 Esdras 2:18, English Versions of the Bible has "Jeremy," so the King James Version in 2 Maccabees 2:1, 5, 7; Matthew 2:17; 27:9; in Matthew 16:14, the King James Version has "Jeremias," but the Revised Version (British and American) in 2 Maccabees and Matthew has "Jeremiah."
(1) The prophet. See special article. Of the following, (2), (3) and (4) have form (a) above; the others the form (b).
(2) Father of Hamutal (Hamital), the mother of King Jehoahaz and King Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:31; 24:18 parallel Jeremiah 52:1).
(3) A Rechabite (Jeremiah 35:3).
(4) In 1 Chronicles 12:13 (Hebrews 14), a Gadite.
(5) In 1 Chronicles 12:10 (Hebrews 11:1-40), a Gadite.
(6) In 1 Chronicles 12:4 (Hebrews 5:1-14), a Benjamite(?) or Judean. (4), (5) and (6) all joined David at Ziklag.
(7) Head of a Manassite family (1 Chronicles 5:24).
(8) A priest who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10:2), probably the same as he of Nehemiah 12:34 who took part in the procession at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem.
(9) A priest who went to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel from exile and became head of a priestly family of that name (Nehemiah 12:1).
David Francis Roberts
Jeremiah (2)
Jeremiah (2) - jer-e-mi'-a:
1. Name and Person
2. Life of Jeremiah
3. The Personal Character of Jeremiah
4. The Prophecies of Jeremiah
5. The Book of Jeremiah
6. Authenticity and Integrity of the Book
7. Relation to the Septuagint (Septuagint)
LITERATURE
1. Name and Person: The name of one of the greatest prophets of Israel. The Hebrew yirmeyahu, abbreviated to yirmeyah, signifies either "Yahweh hurls" or "Yahweh founds." Septuagint reads Iermias, and the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Jeremias. As this name also occurs not infrequently, the prophet is called "the son of Hilkiah" (Jeremiah 1:1), who is, however, not the high priest mentioned in 2 Kings 22:1-20 and 2 Kings 23:1-37, as it is merely stated that he was "of the priests that were in Anathoth" in the land of Benjamin In Anathoth, now Anata, a small village 3 miles Northeast of Jerusalem, lived a class of priests who belonged to a side line, not to the line of Zadok (compare 1 Kings 2:26).
2. Life of Jeremiah: Jeremiah was called by the Lord to the office of a prophet while still a youth (1:6) about 20 years of age, in the 13th year of King Josiah (1:2; 25:3), in the year 627 BC, and was active in this capacity from this time on to the destruction of Jerusalem, 586 BC, under kings Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. Even after the fall of the capital city he prophesied in Egypt at least for several years, so that his work extended over a period of about 50 years in all. At first he probably lived in Anathoth, and put in his appearance publicly in Jerusalem only on the occasion of the great festivals; later he lived in Jerusalem, and was there during the terrible times of the siege and the destruction of the city.
Although King Josiah was God-fearing and willing to serve Yahweh, and soon inaugurated his reformation according to the law of Yahweh (in the 18th year of his reign), yet Jeremiah, at the time when he was called to the prophetic office, was not left in doubt of the fact that the catastrophe of the judgment of God over the city would soon come (1:11 ff); and when, after a few years, the Book of the Law was found in the temple (2 Kings 22:1-20 and 2 Kings 23:1-37), Jeremiah preached "the words of this covenant" to the people in the town and throughout the land (2 Kings 11:1-8; 2 Kings 17:19-27), and exhorted to obedience to the Divine command; but in doing this then and afterward he became the object of much hostility, especially in his native city, Anathoth. Even his own brethren or near relatives entered into a conspiracy against him by declaring that he was a dangerous fanatic (2 Kings 12:6). However, the condition of Jeremiah under this pious king was the most happy in his career, and he lamented the latter's untimely death in sad lyrics, which the author of Chronicles was able to use (2 Chronicles 35:25), but which have not come down to our times.
Much more unfavorable was the prophet's condition after the death of Josiah. Jehoahaz-Shallum, who ruled only 3 months, received the announcement of his sentence from Jeremiah (22:10 ff). Jehoiakim (609-598 BC) in turn favored the heathen worship, and oppressed the people through his love of luxury and by the erection of grand structures (Jeremiah 22:13 ff). In addition, his politics were treacherous. He conspired with Egypt against his superior, Nebuchadnezzar. Epoch- making was the 4th year of Jehoiakim , in which, in the battle of Carchemish, the Chaldeans gained the upper hand in Hither Asia, as Jeremiah had predicted (46:1-12). Under Jehoiakim Jeremiah delivered his great temple discourse (Jeremiah 7:1-34 through Jeremiah 9:1-26; Jeremiah 10:17-25). The priests for this reason determined to have the prophet put to death (Jeremiah 26:1-24). However, influential elders interceded for him, and the princes yet showed some justice. He was, however, abused by the authorities at the appeal of the priests (Jeremiah 20:1-18). According to Jeremiah 36:1 ff, he was no longer permitted to enter the place of the temple. For this reason the Lord commanded him to collect his prophecies in a bookroll, and to have them read to the people by his faithful pupil Baruch (Jeremiah 36:1-32; compare Jeremiah 45:1-5). The book fell into the hands of the king, who burned it. However, Jeremiah dictated the book a second time to Baruch, together with new additions.
Jehoiachin or Coniah (Jeremiah 22:24 ff), the son of Jehoiakim, after a reign of 3 months, was taken into captivity to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, together with a large number of his nobles and the best part of the people (Jeremiah 24:1; 29:2), as the prophet had predicted (Jeremiah 22:20-30). But conditions did not improve under Zedekiah (597-586 BC). This king was indeed not as hostile to Jeremiah as Jehoiakim had been; but all the more hostile were the princes and the generals, who were now in command after the better class of these had been deported to Babylon. They continually planned rebellion against Babylon, while Jeremiah was compelled to oppose and put to naught every patriotic agitation of this kind. Finally, the Babylonian army came in order to punish the faithles s vassal who had again entered into an alliance with Egypt. Jeremiah earnestly advised submission, but the king was too weak and too cowardly as against his nobles. A long siege resulted, which caused the direst sufferings in the life of Jeremiah. The commanders threw him into a vile prison, charging him with being a traitor (37:11 ff). The king, who consulted him secretly, released him from prison, and put him into the "court of the guard" (37:17 ff), where he could move around freely, and could agai n prophesy. Now that the judgment had come, he could again speak of the hopeful future (Jeremiah 32:1-44; Jeremiah 33:1-26). Also Jeremiah 30:1-24 and Jeremiah 31:1-40, probably, were spoken about this time. But as he continued to preach submission to the people, those in authority cast him into a slimy cistern, from which the pity of a courtier, Ebed-melech, delivered him (Jeremiah 39:15-18). He again returned to the court of the guard, where he remained until Jerusalem was taken.
After the capture of the city, Jeremiah was treated with great consideration by the Babylonians, who knew that he had spoken in favor of their government (39:11 ff; 40:1 ff). They gave him the choice of going to Babylon or of remaining in his native lan d. He decided for the latter, and went to the governor Gedaliah, at Mizpah, a man worthy of all confidence. But when this man, after a short time, was murdered by conscienceless opponents, the Jews who had been left in Palestine, becoming alarmed and fearing the vengeance of the Chaldeans, determined to emigrate to Egypt. Jeremiah advised against this most earnestly, and threatened the vengeance of Yahweh, if the people should insist upon their undertaking (42:1 ff). But they insisted and even compelled the aged prophet to go with them (43:1 ff). Their first goal was Tahpanhes (Daphne), a town in Lower Egypt. At this place he still continued to preach the word of God to his fellow-Israelites; compare the latest of his preserved discourses in 43:8-13, as also the sermon in Jeremiah 44:1-30, delivered at a somewhat later time but yet before 570 BC. At that time Jeremiah must have been from 70 to 80 years old. He probably died soon after this in Egypt. The church Fathers report that he was stoned to death at Daphne by the Jews (Jerome, Adv. Jovin, ii, 37; Tertullian, Contra Gnost., viii; Pseudepiphan. De Proph., chapter viii; Dorotheus, 146; Isidorus, Ort. et Obit. Patr., chapter xxxviii). However, this report is not well founded. The same is the case with the rabbinical tradition, according to which he, in company with Baruch, was taken from Egypt to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, and died there (Cedher `Olam Rabba' 26).
3. The Personal Character of Jeremiah: The Book of Jeremiah gives us not only a fuller account of the life and career of its author than do the books of the other prophets, but we also learn more about his own inner and personal life and feelings than we do of Isaiah or any other prophet. From this source we learn that he was, by nature, gentle and tender in his feelings, and sympathetic. A decided contrast to this is found in the hard and unmerciful judgment which it was his mission to announce. God made him strong and firm and immovable like iron for his mission (1:18; 15:20). This contrast between his naturally warm personal feelings and his strict Divine mission not rarely appears in the heart-utterances found in his prophecies. At first he rejoiced when God spoke to him (15:16); but soon these words of God were to his heart a source of pain and of suffering (15:17 ff). He would have preferred not to utter them; and then they burned in his breast as a fire (20:7 ff; 23:9). He personally stood in need of love, and yet was not permitted to marry (16:1 f). He was compelled to forego the pleasures of youth (15:17). He loved his people as nobody else, and yet was always compelled to prophesy evil for it, and seemed to be the enemy of his nation. This often caused him to despair. The enmity to which he fell a victim, on account of his declaration of nothing but the truth, he deeply felt; see his complaints (9:1 ff; 12:5 f; 15:10; 17:14-18; 18:23, and often). In this sad antagonism between his heart and the commands of the Lord, he would perhaps wish that God had not spoken to him; he even cursed the day of his birth (15:10; 20:14-18; compare Job 3:1 ff). Such complaints are to be carefully distinguished from that which the Lord through His Spirit communicated to the prophet. God rebukes him for these complaints, and demands of him to repent and to trust and obey Him (Jeremiah 15:19). This discipline makes him all the more unconquerable. Even his bitter denunciations of his enemies (Jeremiah 11:20 ff; Jeremiah 15:15; 17:18; Jeremiah 18:21-23) originated in part in his passionate and deep nature, and show how great is the difference between him and that perfect Sufferer, who prayed even for His deadly enemies. But Jeremiah was nevertheless a type of that Suffering Saviour, more than any of the Old Testament saints. He, as a priest, prayed for his people, until God forbade him to do so (Jeremiah 7:16; 11:14; 14:11; 18:20). He was compelled more than all the others to suffer through the anger of God, which was to afflict his people. The people themselves also felt that he meant well to them. A proof of this is seen in the fact that the rebellious people, who always did the contrary of what he had commanded them, forced him, the unwelcome prophet of God, to go along with them, to Egypt, because they felt that he was their good genius.
4. The Prophecies of Jeremiah: What Jeremiah was to preach was the judgment upon Judah. As the reason for this judgment Jeremiah everywhere mentioned the apostasy from Yahweh, the idolatry, which was practiced on bamoth, or the "high places" by Judah, as this had been done by Israel. Many heathenish abuses had found their way into the life of the people. Outspoken heathenism had been introduced by such men as King Manasseh, even the sacrifice of children to the honor of Baal-Molech in the valley of Hinnom (7:31; 19:5; 32:35), and the worship of "the queen of heaven" (7:18; 44:19). It is true that the reformation of Josiah swept away the worst of these abominations. But an inner return to Yahweh did not result from this reformation. For the reason that the improvement had been more on the surface and outward, and was done to please the king, Jeremiah charges up to his people all their previous sins, and the guilt of the present generation was yet added to this (16:11 f). Together with religious insincerity went the moral corruption of the people, such as dishonesty, injustice, oppression of the helpless, slander, and the like. Compare the accusations found in 5:1 ff,7 f,26 ff; 6:7,13; 7:5 f,9; 9:2,6,8; 17:9 ff; 21:12; 22:13 ff; 23:10; 29:23, etc. Especially to the spiritual leaders, the priests and prophets, are these things charged up.
The judgment which is to come in the near future, as a punishment for the sins of the people, is from the outset declared to be the conquest of the country through an enemy from abroad. In this way the heated caldron with the face from the North, in the vision containing the call of the prophet (Jeremiah 1:13 ff), is to be understood. This power in the North is not named until the 4th year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 25:1-38), where Nebuchadnezzar is definitely designated as the conqueror. It is often thought, that, in the earlier years of his career, Jeremiah had in mind the Scythians when he spoke of the enemies from the North, especially in Jeremiah 4:1-31 through Jeremiah 6:1-30. The Scythians (according to Herodotus i.103 ff) had, probably a few years before Jeremiah's call to the prophetic office, taken possession of Media, then marched through Asia Minor, and even forced their way as far as Egypt. They crossed through Canaan, passing by on their march from East to West, near Beth-shean (Scythopolis). The ravages of this fierce people probably influenced the language used by Jeremiah in his prophecies (compare 4:11 ff; 5:15 ff; 6:3 ff,22 ff). But it is unthinkable that Jeremiah expected nothing more than a plundering and a booty-seeking expedition of the Scythian nomad hordes. Chariots, such as are described in 4:13, the Scythians did not possess. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that Jeremiah from the outset speaks of a deportation of his people to this foreign land (3:18; 5:19), while an exile of Israel in the country of the Scythians was out of the question. At all events from the 4th year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah regards the Chaldeans as the enemy who, according to his former announcement, would come from the North It is possible that it was only in the course of time that he reached a clear conviction as to what nation was meant by the revelation from God. But, upon further reflection, he must have felt almost certain on this subject, especially as Isaiah (39:6), Micah (4:10), and, soon after these, Habakkuk had named Babylon as the power that was to carry out the judgment upon Israel. Other prophets, too, regard the Babylonians as belonging to the northern group of nations (compare Zechariah 6:8), because they always came from the North, and because they were the legal successors of the Assyrians.
In contrast to optimistic prophets, who had hoped to remedy matters in Israel (Jeremiah 6:14), Jeremiah from the beginning predicted the destruction of the city and of the sanctuary, as also the end of the Jewish nation and the exile of the people through these enemies from abroad. According to Jeremiah 25:11; 29:10, the Babylonian supremacy (not exactly the exile) was to continue for 70 years; and after this, deliverance should come. Promises to this effect are found only now and then in the earlier years of the prophet (3:14 ff; 12:14 ff; 16:14 f). However, during the time of the siege and afterward, such predictions are more frequent (compare 23:1 ff; 24:6 f; 47:2-7; and in the "Book of Comfort," chapters 30 through 33).
What characterizes this prophet is the spiritual inwardness of his religion; the external theocracy he delivers up to destruction, because its forms were not animated by God-fearing sentiments. External circumcision is of no value without inner purity of heart. The external temple will be destroyed, because it has become the hiding-place of sinners. External sacrifices have no value, because those who offer them are lacking in spirituality, and this is displeasing to God. The law is abused and misinterpreted (Jeremiah 8:8); the words of the prophets as a rule do not come from God. Even the Ark of the Covenant is eventually to make way for a glorious presence of the Lord. The law is to be written in the hearts of men (Jeremiah 31:31 ff). The glories of the Messianic times the prophet does not describe in detail but their spiritual character he repeatedly describes in the words "Yahweh our righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6; 33:16). However, we must not over-estimate the idealism of Jeremiah. He believed in a realistic restoration of theocracy to a form, just as the other prophets (compare Jeremiah 31:1-40 through Jeremiah 32:1-44, Jeremiah 38:1-28 through Jeremiah 40:1-16).
As far as the form of his prophetic utterances is concerned, Jeremiah is of a poetical nature; but he was not only a poet. He often speaks in the meter of an elegy; but he is not bound by this, and readily passes over into other forms of rhythms and also at times into prosaic speech, when the contents of his discourses require it. The somewhat monotonous and elegiac tone, which is in harmony with his sad message to the people, gives way to more lively and varied forms of expression, when the prophet speaks of other and foreign nations. In doing this he often makes use of the utterances of earlier prophets.
5. The Book of Jeremiah: The first composition of the book is reported in Jeremiah 36:1 ff. In the 4th year of Jehoiakim, at the command of Yahweh, he dictated all of the prophecies he had spoken down to this time to his pupil Baruch, who wrote them on a roll. After the destruction of this book-roll by the king, he would not be stopped from reproducing the contents again and making additions to it (Jeremiah 36:32). In this we have the origin of the present Book of Jeremiah. This book, however, not only received further additions, but has also been modified. While the discourses may originally have been arranged chronologically, and these reached only down to the 4th year of King Jehoiakim, we find in the book, as it is now, as early as Jeremiah 21:1 ff; Jeremiah 23:1 ff; Jeremiah 26:1 ff, discourses from the times of Zedekiah. However, the 2nd edition (Jeremiah 36:28) contained, no doubt, Jeremiah 25:1-38, with those addresses directed against the heathen nations extant at that time. The lack of order, from a chronological point of view, in the present book, is attributable also to the fact that historical accounts or appendices concerning the career of Jeremiah were added to the book in later times, e.g. Jeremiah 26:1-24; Jeremiah 35:1-19; Jeremiah 36:1-32 and others; and in these additions are also found older discourses of the prophet. Beginning with Jeremiah 37:1-21, the story of the prophet during the siege of Jerusalem and after the destruction of the city is reported, and in connection with this are his words and discourses belonging to this period.
It is a question whether these pieces, which are more narrative in character, and which are the product of a contemporary, probably Baruch, at one time constituted a book by themselves, out of which they were later taken and incorporated in the book of the prophet, or whether they were inserted by Baruch. In favor of the first view, it may be urged that they are not always found at their proper places chronologically; e.g. Jeremiah 26:1-24 is a part of the temple discourse in Jeremiah 7:1-34 through Jeremiah 9:1-26. However, this "Book of Baruch," which is claimed by some critics to have existed as a separate book beside that of Jeremiah, would not furnish a connected biography, and does not seem to have been written for biographical purposes. It contains introductions to certain words and speeches of the prophet and statements of what the consequences of these had been. Thus it is more probable that Baruch, at a later time, made supplementary additions to the original book, which the prophet had dictated without any personal data. But in this work the prophet himself may have cooperated. At places, perhaps, the dictation of the prophet ends in a narrative of Baruch (Jeremiah 19:14 through Jeremiah 20:6), or vice versa. Baruch seems to have written a historical introduction, and then Jeremiah dictated the prophecy (Jeremiah 27:1; 18:1; 32:1 ff, and others). Of course, the portions of the book which came from the pen of Baruch are to be regarded as an authentic account.
6. Authenticity and Integrity of the Book: However, critics have denied to Jeremiah and his pupil certain sections of the present book, and they claim that these belong to a later date. Among these is 10:1-16, containing a warning to those in the exile against idolatry (and related to Isaiah 40:1-31 ff) which, it is claimed, could not possibly in this form and fullness be the work of Jeremiah. Also 17:19-27 is without reason denied to Jeremiah, upon the ground that he could not have thought of emphasizing the Sabbath law. He was, however, no modern idealist, but respected also the Divine ordinances (compare 11:1-8). Then Jeremiah 25:1-38 is rejected by some, while others attack especially 25:12-14 and 25:27-38; but in both cases without reason. On the other hand, we admit that 25:25 and also 25:13 f are later additions. The words, "all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations," are probably a superscription, which has found its way into the text. In 25:26 the words, "and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them," are likewise considered spurious. Sheshach is rightly regarded here, as in 51:41, as a cipher for "Babel," but the use of 'At-bash (a cipher in which the order of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet is reversed, taw (t) for 'aleph ('), shin (sh) for beth (b), etc., hence, SHeSHaKH = BaBHeL, see the commentaries) does not prove spuriousness. The sentence is not found in the Septuagint. The attacks made on Jeremiah 30:1-24 and Jeremiah 31:1-40 are of little moment. Jeremiah 33:14-26 is not found in the Septuagint, and its contents, too, belong to the passages in Jeremiah that are most vigorously attacked. Critics regard Jeremiah as too spiritual to have perpetuated the Levitical priesthood. In Jeremiah 39:1-2, 4-10 are evidently additions that do not belong to this place. The remaining portion can stand. Among the discourses against the nations, Jeremiah 46:1-28 through Jeremiah 51:1-64, those in Jeremiah 46:1-12, spoken immediately preceding the battle of Carchemish, cannot be shown to be unauthentic; even Jeremiah 46:13-28 are also genuine. The fact, however, is that the text has suffered very much. Nor are there any satisfactory reasons against the prophecy in Jeremiah 47:1-7 through Jeremiah 49:1-39, if we assume that Jeremiah reasserted some of his utterances against the heathen nations that did not seem to have been entirely fulfilled. Jeremiah 50:1-46 and Jeremiah 51:1-64, the discourses against Babylon, have the distinct impress of Jeremiah. This impression is stronger than the doubts, which, however, are not without weight. The events in Jeremiah 51:59 ff, which are not to be called into question, presuppose longer addresses of Jeremiah against Babylon. The possibility, however, remains that the editing of these utterances as found in the present book dates from the time after 586 BC. That any influence of Deutero-Isaiah or later authors can be traced in Jeremiah cannot be shown with any certainty. Jeremiah 52:1-34 was written neither by Jeremiah nor for his book, but is taken from the Books of Kings, and is found there almost verbatim (2 Kings 24:1-20; 2 Kings 25:1-30).
7. Relation to the Septuagint (Septuagint): A special problem is furnished by the relation of the text of Jeremiah to the Alexandrian version of the Seventy (Septuagint). Not only does the Hebrew form of the book differ from the Greek materially, much more than this is the case in other books of the Old Testament, but the arrangement, too, is a different one. The oracle concerning the heathen nations (Jeremiah 46:1-28 through Jeremiah 51:1-64) is in the Septuagint found in the middle of Jeremiah 25:1-38, and that, too, in an altogether different order (namely, Jeremiah 49:35 ff,Jeremiah 46:1-28; Jeremiah 50:1-46; Jeremiah 51:1-64; Jeremiah 47:1-7; Jeremiah 49:7-22, 1-5, 28-33, 13-27; Jeremiah 48:1-47). In addition, the readings throughout the book in many cases are divergent, the text in the Septuagint being in general shorter and more compact. The Greek text has about 2,700 Hebrew words less than the authentic Hebrew text, and is thus about one-eighth shorter.
As far as the insertion of the addresses against the heathen nations in Jeremiah 29:1-32 is concerned, the Greek order is certainly not more original than is the Hebrew. It rather tears apart, awkwardly, what is united in Jeremiah 25:1-38, and has probably been caused by a misunderstanding. The words of Jeremiah 25:13 were regarded as a hint that here the discourses against the heathen were to follow. Then, too, the order of these discourses in the Greek text is less natural than the one in Hebrew. In regard to the readings of the text, it has been thought that the text of the Septuagint deserves the preference on account of its brevity, and that the Hebrew text had been increased by additions. However, in general, the Greek version is very free, and often is done without an understanding of the subject; and there are reasons to believe that the translator shortened the text, when he thought the style of Jeremiah too heavy. Then, too, where he met with repetitions, he probably would omit; or did so when he found trouble with the matter or the language. This does not deny that his translation in many places may be correct, and that additions may have been made to the Hebrew text.
LITERATURE.
Calvin, Praelectiones in Librum Prophetiae Jer et Thren, Geneva, 1653; Sebastian Schmidt, Commentarii in libr. prophet. Jeremiah, Argent, 1685. Modern commentary by Hitzig, Ewald, Graf, Nagelsbach, Keil; also Cheyne (Pulpit Comm.), Peake, Duhm, and von Orelli.
C. von Orelli
Jeremiah, Epistle of
Jeremiah, Epistle of - See JEREMY,THE EPISTLE OF .
Jeremiah, the Lamentations of
Jeremiah, the Lamentations of - See LAMENTATIONS.
Jeremias
Jeremias - jer-e-mi'-as (Ieremias):
(1) Named among the sons of Baani as one of those who had married foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:34). In Ezra 10:33 we find, "Jeremai" among the sons of Hashum. In 1esdras it should come in 9:33 before Manasses.
(2) See JEREMIAH(general article).
Jeremiel
Jeremiel - jer-e-mi'-el (Latin Hieremihel, al. Jeremiel, "El hurls" or "El appoints"): the King James Version margin and the Revised Version (British and American) in 2 Esdras 4:36 for the King James Version "Uriel." He is here called the "archangel" who answers the questions raised by the souls of the righteous dead. He is perhaps identical with Ramiel of Apocrypha Baruch or Remiel of Eth Enoch.
Jeremoth
Jeremoth - jer'-e-moth ((a) yeremoth and (b) yeremowth, (c) yerimowth, meaning unknown): Of the following (1) has form (b), (5) the form (c), the rest (a).
(1) In 1 Chronicles 7:8 (the King James Version "Jerimoth"), and
(2) In 1 Chronicles 8:14, Benjamites. Compare JEROHAM, (2).
(3) In 1 Chronicles 23:23, and (4) in 1 Chronicles 25:22 = "Jerimoth," 1 Chronicles 24:30; heads of Levitical houses.
(5) A Naphtalite, one of David's tribal princes (1 Chronicles 27:19); the King James Version "Jerimoth."
(6) (7) (8) Men who had married foreign wives. In Ezra 10:26 (="Hieremoth," 1 Esdras 9:27); Ezra 10:27 (="Jarimoth," 1 Esdras 9:28); Ezra 10:29 (="Hieremoth," 1 Esdras 9:30); the Qere of the last is weramoth, "and Ramoth"; so the Revised Version margin, the King James Version.
David Francis Roberts
Jeremy
Jeremy - jer'-e-mi.
See JEREMIAH(general article).
Jeremy, the Epistle of
Jeremy, the Epistle of - jer'-e-mi, (Epistole Ieremiou):
1. Name
2. Canonicity and Position
3. Contents
4. Original Language
5. Authorship, Date and Aim
6. Text and Versions
LITERATURE
1. Name: In manuscripts Vaticanus and Alexandrinus the title is simply "An Epistle of Jeremiah." But in Codex Vaticanus, etc., there is a superscription introducing the letter: "Copy of a letter which Jeremiah sent to the captives about to be led to Babylon by (Peshitta adds Nebuchadnezzar) the king of the Babylonians, to make known to them what had been commanded him by God." What follows is a satirical exposure of the folly of idolatry, and not a letter. The idea of introducing this as a letter from Jeremiah was probably suggested by Jeremiah 29:1 ff.
2. Canonicity and Position: The early Greek Fathers were on the whole favorably disposed toward this tract, reckoning it to be a part of the Canon. It is therefore included in the lists of Canonical writings of Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, and it was so authoritatively recognized by the Council of Laodicea (360 AD).
In most Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint (Codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus. March, Chisl, in the Syriac Hexateuch), it follows Lamentations as an independent piece, closing the supposed writings of Jeremiah. In the bestknown printed of the Septuagint (Tischendorf, Swete, etc.), the order is Jeremiah, Baruch, Lain, Epistle of Jeremy. In Fritzsche, Lib. Apocrypha VT Graece, Epistle Jeremiah stands between Baruch and Tobit. But in Latin manuscripts, including those of the Vulgate, it is appended to Baruch, of which it forms chapter 6, though it really has nothing to do with that book. This last is the case with Protestant editions (English versions of the Bible, etc.) of the Apocrypha, a more intelligible arrangement, since Jeremiah and Lamentations do not occur in the Apocrypha, and the Biblical Baruch was Jeremiah's amanuensis.
3. Contents: In the so-called letter (see 1, above) the author shows the absurdity and wickedness of heathen worship. The Jews, for their sins, will be removed to Babylon, where they will remain 7 generations. In that land they will be tempted to worship the gods o f the people. The writer's aim is ostensibly to warn them beforehand by showing how helpless and useless the idols worshipped are, and how immoral as well as silly the rites of the Bah religion are. For similar polemics against idolatry, see Isaiah 44:9-19 (which in its earnestness resembles the Epistle Jeremiah closely); Jeremiah 10:3-9; Psalms 115:4-8; Psalms 135:15-18; Wisdom of Solomon 13:10-19; Wisdom of Solomon 15:13-17.
4. Original Language: That the Epistle Jeremiah was composed in Greek is the opinion of practically all scholars. There are no marks of translation; the Greek is on the whole good, and abounds in such rhetorical terms as characterized the Greek of Northern Egypt about the be ginning of our era. There is no trace of a Hebrew original, though Origen has been mistakenly understood to say there was one in his day (see Schurer,GJV 4,III , 467 f). Romanist writers defend a Hebrew original, and point to some Hebraisms (verse 44 and the use of the fut. for the past), but these can be matched in admittedly Hellenistic Greek writings.
5. Authorship, Date and Aim: The writer was almost certainly a resident in Alexandria toward the close of the last century BC. The Greek of the book, the references to Egyptian religion (verse 19, where the Feast of Lights at Sais--Herod. ii.62--is referred to), and the allusion to the Epistle Jeremiah in 2 Maccabees 2:2, denied by Schurer, etc., make the above conclusion very probable. The author had in mind the dangers to the religion of his fellow-countrymen presented by the fascinating forms of idolatry existing at Alexandria. Certainly Jeremiah is not the author, for the book was written in Greek and never formed part of the Hebrew Canon. Besides, the treatment is far below the level of the genuine writings of that prophet.
6. Text and Versions: (1) The Greek. This epistle occurs in the principal manuscripts of the Septuagint uncials (Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Q, Gamma, contain 7b-24a, etc.) and cursives (except 70, 96, 229).
(2) The Syriac. P follows the Greek, but very freely. The Syriac H follows the text of Codex Vaticanus closely, often at the expense of Syriac idioms.
(3) The Latin. The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is made direct from the Greek. There is a different Latin version published by Sabatier in his Biblical Sacr. Latin Versiones Antiquas, II, 734 ff. It is freer than the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
(4) The Arabic. There are also Arabic (following A), Coptic (ed Quatremere, 1810), and Ethiopic (ed Dillmann, 1894)versions.
LITERATURE.
See underAPOCRYPHA for commentary and various editions. But note in addition to the literature mentioned the article the following: Reusch, Erklar. des B. Baruch, 1853; Daubanton, "Het Apok boek Epistole Ieremiou," Theol. Studien, 1888, 126-38.
T. Witton Davies
Jeriah
Jeriah - je-ri'-a (yeriyahu, "founded of Yahweh"): In 1 Chronicles 23:19; 24:23 = "Jerijah" (yeriyah), 26:31, head of a Levitical house: called chief of the Hebronites in 24:23 (compare 24:30).
Jeribai
Jeribai - jer'-i-bi, jer-i-ba'-i (yeribhay, meaning uncertain): One of David's mighty men of the armies (1 Chronicles 11:46); one of the names not found in the list in 2 Samuel 23:22-242Sa 9:1-13a.
Jericho
Jericho - jer'-i-ko (the word occurs in two forms. In the Pentateuch, in 2 Kings 25:5 and in Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles it is written yerecho; yericho, elsewhere): In 1 Kings 16:34 the final Hebrew letter is he (h), instead of waw (w). The termination waw (w) thought to preserve the peculiarities of the old Canaanite. dialect. In the Septuagint we have the indeclinable form, Iericho (Swete has the form Iereicho as well), both with and without the feminine article; in the New Testament Iereicho, once with the feminine article The Arabic is er-Riha. According to Deuteronomy 32:49 it stood opposite Nebo, while in Deuteronomy 34:3 it is called a city grove of palm trees. It was surrounded with a wall (Joshua 2:15), and provided with a gate which was closed at night (Joshua 2:5), an d was ruled over by a king. When captured, vessels of brass and iron, large quantities of silver and gold, and "a goodly Babylonish garment" were found in it (Joshua 7:21). It was on the western side of the Jordan, not far from the camp of Israel at Shittim, before crossing the river (Joshua 2:1). The city was on the "plains" (Joshua 4:13), but so close to "the mountain" on the West (probably the cliffs of Quarantania, the traditional scene of Christ's temptation) that it was within easy reach of the spies, protected by Rahab. It was in the lot of Benjamin (Joshua 18:21), the border of which ascended to the "slope (English versions of the Bible "side") of Jeremiah on the North" (Joshua 18:12). Authorities are generally agreed in locating the ancient city at Tel es-Sultan, a mile and a half Northwest of modern Jericho. Here there is a mound 1,200 ft. long and 50 ft. in height supporting 4 smaller mounds, the highest of which is 90 ft. above the base of the main mound.
The geological situation (see JORDAN VALLEY) sheds great light upon the capture of the city by Joshua (Joshua 6:1-27). If the city was built as we suppose it to have been, upon the unconsolidated sedimentary deposits which accumulated to a great depth in the Jordan valley during the enlargement of the Dead Sea, which took place in Pleistocene (or glacial) times, the sudden falling of the walls becomes easily credible to anyone who believes in the personality of God and in His power either to foreknow the future or to direct at His will the secondary causes with which man has to deal in Nature. The narrative does not state that the blowing of the rams' horns of themselves effected the falling of the walls. It was simply said that at a specified juncture on the 7th day the walls would fall, and that they actually fell at that juncture. The miracle may, therefore, be regarded as either that of prophecy, in which the Creator by foretelling the course of things to Joshua, secured the junction of Divine and human activities which constitutes a true miracle, or we may regard the movements which brought down the walls to be the result of direct Divine action, such as is exerted by man when be produces an explosion of dynamite at a particular time and place. The phenomena are just such as occurred in the earthquake of San Francisco in 1906, where, according to the report of the scientific commission appointed by the state, "the most violent destruction of buildings was on the made ground. This ground seems to have behaved during the earthquake very much in the same way as jelly in a bowl, or as a semi-liquid in a tank." Santa Rosa, situated on the valley floor, "underlain to a considerable depth by loose or slightly coherent geological formations, .... 20 miles from the rift, was the most severely shaken town in the state and suffered the greatest disaster relatively to its population and extent" (Report, 13 and 15). Thus an earthquake, such as is easily provided for along the margin of this great Jordan crevasse, would produce exactly the phenomena here described, and its occurrence at the time and place foretold to Joshua constitutes it a miracle of the first magnitude.
Notwithstanding the curse pronounced in Joshua 6:26 the King James Version, prophesying that whosoever should rebuild the city "he shall lay the foundations thereof in his firstborn," it was rebuilt (1 Kings 16:34) by Hiel the Bethelite in the days of Ahab. The curse was literally fulfilled. Still David's messengers are said to have "tarried at Jericho" in his day (2 Samuel 10:5; 1 Chronicles 19:5). In Elisha's time (2 Kings 2:5) there was a school of prophets there, while several other references to the city occur in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha (2 Chronicles 28:15, where it is called "the city of palmtrees"; 2 Kings 25:5; Jeremiah 39:5; Ezra 2:34; Nehemiah 3:2; 7:36; 1 Maccabees 9:50). Josephus describes it and the fertile plain surrounding it, in glowing terms. In the time of Christ, it was an important place yielding a large revenue to the royal family. But the city which Herod rebuilt was on a higher elevation, at the base of the western mountain, probably at Beit Jubr, where there are the ruins of a small fort. Jericho was the place of rendezvous for Galilean pilgrims desiring to avoid Samaria, both in going to and in departing from Jerusalem, and it has been visited at all times by thousands of pilgrims, who go down from Jerusalem to bathe in the Jordan. The road leading from Jerusalem to Jericho is still infested by robbers who hide in the rocky caverns adjoining it, and appear without warning from the tributary gorges of the wadies which dissect the mountain wall. At the present time Jericho and the region about is occupied only by a few hundred miserable inhabitants, deteriorated by the torrid climate which prevails at the low level about the head of the Dead Sea. But the present barrenness of the region is largely due to the destruction of the aqueducts which formerly distributed over the plain the waters brought down through the wadies which descend from the mountains of Judea. The ruins of many of these are silent witnesses of the cause of its decay. Twelve aqueducts at various levels formerly branched from the Wady Kelt, irrigating the plain both North and South. Remains of Roman masonry are found in these. In the Middle Ages they were so repaired that an abundance and variety of crops were raised, including wheat, barley, millet, figs, grapes and sugar cane.
See further PALESTINE EXPLORATION.
George Frederick Wright
Jeriel
Jeriel - je'-ri-el, jer'-i-el (yeri'el, "founded of God"; compare JERIAH):A chief of Issachar (1 Chronicles 7:2).
Jerijah
Jerijah - je-ri'-ja (1 Chronicles 26:31).
See JERIAH.
Jerimoth
Jerimoth - jer'-i-moth (see JEREMOTH, (c)):
(1) A Benjamite (1 Chronicles 7:7).
(2) A Benjamite who joined David at Ziklag, or perhaps a Judean (1 Chronicles 12:5 (Hebrews 6:1-20)).
(3) In 1 Chronicles 24:30 = JEREMOTH, (4) (which see).
(4) A Levite musician in David's time (1 Chronicles 25:4).
(5) Son of David and father of Mahalath, Rehoboam's wife (2 Chronicles 11:18). He is not mentioned (2 Samuel 3:2-5; 2 Samuel 5:14-16; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9; 1 Chronicles 14:4-7) among the sons of David's wives, so Curtis (Ch, 369) thinks that he was either the son of a concubine, or possibly the name is a corruption of "Ithream" (yithre`am, 1 Chronicles 3:3).
(6) A Levite overseer in Hezekiah's time (2 Chronicles 31:13).
David Francis Roberts
Jerioth
Jerioth - jer'-i-oth, jer'-i-oth (yeri`oth, "(tent-) curtains"): In 1 Chronicles 2:18, where Massoretic Text is corrupt, Kittel in his commentary and in Biblical Hebrew reads "Caleb begat (children) of Azubah his wife, Jerioth." Wellhausen (De Gent. et Fam. Jud., 33) reads, "Caleb begat (children) of Azubah his wife, the daughter of Jerioth." According to English Versions of the Bible, Caleb had two wives, but the context does not bear this out. J. H. Michaelis regarded Jerioth as another name for Azubah. See Curtis, Commentary on Chronicles, 92.
Jeroboam
Jeroboam - jer-o-bo'-am (yarobh`am; Septuagint Hieroboam, usually assumed to have been derived from riyb and `am, and signifying "the people contend," or, "he pleads the people's cause"): The name was borne by two kings of Israel.
(1) Jeroboam I, son of Nebat, an Ephraimite, and of Zeruah, a widow (1 Kings 11:26-40; 1 Kings 12:1-33 through 1 Kings 14:20). He was the first king of Israel after the disruption of the kingdom, and he reigned 22 years (937-915 BC).
I. Jeroboam I
1. Sources: The history of Jeroboam is contained in 1 Kings 11:26-40; 12:1 through 1 Kings 14:20; 2 Chronicles 10:1 through 2 Chronicles 11:4, 14-16; 12:15; 2 Chronicles 13:3-20, and in an insertion in the Septuagint after 1 Kings 12:24 (a-z). This insertion covers about the same ground as the Massoretic Text, and the Septuagint elsewhere, with some additions and variations. The fact that it calls Jeroboam's mother a porne (harlot), and his wife the Egyptian princess Ano (compare 1 Kings 11:1-43); that Jeroboam is punished by the death of his son before he has done any wrong; that the episode with the prophet's mantle does not occur until the meeting at Shechem; that Jeroboam is not proclaimed king at all--all this proves the passage inferior to the Massoretic Text. No doubt it is a fragment of some historical work, which, after the manner of the later Midrash, has combined history and tradition, making rather free use of the historical kernel.
2. His Rise and Revolt: Jeroboam, as a highly gifted and valorous young Ephraimite, comes to the notice of Solomon early in his reign (1 Kings 11:28; compare 1 Kings 9:15, 24). Having noticed his ability, the king made him overseer of the fortifications and public work at Jerusalem, and placed him over the levy from the house of Joseph. The fact that the latter term may stand for the whole of the ten tribes (compare Amos 5:6; 6:6; Obadiah 1:18) indicates the importance of the position, which, however, he used to plot against the king. No doubt he had the support of the people in his designs. Prejudices of long standing (2 Samuel 19:40 f; 2 Samuel 20:1-26 f) were augmented when Israelite interests were made subservient to Judah and to the king, while enforced labor and burdensome taxation filled the people's hearts h bitterness and jealousy. Jeroboam, the son of a widow, would be the first to feel the gall of oppression and to give voice to the suffering of the people. In addition, he had the approval of the prophet Ahijah of the old sanctuary of Shiloh, who, by tearing his new mantle into twelve pieces and giving ten of them to Jeroboam, informed him that he was to become king of the ten tribes. Josephus says (Ant., VIII, vii, 8) that Jeroboam was elevated by the words of the prophet, "and being a young man of warm temper, and ambitious of greatness, he could not be quiet," but tried to get the government into his hands at once. For the time, the plot failed, and Jeroboam fled to Egypt where he was received and kindly treated by Shishak, the successor to the father-in-law of Solomon.
3. The Revolt of the Ten Tribes: The genial and imposing personality of Solomon had been able to stem the tide of discontent excited by his oppressive regime, which at his death burst all restraints. Nevertheless, the northern tribes, at a popular assembly held at Shechem, solemnly promised to serve Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, who had already been proclaimed king at Jerusalem, on condition that he would lighten the burdens that so unjustly rested upon them. Instead of receiving the magna charta which they expected, the king, in a spirit of despotism, gave them a rough answer, and Josephus says "the people were struck by his words, as it were, by an iron hammer" (Ant., VIII, viii, 3). But despotism lost the day. The rough answer of the king was met by the Marseillaise of the people:
"What portion have we in David?
Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse:
To your tents. O Israel:
Now see to thine own house, David" (1 Kings 12:16).
Seeing the turn affairs had taken, but still unwilling to make any concessions, Rehoboam sent Adoram, who had been over the levy for many years (1 Kings 5:14; 12:18), and who no doubt had quelled dissatisfaction before, to force the people to submission, possibly by the very methods he had threatened to employ (1 Kings 12:14). However, the attempt failed. The aged Adoram was stoned to death, while Rehoboam was obliged to flee ignominiously back to Jerusalem, king only of Judah (1 Kings 12:20). Thus, the great work of David for a united kingdom was shattered by inferiors, who put personal ambitions above great ideals.
4. The Election: As soon as Jeroboam heard that Solomon was dead, he returned from his forced exile in Egypt and took up his residence in his native town, Zeredah, in the hill country of Ephraim Septuagint 1 Kings 12:20 ff). The northern tribes, having rejected the house of David, now turned to the leader, and perhaps instigator of the revolution. Jeroboam was sent for and raised to the throne by the choice and approval of the popular assembly. Divinely set apart for his task, and having the approval of the people, Jeroboam nevertheless failed to rise to the greatness of his opportunities, and his kingdom degenerated into a mere military monarchy, never stronger than the ruler who chanced to occupy the throne. In trying to avoid the Scylla that threatened its freedom and faith (1 Kings 11:33), the nation steered into the Charybdis of revolution and anarchy in which it finally perished.
5. Political Events: Immediately upon his accession, Jeroboam fortified Shechem, the largest city in Central Israel, and made it his capital. Later he fortified Penuel in the East Jordan country. According to 1 Kings 14:17, Tirzah was the capital during the latter part of his reign. About Jeroboam's external relations very little is known beyond the fact that there was war between him and Rehoboam constantly (1 Kings 14:30). In 2 Chronicles 13:2-20 we read of an inglorious war with Abijah of Judah. When Shishak invaded Judah (1 Kings 14:25 f), he did not spare Israel, as appears from his inscription on the temple at Karnak, where a list of the towns captured by him is given. These belong to Northern Israel as well as to Judah, showing that Shishak exacted tribute there, even if he used violence only in Judah. The fact that Jeroboam successfully managed a revolution but failed to establish a dynasty shows that his strength lay in the power of his personality more than in the soundness of his principles.
6. His Religious Policy: Despite the success of the revolution politically, Jeroboam descried in the halo surrounding the temple and its ritual a danger which threatened the permanency of his kingdom. He justifiably dreaded a reaction in favor of the house of David, should the people make repeated religious pilgrimages to Jerusalem after the first passion of the rebellion had spent itself. He therefore resolved to establish national sanctuaries in Israel. Accordingly, he fixed on Bethel, which from time immemorial was one of the chief sanctuaries of the land (Genesis 28:19; 35:1; Hosea 12:4), and Dan, also a holy place since the conquest, as the chief centers of worship for Israel. Jeroboam now made "two calves of gold" as symbols of the strength and creative power of Yahweh, and set them up in the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan, where altars and other sacred objects already existed. It appears that many of the priests still in the land were opposed to his image-worship (2 Chronicles 11:13 ff). Accordingly, he found it necessary to institute a new, non-Levitical priesthood (1 Kings 13:33). A new and popular festival on the model of the feasts at Jerusalem was also established. Jeroboam's policy might have been considered as a clever political move, had it not contained the dangerous ppeal to the lower instincts of the masses, that led them into the immoralities of heathenism and hastened the destruction of the nation. Jeroboam sacrificed the higher interests of religion to politics. This was the "sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, wherewith he made Israel to sin" (1 Kings 12:30; 16:26).
7. Hostility of the Prophets: It may be that many of the prophets sanctioned Jeroboam's religious policy. Whatever the attitude of the majority may have been, there was no doubt a party who strenuously opposed the image-worship.
(1) The Anonymous Prophet. On the very day on which Jeroboam inaugurated the worship at the sanctuary at Bethel "a man of God out of Judah" appeared at Bethel and publicly denounced the service. The import of his message was that the royal altar should some day be desecrated by a ruler from the house of David. The prophet was saved from the wrath of the king only by a miracle. "The altar also was rent, and the ashes poured out from the altar." This narrative of 1 Kings 13:1-34 is usually assumed to belong to a later time, but whatever the date of compilation, the general historicity of the account is little affected by it.
(2) The Prophet Ahijah. At a later date, when Jeroboam had realized his ambition, but not the ideal which the prophet had set before him, Ahijah predicted the consequences of his evil policy. Jeroboam's eldest son had fallen sick. He thought of Ahijah, now old and blind, and sent the queen in disguise to learn the issue of the sickness. The prophet bade her to announce to Jeroboam that the house of Jeroboam should be extirpated root and branch; that the people whom he had seduced to idolatry should be uprooted from the land and transported beyond the river; and, severest of all, that her son should die.
8. His Death: Jeroboam died, in the 22nd year of his reign, having "bequeathed to posterity the reputation of an apostate and a succession of endless revolutions."
S. K. Mosiman
(2) Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:23-29), son of Joash and 13th king of Israel; 4th sovereign of the dynasty of Jehu. He reigned 41 years. His accession may be placed circa 798 BC (some date lower).
II. Jeroboam II
1. His Warlike Policy: Jeroboam came into power on the crest of the wave of prosperity that followed the crushing of the supremacy of Damascus by his father. By his great victory at Aphek, followed by others, Joash had regained the territory lost to Israel in the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:17, 25). This satisfied Joash, or his death prevented further hostilities. Jeroboam, however, then a young man, resolved on a war of retaliation against Damascus, and on further conquests. The condition of the eastern world favored his projects, for Assyria was at the time engaged, under Shalmaneser III and Assurdan III, in a life-and-death struggle with Armenia. Syria being weakened, Jeroboam determined on a bold attempt to conquer and annex the whole kingdom of which Damascus was the capital. The steps of the campaign by which this was accomplished are unknown to us. The result only is recorded, that not only the intermediate territory fell into Jeroboam's hands, but that Damascus itself was captured (2 Kings 14:28). Hamath was taken, and thus were restored the eastern boundaries of the kingdom, as they were in the time of David (1 Chronicles 13:5). From the time of Joshua "the entrance of Hamath" (Joshua 13:5), a narrow pass leading into the valley of the Lebanons, had been the accepted northern boundary of the promised land. This involved the subjection of Moab and Ammon, probably already tributaries of Damascus.
2. New Social Conditions: Jeroboam's long reign of over 40 years gave time for the collected tribute of this greatly increased territory to flow into the coffers of Samaria, and the exactions would be ruthlessly enforced. The prophet Amos, a contemporary of Jeroboam in his later years, dwells on the cruelties inflicted on the trans-Jordanic tribes by Hazael, who "threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron" (Amos 1:3). All this would be remembered now, and wealth to which the Northern Kingdom had been unaccustomed flowed in to its treasuries. The hovels of unburned brick in which the citizens had lived were replaced by "houses of hewn stone" (Amos 5:11). The ivory house which Ahab built in Samaria (1 Kings 22:39; decorations only are meant) was imitated, and there were many "great houses" (Amos 3:15). The sovereign had both a winter and a summer palace. The description of a banqueting scene within one of these palatial abodes is lifelike in its portraiture. The guests stretched themselves upon the silken cushions of the couches, eating the flesh of lambs and stall-fed calves, drinking wine from huge bowls, singing idle songs to the sound of viols, themselves perfumed and anointed with oil (Amos 6:4-6). Meanwhile, they were not grieved for the affliction of Joseph, and cared nothing for the wrongdoing of which the country was full. Side by side with this luxury, the poor of the land were in the utmost distress. A case in which a man was sold into slavery for the price of a pair of shoes seems to have come to the prophet's knowledge, and is twice referred to by him (Amos 2:6; 8:6).
3. Growth of Ceremonial Worship: With all this, and as part of the social organization, religion of a kind flourished. Ritual took the place of righteousness; and in a memorable passage, Amos denounces the substitution of the one for the other (Amos 5:21 ff). The worship took place in the sanctuaries of the golden calves, where the votaries prostrated themselves before the altar clothed in garments taken in cruel pledge, and drank sacrificial wine bought with the money of those who were fined for non-attendance there (Amos 2:8). There we are subsidiary temples and altars at Gilgal and Beersheba (Amos 4:4; 5:5; 8:14). Both of these places had associations with the early history of the nation, and would be attended by worshippers from Judah as well as from Israel.
4. Mission to Amos: Toward the close of his reign, it would appear that Jeroboam had determined upon adding greater splendor and dignity to the central shrine, in correspondence with the increased wealth of the nation. Amos, about the same time, received a commission to go to Bethel and testify against the whole proceedings there. He was to pronounce that these sanctuaries should be laid waste, and that Yahweh would raise the sword against the house of Jeroboam. (Amos 7:9). On hearing his denunciation, made probably as he stood beside the altar, Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, sent a messenger to the king at Samaria, to tell him of the "conspiracy" of Amos, and that the land was not able to bear all his words. The messenger bore the report that Amos had declared "Jeroboam shall die by the sword," which Amos had not done. When the messenger had gone, priest and prophet had a heated controversy, and new threatenings were uttered (Amos 7:10-17).
5. Prophecy of Jonah: The large extension of territory acquired for Israel by Jeroboam is declared to have been the realization of a prophecy uttered earlier by Jonah, the son of Amittai (2 Kings 14:25)--the same whose mission to Nineveh forms the subject of the Book of Jonah (2 Kings 1:1). It is also indicated that the relief which had now come was the only alternative to the utter extinction of Israel. But Yahweh sent Israel a "saviour" (2 Kings 13:5), associated by some with the Assyrian king Ramman-nirari III, who crushed Damascus, an left Syria an easy prey, first to Jehoash, then to Jeroboam. (see JEHOASH), but whom the historian seems to connect with Jeroboam himself (2 Kings 14:26-27).
Jeroboam was succeeded on his death by his weak son Zechariah (2 Kings 14:29).
W. Shaw Caldecott
Jeroham
Jeroham - je-ro'-ham (yerocham, "may he be compassionate!"):
(1) An Ephraimite, the father of Elkanah, and grandfather of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:1; 1 Chronicles 6:27, 34 (Hebrews 12:1-29, 19)): Jerahmeel is the name in Septuagint, Codex Vaticanus, in 1 Samuel and in Septuagint, L and manuscripts, in 1 Chronicles.
(2) A Benjamite (1 Chronicles 8:27), apparently = JEREMOTH, (2) (compare 8:14), and probably the same as he of 1 Chronicles 9:8.
(3) Ancestor of a priest in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 9:12 = Nehemiah 11:12).
(4) A man of Gedor, father of two of David's Benjamite recruits at Ziklag, though Gedor might be a town in Southern Judah (1 Chronicles 12:7 (Hebrews 8:1-13)).
(5) Father of Azarel, David's tribal chief over Dan (1 Chronicles 27:22).
(6) Father of Azariah, one of the captains who supported Jehoiada in overthrowing Queen Athaliah (2 Chronicles 23:1).
David Francis Roberts
Jerubbaal
Jerubbaal - jer-u-ba'-al, je-rub'-a-al (yerubba`al, "let Baal contend"): The name given to Gideon by his father, Joash, and the people in recognition of his destruction of the altar of Baal at Ophrah (Judges 6:32). For this name the form "Jerubbesheth" (2 Samuel 1:21) was substituted after the analogy of "Ishbosheth" and "Mephibosheth," in which bosheth, the Hebrew word for "shame," displaced the word ba`al, no doubt because the name resembled one given in honor of Baal.
See GIDEON.
Jerubbesheth
Jerubbesheth - jer-ub-be'-sheth, je-rub'-e-sheth (yerubbesheth, see JERUBBAAL, for meaning): It is found once (2 Samuel 11:21) for JERUBBAAL.
The word bosheth, "shameful thing," was substituted by later editors of the text for ba`al, "lord," in the text of Jeremiah 3:24; Hosea 9:10; in 2 Samuel 2:8, etc., we find Ish-bosheth = Eshbaal (Ishbaal) in 1 Chronicles 8:33; 9:39. The reason for this was reluctant to pronounce the word Ba`al, which had by their time been associated with Canaanitic forms of worship. In 2 Samuel 11:21 Septuagint, Lucian, has "Jeroboal," which Septuagint, Codex Vaticanus, has corrupted to "Jeroboam." Compare MERIB-BAAL; MEPHIBOSHETH; and see Ginsburg, New Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible, Intro, 400 ff. For a New Testament case compare Romans 11:4 and see Sanday and Headlam at the place.
See JERUBBAAL.
David Francis Roberts
Jeruel
Jeruel - je-roo'-el, jer'-oo-el (yeru'el, "founded by El"): Jahaziel prophesied that King Jehoshaphat should meet the hordes of Moabites and Ammonites, after they had come up by the "ascent of Ziz," "at the end of the valley (i.e. wady), before the wilderness of Jeruel" (2 Chronicles 20:16). The particular part of the wilderness intended, is unknown. Cheyne (Encyclopedia Biblica) thinks this may be an error for the Jezreel of Judah, mentioned in Joshua 15:56, etc.
See JEZREEL.
Jerusalem, 1
Jerusalem, 1 - je-roo'-sa-lem:
I. THE NAME
1. In Cuneiform
2. In Hebrew
3. In Greek and Latin
4. The Meaning of Jerusalem
5. Other Names
II. GEOLOGY, CLIMATE AND SPRINGS
1. Geology
2. Climate and Rainfall
3. The Natural Springs
III. THE NATURAL SITE
1. The Mountains Around
2. The Valleys
3. The Hills
IV. GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM
1. Description of Josephus
2. Summary of the Names of the Five Hills
3. The Akra
4. The Lower City
5. City of David and Zion
V. EXCAVATIONS AND ANTIQUITIES
1. Robinson
2. Wilson, and the Palestine Exploration Fund (1865)
3. Warren and Conder
4. Maudslay
5. Schick
6. Clermont-Ganneau
7. Bliss and Dickie
8. Jerusalem Archaeological Societies
VI. THE CITY'S WALLS AND GATES
1. The Existing Walls
2. Wilson's Theory
3. The Existing Gates
4. Buried Remains of Earlier Walls
5. The Great Dam of the Tyropoeon
6. Ruins of Ancient Gates
7. Josephus' Description of the Walls
8. First Wall
9. Second Wall
10. Third Wall
11. Date of Second Wall
12. Nehemiah's Account of the Walls
13. Valley Gate
14. Dung Gate
15. Fountain Gate
16. Water Gate
17. Horse Gate
18. Sheep Gate
19. Fish Gate
20. The "Old Gate"
21. Gate of Ephraim
22. Tower of the Furnaces
23. The Gate of Benjamin
24. Upper Gate of the Temple
25. The Earlier Walls
VII. ANTIQUARIAN REMAINS CONNECTED WITH THE WATER SUPPLY
1. Gihon: The Natural Spring
2. The Aqueduct of the Canaanites
3. Warren's Shaft
4. Hezekiah's "Siloam" Aqueduct
5. Other Aqueducts at Gihon
6. Bir Eyyub
7. Varieties of Cisterns
8. Birket Israel
9. Pool of Bethesda
10. The Twin Pools
11. Birket Chammam el BaTrak
12. Birket Mamilla
13. Birket es Sultan
14. "Solomon's Pools"
15. Low-Level Aqueduct
16. High-Level Aqueduct
17. Dates of Construction of these Aqueducts
VIII. TOMBS, ANTIQUARIAN REMAINS AND ECCLESIASTICAL SITES
1. "The Tombs of the Kings"
2. "Herod's Tomb"
3. "Absalom's Tomb"
4. The "Egyptian Tomb"
5. The "Garden Tomb"
6. Tomb of "Simon the Just"
7. Other Antiquities
8. Ecclesiastical Sites
IX. HISTORY
1. Tell el-Amarna Correspondence
2. Joshua's Conquest
3. Site of the Jebusite City
4. David
5. Expansion of the City
6. Solomon
7. Solomon's City Wall
8. The Disruption (933 BC)
9. Invasion of Shishak (928 BC)
10. City Plundered by Arabs
11. Hazael King of Syria Bought Off (797 BC)
12. Capture of the City by Jehoash of Israel
13. Uzziah's Refortification (779-740 BC)
14. Ahaz Allies with Assyria (736-728 BC)
15. Hezekiah's Great Works
16. Hezekiah's Religious Reforms
17. Manasseh's Alliance with Assyria
18. His Repair of the Walls
19. Josiah and Religious Reforms (640-609 BC)
20. Jeremiah Prophesies the Approaching Doom
21. Nebuchadnezzar Twice Takes Jerusalem (586 BC)
22. Cyrus and the First Return (538 BC)
23. Nehemiah Rebuilds the Walls
24. Bagohi Governor
25. Alexander the Great
26. The Ptolemaic Rule
27. Antiochus the Great
28. Hellenization of the City under Antiochus Epiphanes
29. Capture of the City (170 BC)
30. Capture of 168 BC
31. Attempted Suppression of Judaism
32. The Maccabean Rebellion
33. The Dedication of the Temple (165 BC)
34. Defeat of Judas and Capture of the City
35. Judas' Death (161 BC)
36. Jonathan's Restorations
37. Surrender of City to Antiochus Sidetes (134 BC)
38. Hasmonean Buildings
39. Rome's Intervention
40. Pompey Takes the City by Storm
41. Julius Caesar Appoints Antipater Procurator (47 BC)
42. Parthian Invasion
43. Reign of Herod the Great (37-4 BC)
44. Herod's Great Buildings
45. Herod Archelaus (4 BC-6 AD)
46. Pontius Pilate
47. King Agrippa
48. Rising against Florus and Defeat of Gallus
49. The City Besieged by Titus (70 AD)
50. Party Divisions within the Besieged Walls
51. Capture and Utter Destruction of the City
52. Rebellion of Bar-Cochba
53. Hadrian Builds Ella Capitolina
54. Constantine Builds the Church of the Anastasis
55. The Empress Eudoxia Rebuilds the Walls
56. Justinian
57. Chosroes II Captures the City
58. Heracleus Enters It in Triumph
59. Clemency of Omar
60. The Seljuk Turks and Their Cruelties
61. Crusaders Capture the City in 1099
62. The Kharizimians
63. Ottoman Turks Obtain the City (1517 AD)
X. MODERN JERUSALEM
1. Jews and "Zionism"
2. Christian Buildings and Institutions
LITERATURE
I. The Name. 1. In Cuneiform: The earliest mention of Jerusalem is in the Tell el-Amarna Letters (1450 BC), where it appears in the form Uru-sa-lim; allied with this we have Ur-sa-li-immu on the Assyrian monuments of the 8th century BC.
The most ancient Biblical form is yerushalem, shortened in Psalms 76:2 (compare Genesis 14:18) to Salem, but in Massoretic Text we have it vocalized yerushalaim. In Jeremiah 26:18; Esther 2:6; 2 Chronicles 25:1; 32:9 we have yerushalayim, a form which occurs on the Jewish coins of the Revolt and also in Jewish literature; it is commonly used by modern Talmudic Jews.
2. In Hebrew: The form Hebrew with the ending -aim or -ayim is interpreted by some as being a dual, referring to the upper and lower Jerusalem, but such forms occur in other names as implying special solemnity; such a pronunciation is both local and late.
3. In Greek and Latin: In the Septuagint we get (Ierousalem), constantly reflecting the earliest and the common Hebrew pronunciation, the initial letter being probably unaspirated; soon, however, we meet with (Hierousalem)--with the aspirate--the common form in Josep hus, and (Hierosoluma) in Macc (Books II through IV), and in Strabo. This last form has been carried over into the Latin writers, Cicero, Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius. It was replaced in official use for some centuries by Hadrian's Aelia Capitolina, which occurs as late as Jerome, but it again comes into common use in the documents of the Crusades, while Solyma occurs at various periods as a poetic abbreviation.
In the New Testament we have (Hierousalem), particularly in the writings of Luke and Paul, and (ta Hierosoluma) elsewhere. The King James Version of 1611 has Ierosalem in the Old Testament and Hierusalem in the New Testament. The form Jerusalem first occurs in French writings of the 12th century.
4. The Meaning of Jerusalem: With regard to the meaning of the original name there is no concurrence of opinion. The oldest known form, Uru-sa-lim, has been considered by many to mean either the "City of Peace" or the "City of (the god) Salem," but other interpreters, considering the name as of Hebrew origin, interpret it as the "possession of peace" or "foundation of peace." It is one of the ironies of history that a city which in all its long history has seen so little peace and for whose possession such rivers of blood have been shed should have such a possible meaning for its name.
5. Other Names: Other names for the city occur. For the name Jebus see JESUS. In Isaiah 29:1, occurs the name 'ari'el probably "the hearth of God," and in Isaiah 1:26 the "city of righteousness." In Psalms 72:16; Jeremiah 32:24 f; Ezekiel 7:23, we have the term ha`ir, "the city" in contrast to "the land." A whole group of names is connected with the idea of the sanctity of the site; `ir ha-qodhesh, the "holy city" occurs in Isaiah 48:2; 52:1; Nehemiah 11:1, and yerushalayim ha-qedhoshah, "Jerusalem the holy" is inscribed on Simon's coins. In Matthew 4:5; 27:53 we have he hagia polis, "the holy city," and in Philo, Hieropolis, with the same meaning.
In Arabic the common name is Beit el Maqdis, "the holy house," or el Muqaddas, "the holy," or the common name, used by the Moslems everywhere today, el Quds, a shortened form of el Quds esh Sheref, "the noble sanctuary."
Non-Moslems usually use the Arabic form Yerusalem.
II. Geology, Climate, and Springs. 1. Geology: The geology of the site and environs of Jerusalem is comparatively simple, when studied in connection with that of the land of Palestine as a whole (see GEOLOGY OF PALESTINE). The outstanding feature is that the rocks consist entirely of various forms of limestone, with strata containing flints; there are no primary rocks, no sandstone (such as comes to the surface on the East of the Jordan) and no volcanic rocks. The lime
stone formations are in regular strata dipping toward the Southeast, with an angle of about 10 degrees.
On the high hills overlooking Jerusalem on the East, Southeast and Southwest there still remain strata of considerable thickness of those chalky limestones of the post-Tertiary period which crown so many hilltops of Palestine, and once covered the whole land. On the "Mount of Olives," for example, occurs a layer of conglomerate limestone known as Nari, or "firestone," and another thicker deposit, known as Ka`kuli, of which two distinct strata can be distinguished. In these layers, especially the latter, occur pockets containing marl or haur, and in both there are bands of flint.
Over the actual city's site all this has been denuded long ages ago. Here we have three layers of limestone of varying density very clearly distinguished by all the native builders and masons:
(1) Mizzeh helu, literally, "sweet mizzeh," a hard, reddish-grey layer capable of polish, and reaching in places to a depth of 70 ft. or more. The "holy rock" in the temple-area belongs to this layer, and much of the ancient building stone was of this nature.
(2) Below this is the Melekeh or "royal" layer, which, though not very thick--35 ft. or so--has been of great importance in the history of the city. This rock is peculiar in that when first exposed to the air it is often so soft that it can be cut with a knife, but under the influence of the atmosphere it hardens to make a stone of considerable durability, useful for ordinary buildings. The great importance of this layer, however, lies in the fact that in it have been excavated the hundreds of caverns, cisterns, tombs and aqueducts which honeycomb the city's site.
(3) Under the Melekeh is a Cenomanian limestone of great durability, known as Mizzeh Yehudeh, or "Jewish mizzeh." It is a highly valued building stone, though hard to work. Geologically it is distinguished from Mizzeh helu by its containing ammonites. Characteristically, it is a yellowish-grey stone, sometimes slightly reddish. A variety of a distinctly reddish appearance, known as Mizzeh ahmar, or "red mizzeh," makes a very ornamental stone for columns, tombstones, etc.; it takes a high polish and is sometimes locally known as "marble."
This deep layer, which underlies the whole city, comes to the surface in the Kidron valley, and its impermeability is probably the explanation of the appearance there of the one true spring, the "Virgin's Fount." The water over the site and environs of Jerusalem percolates with ease the upper layer, but is conducted to the surface by this hard layer; the comparatively superficial source of the water of this spring accounts for the poorness of its quality.
2. Climate and Rainfall: The broad features of the climate of Jerusalem have probably remained the same throughout history, although there is plenty of evidence that there have been cycles of greater and lesser abundance of rain. The almost countless cisterns belonging to all ages upon the site and the long and complicated conduits for bringing water from a distance, testify that over the greater part of history the rainfall must have been, as at present, only seasonal.
As a whole, the climate of Jerusalem may be considered healthy. The common diseases should be largely preventable--under an enlightened government; even the malaria which is so prevalent is to a large extent an importation from the low-lying country, and could be stopped at once, were efficient means taken for destroying the carriers of infection, the abundant Anopheles mosquitoes. On account of its altitude and its exposed position, almost upon the watershed, wind, rain and cold are all more excessive than in the maritime plains or the Jordan valley. Although the winter's cold is severely felt, on account of its coinciding with the days of heaviest rainfall (compare Ezra 10:9), and also because of the dwellings and clothes of the inhabitants being suited for enduring heat more than cold, the actual lowest cold recorded is only 25 degrees F., and frost occurs only on perhaps a dozen nights in an average year. During the rainless summer months the mean temperature rises steadily until August, when it reaches 73,1 degrees F., but the days of greatest heat, with temperature over 100 degrees F. in the shade at times, occur commonly in September. In midsummer the cool northwest breezes, which generally blow during the afternoons and early night, do much to make life healthy. The most unpleasant days occur in May and from the middle of September until the end of October, when the dry southeast winds--the sirocco--blow hot and stifling from over the deserts, carrying with them at times fine dust sufficient in quantity to produce a marked haze in the atmosphere. At such times all vegetation droops, and most human beings, especially residents not brought up under such conditions, suffer more or less from depression and physical discomfort; malarial, "sandfly," and other fevers are apt to be peculiarly prevalent. "At that time shall it be said .... to Jerusalem, A hot wind from the bare heights in the wilderness toward the daughter of my people, not to winnow, nor to cleanse" (Jeremiah 4:11).
During the late summer--except at spells of sirocco--heavy "dews" occur at night, and at the end of September or beginning of October the "former" rains fall--not uncommonly in tropical downpours accompanied by thunder. After this there is frequently a dry spell of several weeks, and then the winter's rain falls in December, January and February. In some seasons an abundant rainfall in March gives peculiar satisfaction to the inhabitants by filling up the cisterns late in the season and by producing an abundant harvest. The average rainfall is about 26 inches, the maximum recorded in the city being 42,95 inches in the season 1877-78, and the minimum being 12,5 inches in 1869-70. An abundant rainfall is not only important for storage, for replenishment of the springs and for the crops, but as the city's sewage largely accumulates in the very primitive drains all through the dry season, it requires a considerable force of water to remove it. Snow falls heavily in some seasons, causing considerable destruction to the badly built roofs and to the trees; in the winter of 1910-11 a fall of 9 inches occurred.
3. The Natural Springs: There is only one actual spring in the Jerusalem area, and even to this some authorities would deny the name of true spring on account of the comparatively shallow source of its origin; this is the intermittent spring known today as `Ain Umm edition deraj (literally, "spring of the mother of the steps"), called by the native Christians `Ain Sitti Miriam (the "spring of the Lady Mary"), and by Europeans commonly called "The Virgin's Fount." All the archaeological evidence points to this as the original source of attraction of earliest occupants of the site; in the Old Testament this spring is known as GIHON (which see). The water arises in the actual bottom, though apparent west side, of the Kidron valley some 300 yards due South of the south wall of the Charam. The approach to the spring is down two flights of steps, an upper of 16 leading to a small level platform, covered by a modern arch, and a lower, narrower flight of 14 steps, which ends at the mouth of a small cave. The water has its actual source in a long cleft (perhaps 16 ft. long) running East and West in the rocky bottom of the Kidron valley, now many feet below the present surface. The western or higher end of the cleft is at the very entrance of the cave, but most of the water gushes forth from the lower and wider part which lies underneath the steps. When the water is scanty, the women of Siloam creep down into the cavity under the steps and fill their water-skins there; at such times no water at all finds its way into the cave. At the far end of the cave is the opening of that system of ancient tunnel-aqueducts which is described in VI, below. This spring is "intermittent," the water rising rapidly and gushing forth with considerable force, several times in the 24 hours after the rainy season, and only once or twice in the dry. This "intermittent" condition of springs is not uncommon in Palestine, and is explained by the accumulation of the underground water in certain cavities or cracks in the rock, which together make up a reservoir which empties itself by siphon action. Where the accumulated water reaches the bend of the siphon, the overflow commences and continues to run until the reservoir is emptied. Such a phenomenon is naturally attributed to supernatural agency by the ignorant--in this case, among the modern fellahin, to a dragon--and natives, specially Jews, visit the source, even today, at times of its overflow, for healing. Whether this intermittent condition of the fountain is very ancient it is impossible to say, but, as Jerome (Comm. in Esa, 86) speaks of it, it was probably present in New Testament times, and if so we have a strong argument for finding here the "Pool of Bethesda."
See BETHESDA.
In ancient times all the water flowed down the open, rocky valley, but at an early period a wall was constructed to bank up the water and convert the source into a pool. Without such an arrangement no water could find its way into the cave and the tunnels. The tunnels, described below (VI), were constructed for the purpose (1) of reaching the water supply from within the city walls, and (2) of preventing the enemies of the Jews from getting at the water (2 Chronicles 32:4). The water of this source, though used for all purposes by the people of Siloam, is brackish to the taste, and contains a considerable percentage of sewage; it is quite unfit for drinking. This condition is doubtless due to the wide distribution of sewage, both intentionally (for irrigation of the gardens) and unintentionally (through leaking sewers, etc.), over the soil overlying the rocks from which the water flows. In earlier times the water was certainly purer, and it is probable, too, that the fountain was more copious, as now hundreds of cisterns imprison the waters which once found their way through the soil to the deep sources of the spring.
The waters of the Virgin's Fount find their way through the Siloam tunnel and out at `Ain Silwan (the "spring" of Siloam), into the Pool of Siloam, and from this source descend into the Kidron valley to water the numerous vegetable gardens belonging to the village of Siloam (see SILOAM).
The second source of water in Jerusalem is the deep well known as Bir Eyyub, "Job's well," which is situated a little below the point where the Kidron valley and Hinnom meet. In all probability it derives its modern name from a legend in the Koran (Sura 38 5,40-41) which narrates that God commanded Job to stamp with his foot, whereupon a spring miraculously burst up. The well, which had been quite lost sight of, was rediscovered by the Crusaders in 1184 AD, and was by them cleaned out. It is 125 ft. deep. The supply of water in this well is practically inexhaustible, although the quality is no better than that of the "Virgin's Fount"; after several days of heavy rain the water overflows underground and bursts out a few yards lower down the valley as a little stream. It continues to run for a few days after a heavy fall of rain is over, and this "flowing Kidron" is a great source of attraction to the native residents of Jerusalem, who pour forth from the city to enjoy the rare sight of running water. Somewhere in the neighborhood of Bir Eyyub must have lain `En-Rogel, but if that were once an actual spring, its source is now buried under the great mass of rubbish accumulated here (see EN-ROGEL).
Nearly 600 yards South of Bir Eyyub is a small gravelly basin where, when the Bir Eyyub overflows, a small spring called `Ain el Lozeh (the "spring of the almond") bursts forth. It is not a true spring, but is due to some of the water of Job's well which finds its way along an ancient rock-cut aqueduct on the west side of the Wady en Nar, bursting up here.
The only other possible site of a spring in the Jerusalem area is the Chammam esh Shefa, "the bath of healing." This is an underground rock-basin in the Tyropeon valley, within the city walls, in which water collects by percolation through the debris of the city. Though once a reservoir with probably rock-cut channels conducting water to it, it is now a deep well with arches erected over it at various periods, as the rubbish of the city gradually accumulated through the centuries. There is no evidence whatever of there being any natural fountain, and the water is, in the dry season, practically pure sewage, though used in a neighboring Turkish bath.
G.A. Smith thinks that the JACKAL'S WELL (which see) mentioned by Nehemiah (2:13), which must have been situated in the Valley of Hinnom, may possibly have been a temporary spring arising there for a few years in consequence of an earthquake, but it is extremely likely that any well sunk then would tap water flowing a long the bed of the valley. There is no such "spring" or "well" there today.
III. The Natural Site. Modern Jerusalem occupies a situation defined geographically as 31 degrees 46 feet 45 inches North latitude., by 35 degrees 13 feet 25 inches East longitude. It lies in the midst of a bare and rocky plateau, the environs being one of the most stony and least fruitful districts in the habitable parts of Palestine, with shallow, gray or reddish soil and many outcrops of bare limestone. Like all the hill slopes with a southeasterly aspect, it is so thoroughly exposed to the full blaze of the summer sun that in its natural condition the site would be more or less barren. Today, however, as a result of diligent cultivation and frequent watering, a considerable growth of trees and shrubs has been produced in the rapidly extending suburbs. The only fruit tree which reaches perfection around Jerusalem is the olive.
1. The Mountains Around: The site of Jerusalem is shut in by a rough triangle of higher mountain ridges: to the West runs the main ridge, or water parting, of Judea, which here makes a sweep to the westward. From this ridge a spur runs Southeast and East, culminating due East of the city in the MOUNT OF OLIVES (which see), nearly 2,700 ft. above sea-level and about 300 ft. above the mean level of the ancient city. Another spur, known as Jebel Deir abu Tor, 2,550 ft. high, runs East from the plateau of el Buqei`a and lies Southwest of the city; it is the traditional "Hill of Evil Counsel." The city site is thus dominated on all sides by these higher ranges--"the mountains (that) are round about Jerus" (Psalms 125:2)--so that while on the one hand the ancient city was hidden, at any considerable distance, from any direction except the Southeast, it is only through this open gap toward the desert and the mountains of Moab that any wide outlook is obtainable. This strange vision of wilderness and distant mountain wall--often of exquisite loveliness in the light of the setting sun--must all through the ages have been the most familiar and the most potent of scenic influences to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
2. The Valleys: Within the enfolding hills the city's proper site is demarked by two main valleys. That on the West and Southwest commences in a hollow occupied by the Moslem cemetery around the pool Birket Mamilla. The valley runs due East toward the modern Jaffa Gate, and there bends South, being known in this upper part of its course as the Wady el Mes. In this southern course it is traversed by a great dam, along which the modern Bethlehem road runs, which converts a large area of the valley bed into a great pool, the Birket es Sultan. Below this the valley--under the name of Wady er Rabadi--bends Southeast, then East, and finally Southeast again, until near Bir Eyyub it joins the western valley to form the Wady en Nar, 670 ft. below its origin. This valley has been very generally identified as the Valley of Hinnom (see HINNOM, VALLEY OF.)
The eastern valley takes a wider sweep. Commencing high up in the plateau to the North of the city, near the great water-parting, it descends as a wide and open valley in a southeasterly direction until, where it is crossed by the Great North Road, being here known as Wady el Joz (the "Valley of the Walnuts"), it turns more directly East. It gradually curves to the South, and as it runs East of the city walls, it receives the name of Wady Sitti Miriam (the "Valley of the Lady Mary"). Below the Southeast corner of the temple-area, near the traditional "Tomb of Absalom," the valley rapidly deepens and takes a direction slightly to the West of South. It passes the "Virgin's Fount," and a quarter of a mile lower it is joined by el Wad from the North, and a little farther on by the Wady er Rababi from the West. South of Bir Eyyub, the valley formed by their union is continued under the name of Wady en Nar to the Dead Sea. This western valley is that commonly known as the Brook Kidron, or, more shortly, the "Brook" (hachal), or ravine (see KIDRON), but named from the 5th century onward by Christians the Valley of Jehoshaphat (see JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF). The rocky tongue of land enclosed between these deep ravines, an area, roughly speaking, a little over one mile long by half a mile wide, is further subdivided into a number of distinct hills by some shallower valleys. The most prominent of these--indeed the only one noticeable to the superficial observer today--is the great central valley known to modern times by the single name el Wad, "the valley." It commences in a slight depression of the ground a little North of the modern "Damascus Gate," and after entering the city at this gate it rapidly deepens--a fact largely disguised today by the great accumulation of rubbish in its course. It traverses the city with the Charam to its east, and the Christian and Moslem quarters on rapidly rising ground to its west. Its course is observed near the Babylonian es Silseleh, where it is crossed by an ancient causeway, but farther South the valley reappears, having the walls of the Charam (near the "wailing place" and "Robinson's arch") on the East, and steep cliffs crossed by houses of the Jewish quarter on the West. It leaves the city at the "Dung Gate," and passes with an open curve to the East, until it reaches the Pool of Siloam, below' which it merges in the Wady Sitti Miriam. This is the course of the main valley, but a branch of great importance in the ancient topography of the city starts some 50 yards to the West of the modern Jaffa Gate and runs down the Suwaikat Allun generally known to travelers as "David's Street," and thus easterly, along the Tarik bab es Silseleh, until it merges in the main valley. The main valley is usually considered to be the Tyropeon, or "Cheesemongers' Valley" of Josephus, but some writers have attempted to confine the name especially to this western arm of it.
Another interior valley, which is known rather by the rock contours, than by surface observations, being largely filled up today, cuts diagonally across the Northeast corner of the modern city. It has no modern name, though it is sometimes called "St. Anne's Valley." It arises in the plateau near "Herod's Gate," known as es Sahra, and entering the city about 100 yards to the East of that gate, runs South-Southeast., and leaves the city between the Northeast angle of the Charam and the Golden Gate, joining the Kidron valley farther Southeast. The Birket Israel runs across the width of this valley, which had far more influence in determining the ancient topography of the city than has been popularly recognized. There is an artificially made valley between the Charam and the buildings to its north, and there is thought by many to be a valley between the Southeast hill, commonly called "Ophel" and the temple-area. Such, then, are the valleys, great and small, by which the historic hills on which the city stood are defined. All of them, particularly in their southern parts, were considerably deeper in ancient times, and in places the accumulated debris is 80 ft. or more. All of them were originally torrent beds, dry except immediately after heavy rain. The only perennial outflow of water is the scanty and intermittent stream which overflows from the Pool of Siloam, and is used to irrigate the gardens in the Wady Sitti Miriam.
3. The Hills: The East and West valleys isolate a roughly quadrilateral tongue of land running from Northwest-West to South-Southeast, and tilted so as to face Southeast. This tongue is further subdivided by el Wad into two long ridges, which merge into each other in the plateau to the North. The western ridge has its actual origin considerably North of the modern wall, being part of the high ground lying between the modern Jaffa road to the West, and the commencement of the Kidron valley to the East. Within the city walls it rises as high as 2,581 ft. near the northwestern corner. It is divided by the west branch of the Tyropeon valley into two parts: a northern part--the northwestern hill--on which is situated today the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the greater part of the "Christian quarter" of the city, and a southern hill--the southwestern--which is connected with the northwestern hill by but a narrow saddle--50 yards wide--near the Jaffa Gate. This hill sustains the citadel (the so-called "Tower of David"), the barracks and the Armenian quarter within the walls, and the Coenaculum and adjacent buildings outside the walls. This hill is from 2,500 to 2,350 ft. high along its summit, but drops rapidly on its southwestern, southern and southeastern sides. In its central part it falls much more gently toward the eastern hill across the now largely filled valley el Wad.
The eastern ridge may be reckoned as beginning at the rocky hill el-Edhemiyeh--popularly known as Gordon's Calvary--but the wide trench made here by quarrying somewhat obscures this fact. The ridge may for convenience be regarded as presenting three parts, the northeastern, central or central-eastern, and southeastern summits. The northeastern hill within the modern wall supports the Moslem quarter, and rises in places to a height of over 2,500 ft.; it narrows to a mere neck near the "Ecce Homo" arch, where it is joined to the barracks, on the site of the ancient Antonia. Under the present surface it is here separated from the temple summit by a deep rocky trench.
The central, or central-eastern, summit is that appearing as es Sakhra, the sacred temple rock, which is 2,404 ft. high. This is the highest point from which the ground rapidly falls East, West, and South, but the natural contours of the adjacent ground are much obscured by the great substructures which have been made to sustain the temple platform.
The sloping, southeastern, hill, South of the temple area appears today, at any rate, to have a steady fall of from 2,350 ft. just South of the Charam southern wall to a little over 2,100 ft. near the Pool of Siloam. It is a narrow ridge running in a somewhat curved direction, with a summit near 200 ft. above the Kidron and 100 ft. above the bed of the Tyropeon. In length it is not more than 600 yards, in width, at its widest, only 150 yards, but its chief feature, its natural strength, is today greatly obscured on account of the rubbish which slopes down its sides and largely fills up its surrounding valleys. In earlier times, at least three of its sides were protected by deep valleys, and probably on quite two-thirds of its circumference its summit was surrounded by natural rocky scarps. According to Professor Guthe, this hill is divided from the higher ground to the North by a depression 12 ft. deep and 30-50 yards wide, but this has not been confirmed by other observers. The city covering so hilly a site as this must ever have consisted, as it does today, of houses terraced on steep slopes' with stairways for streets.
Continued in JERUSALEM, 2.
Jerusalem, 2
Jerusalem, 2 - Continued from JERUSALEM, 1.
IV. General Topography of Jerusalem. From the foregoing description of the "natural site," it will be seen that we have to deal with 5 natural subdivisions or hills, two on the western and three on the eastern ridges.
1. Description of Josephus: In discussing the topography it is useful to commence with the description of Josephus, wherein he gives to these 5 areas the names common in his day (BJ, V, iv, 1,2). He says: "The city was built upon two hills which are opposite to one another and have a valley to divide them asunder .... Now the Valley of the Cheesemongers, as it was called, and was that which distinguished the hill of the upper city from that of the lower, extended as far as Siloam" (ibid., V, iv, 1). Here we get the first prominent physical feature, the bisection of the city-site into two main hills. Farther on, however, in the same passage--one, it must be admitted, of some obscurity--Josephus distinguishes 5 distinct regions:
(1) The Upper City or Upper Market Place: (The hill) "which sustains the upper city is much higher and in length more direct. Accordingly, it was called the citadel (phrourion) of King David .... but it is by us called the Upper Market Place." This is without dispute the southwestern hill.
(2) Akra and Lower City: "The other hill, which was called Akra, and sustains the lower city, was double-curved" (amphikurtos). The description can apply only to the semicircular shape of the southeastern hill, as viewed from the "upper city." These names, "Akra" and "Lower City," are, with reservations, therefore, to be applied to the southeastern hill.
(3) The Temple Hill: Josephus' description here is curious, on account of its indefiniteness, but there can be no question as to which hill he intends. He writes: "Over against this is a third hill, but naturally lower than the Akra and parted formerly from the other by a fiat valley. However, in those times when the Hasmoneans reigned, they did away with this valley, wishing to connect the city with the temple; and cutting down the summit of the Akra, they made it lower, so that the temple might be visible over it." Comparison with other passages shows that this "third hill" is the central-eastern--the "Temple Hill."
(4) Bezetha: "It was Agrippa who encompassed the parts added to the old city with this wall (i.e. the third wall) which had been all naked before; for as the city grew more populous, it gradually crept beyond its old limits, and those parts of it that stood northward of the Temple, and joined that hill to the city, made it considerably larger, and occasioned that hill which is in number the fourth, and is called `Bezetha,' to be inhabited also. It lies over against the tower Antonia, but is divided from it by a deep valley, which was dug on purpose. .... This new-built part of the city was called `Bezetha' in our language, which, if interpreted in the Greek language, may be called the `New City.' " This is clearly the northeastern hill.
(5) The Northern Quarter of the City: From the account of the walls given by Josephus, it is evident that the northern part of his "first wall" ran along the northern edge of the southwestern hill; the second wall enclosed the inhabited part of the northwestern hill. Thus Josephus writes: "The second wall took its beginning from the gate which they called Gennath in the first wall, and enclosing, the northern quarter only reached to the Antonia." This area is not described as a separate hill, as the inhabited area, except on the South, was defined by no natural valleys, and besides covering the northwestern hill, must have extended into the Tyropeon valley.
2. Summary of the Names of the Five Hills: Here then we have Josephus' names for these five districts:
(1) Southwestern Hill: Southwestern Hill, "Upper City" and "Upper Market Place"; also the Summary Phrourion, or "fortress of David." From the 4th century AD, this hill has also been known as "Zion," and on it today is the so-called "Tower of David," built on the foundations of two of Herod's great towers.
(2) Northwestern Hill: "The northern quarter of the city." This district does not appear to have had any other name in Old Testament or New Testament, though some of the older authorities would place the "Akra" here (see infra). Today it is the "Christian quarter" of Jerusalem, which centers round the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
(3) Northeastern Hill: "Bezetha" or "New City," even now a somewhat sparsely inhabited area, has no name in Biblical literature.
(4) Central-eastern Hill: The "third hill" of Josephus, clearly the site of the Temple which, as Josephus says (BJ, V, v), "was built upon a strong hill." In earlier times it was the "threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite." On the question whether it has any claims to be the Moriah of Genesis 22:2, as it is called in 2 Chronicles 3:1, see MORIAH. The temple hill is also in many of the Hebrew writings called Zion, on which point see ZION.
(5) Southeastern Hill: This Josephus calls "Akra" and "Lower City," but while on the one hand these names require some elucidation, there are other names which have at one period or another come to be applied to this hill, namely, "City of David," "Zion" and "Ophel." These names for this hill we shall now deal with in order.
3. The Akra: In spite of the very definite description of Josephus, there has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the situation of the "Akra." Various parts of the northwestern, the northeastern, the southeastern hills, and even the central-eastern itself, have been suggested by earlier authorities, but instead of considering the various arguments, now largely out of date, for other proposed sites, it will be better to deal with the positive arguments for the southeastern hill. Josephus states that in his day the term "Akra" was applied to the southeastern hill, but in references to the earlier history it is clear that the Akra was not a whole hill, but a definite fortress (akra = "fortress").
(1) It was situated on the site, or on part of the site, which was considered in the days of the Maccabees to have been the "City of David." Antiochus Epiphanes (168 BC), after destroying Jerusalem, "fortitled the city of David with a great and strong wall, with strong towers and it became unto them an Akra" (1 Maccabees 1:33-36). The formidable fortress--known henceforth as "the Akra"--became a constant menace to the Jews, until at length, in 142 BC, it was captured by Simon, who not only razed the whole fortress, but, according to Josephus (Ant., XIII, vi, 7; B J, V, iv, 1), actually cut down the hill on which it stood. He says that "they all, labouring zealously, demolished the hill, and ceasing not from the work night and day for three whole years, brought it to a level and even slope, so that the Temple became the highest of all after the Akra and the hill upon which it was built had been removed" (Ant., XIII, vi, 7). The fact that at the time of Josephus this hill was evidently lower than the temple hill is in itself sufficient argument against any theory which would place the Akra on the northwestern or southwestern hills. (2) The Akra was close to the temple (1 Maccabees 13:52), and from its walls the garrison could actually overlook it (1 Maccabees 14:36). Before the hill was cut down it obscured the temple site (same place) . (3) It is identified by Josephus as forming part, at least, of the lower city, which (see below) bordered upon the temple (compareBJ , I, i, 4; V, iv, 1; vi, 1). (4) The Septuagint identifies the Akra with Millo (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Kings 9:15-24; 2 Chronicles 32:5).
Allowing that the original Akra of the Syrians was on the southeastern hill, it is still a matter of some difficulty to determine whereabouts it stood, especially as, if the statements of Josephus are correct, the natural configuration of the ground has been greatly altered. The most prominent point upon the southeastern hill, in the neighborhood of Gihon, appears to have been occupied by the Jebusite fortress of ZION (which see), but the site of the Akra can hardly be identical with this, for this became the "City of David," and here were the venerated tombs of David and the Judean kings, which must have been destroyed if this hill was, as Josephus states, cut down. On this and other grounds we must look for a site farther north. Sir Charles Watson (PEFS, 1906, 1907) has produced strong topographical and literary arguments for placing it where the al Aqsa mosque is today; other writers are more inclined to put it farther south, somewhere in the neighborhood of the massive tower discovered by Warren on the "Ophel" wall (see MILLO). If the account of Josephus, written two centuries after the events, is to be taken as literal, then Watson's view is the more probable.
4. The Lower City: Josephus, as we have seen, identified the Akra of his day with the Lower City. This latter is not a name occurring in the Bible because, as will be shown, the Old Testament name for this part was "City of David." That by Lower City Josephus means the southeastern hill is shown by many facts. It is actually the lowest part of the city, as compared with the "Upper City," Temple Hill and the Bezetha; it is, as Josephus describes, separated from the Upper City by a deep valley--the Tyropeon; this southeastern hill is "double-curved," as Josephus describes, and lastly several passages in his writings show that the Lower City was associated with the Temple on the one end and the Pool of Siloam at the other (compare Ant,XIV , xvi, 2;BJ ,II , xvii, 5;IV , ix, 12;VI , vi, 3; vii, 2).
In the wider sense the "Lower City" must have included, not only the section of the city covering the southeastern hill up to the temple precincts, where were the palaces (BJ, V, vi, 1; VI, vi, 3), and the homes of the well-to-do, but also that in the valley of the Tyropeon from Siloam up to the "Council House," which was near the northern "first wall" (compare BJ , V, iv, 2), a part doubtless inhabited by the poorest.
5. City of David and Zion: It is clear (2 Samuel 5:7; 1 Chronicles 11:5) that the citadel "Zion" of the Jebusites became the "City of David," or as G. A. Smith calls it, "David's Burg," after its capture by the Hebrews. The arguments for placing "Zion" on the southeastern hill are given elsewhere (see ZION), but a few acts relevant especially to the "City of David" may be mentioned here: the capture of the Jebusite city by means of the gutter (2 Samuel 5:8), which is most reasonably explained as "Warren's Shaft" (see VII ); the references to David's halt on his flight (2 Samuel 15:23), and his sending Solomon to Gihon to be crowned (1 Kings 1:33), and the common expression "up," used in describing the transference of the Ark from the City of David to the Temple Hill (1 Kings 8:1; 2 Chronicles 5:2; compare 1 Kings 9:24), are all consistent with this view. More convincing are the references to Hezekiah's aqueduct which brought the waters of Gihon "down on the west side of the city of David" (2 Chronicles 32:30); the mention of the City of David as adjacent to the Pool of Shelah (or Shiloah; compare Isaiah 8:6), and the "king's garden" in Nehemiah 3:15, and the position of the Fountain Gate in this passage and Nehemiah 12:37; and the statement that Manasseh built "an outer wall to the City of David, on the west side of Gihon" in the nachal, i.e. the Kidron valley (2 Chronicles 33:14).
The name appears to have had a wider significance as the city grew. Originally "City of David" was only the name of the Jebusite fort, but later it became equivalent to the whole southeastern hill. In the same way, Akra was originally the name of the Syrian fort, but the name became extended to the whole southeastern hill. Josephus looks upon "City of David" and "Akra" as synonymous, and applies to both the name "Lower City." For the names Ophel and Ophlas see OPHEL.
V. Excavations and Antiquities. During the last hundred years explorations and excavations of a succession of engineers and archaeologists have furnished an enormous mass of observations for the understanding of the condition of ancient Jerusalem. Some of the more important are as follows:
In 1833 Messrs. Bonorni, Catherwood and Arundale made a first thorough survey of the Charam (temple-area), a work which was the foundation of all subsequent maps for over a quarter of a century.
1. Robinson: In 1838, and again in 1852, the famous American traveler and divine, E. Robinson, D.D., visited the land as the representative of an American society, and made a series of brilliant topographical investigations of profound importance to all students of the Holy Land, even today.
In 1849 Jerusalem was surveyed by Lieuts. Aldrich and Symonds of the Royal Engineers, and the data acquired were used for a map constructed by Van de Vilde and published by T. Tobler.
In 1857 an American, J.T. Barclay, published another map of Jerusalem and its environs "from actual and minute survey made on the spot."
In 1860-1863 De Vogue in the course of some elaborate researches in Syria explored the site of the sanctuary.
2. Wilson and the Palestine Exploration Fund (1865):
In 1864-65 a committee was formed in London to consider the sanitary condition of Jerusalem, especially with a view to furnishing the city with a satisfactory water-supply, and Lady Burdett-Coutts gave 500 pounds toward a proper survey of Jerusalem and its environs as a preliminary step. Captain (later Lieutenant-General Sir Charles) Wilson, R.E., was lent by the Ordnance Survey Department of Great Britain for the purpose. The results of this survey, and of certain tentative excavations and observations made at the same time, were so encouraging that in 1865 "The Palestine Exploration Fund" was constituted, "for the purpose of investigating the archaeology, geography, geology, and natural history of the Holy Land."
3. Warren and Conder: During 1867-70 Captain (later Lieutenant-General Sir Charles) Warren, R.E., carried out a series of most exciting and original excavations all over the site of Jerusalem, especially around the Charam. During 1872-75 Lieutenant (later Lieutenant-Colonel) Conder, R.E., in the course of the great survey of Western Palestine, made further contributions to our knowledge of the Holy City.
4. Maudslay: In 1875 Mr. Henry Maudslay, taking advantage of the occasion of the rebuilding of "Bishop Gobat's Boys' School," made a careful examination of the remarkable rock cuttings which are now more or less incorporated into the school buildings, and made considerable excavations, the results being described in PEFS (April, 1875).
In 1881 Professor Guthe made a series of important excavations on the southeastern hill, commonly called "Ophel," and also near the Pool of Siloam; his reports were published in ZDPV, 1882.
5. Schick: The same year (1881), the famous Siloam inscription was discovered and was first reported by Herr Baurath Schick, a resident in Jerusalem who from 1866 until his death in 1901 made a long series of observations of the highest importance on the topography of Jerusalem. He had unique opportunities for scientifically examining the buildings in the Charam, and the results of his study of the details of that locality are incorporated in his wonderful Temple model. He also made a detailed report of the ancient aqueducts of the city. Most important of all were the records he so patiently and faithfully kept of the rock levels in all parts of the city's site whenever the digging of foundations for buildings or other excavations gave access to the rock. His contributions to the PEF and ZDPV run into hundreds of articles.
6. Clermont-Ganneau: M. Clermont-Ganneau, who was resident in Jerusalem in the French consular service, made for many years, from 1880 onward, a large number of acute observations on the archaeology of Jerusalem and its environs, many of which were published by the PEF. Another name honored in connection with the careful study of the topography of Jerusalem over somewhat the same period is that of Selah Merrill, D.D., for many years U.S. consul in Jerusalem.
7. Bliss and Dickie: In 1894-97 the Palestine Exploration Fund conducted an elaborate series of excavations with a view to determining in particular the course of the ancient southern walls under the direction of Mr. T.J. Bliss (son of Daniel Bliss, D.D., then president of the Syrian Protestant College, Beirut), assisted by Mr. A.C. Dickie as architect. After picking up the buried foundations of walls at the southeastern corner where "Maudslay's scarp" was exposed in the Protestant cemetery, Bliss and Dickie followed them all the way to the Pool of Siloam, across the Tyropeon and on to "Ophel"--and also in other directions. Discoveries of great interest were also made in the neighborhood of the Pool of Siloam (see SILOAM).
Following upon these excavations a number of private investigations have been made by the Augustinians in a large estate they have acquired on the East side of the traditional hill of Zion.
In 1909-1911 a party of Englishmen, under Captain the Honorable M. Parker, made a number of explorations with very elaborate tunnels upon the hill of Ophel, immediately above the Virgin's Fount. In the course of their work, they cleaned out the whole Siloam aqueduct, finding some new passages; they reconstructed the Siloam Pool, and they completed Warren's previous investigation in the neighborhood of what has been known as "Warren's Shaft."
8. Jerusalem Archaeological Societies: There are several societies constantly engaged in observing new facts connected with the topography of ancient Jerusalem, notably the School of Archaeology connected with the University of Stephens, under the Dominicans; the American School of Archaeology; the German School of Biblical Archaeology under Professor Dalman, and the Palestine Exploration Fund.
VI. The City's Walls and Gates. 1. The Existing Walls: Although the existing walls of Jerusalem go back in their present form to but the days of Suleiman the Magnificent, circa 1542 AD, their study is an essential preliminary to the understanding of the ancient walls. The total circuit of the modern walls is 4,326 yards, or nearly 2 1/8 miles, their average height is 35 ft., and they have altogether 35 towers and 8 gates--one of which is walled up. They make a rough square, with the four sides facing the cardinal points of the compass. The masonry is of various kinds, and on every side there are evidences that the present walls are a patchwork of many periods. The northern wall, from near the northwestern angle to some distance East of the "Damascus Gate," lies parallel with, though somewhat inside of, an ancient fosse, and it and the gate itself evidently follow ancient lines. The eastern and western walls, following as they do a general direction along the edges of deep valleys, must be more or less along the course of earlier walls. The eastern wall, from a little south of Stephen's Gate to the southeastern angle, contains many ancient courses, and the general line is at least as old as the time of Herod the Great; the stretch of western wall from the so-called "Tower of David" to the southwestern corner is certainly along an ancient line and has persisted through very many centuries. This line of wall was allowed to remain undestroyed when Titus leveled the remainder. At the northwestern angle are some remains known as Kala`at Jalud ("Goliath's castle"), which, though largely medieval, contain a rocky core and some masonry of Herodian times, which are commonly accepted as the relics of the lofty tower Psephinus.
2. Wilson's Theory: The course of the southern wall has long been a difficulty; it is certainly not the line of wall before Titus; it has none of the natural advantages of the western and eastern walls, and there are no traces of any great rock fosse, such as is to be found on the north. The eastern end is largely built upon the lower courses of Herod's southern wall for his enlarged temple-platform, and in it are still to be found walled up the triple, single and double gates which lead up to the Temple. The irregular line followed by the remainder of this wall has not until recent times received any explanation. Sir Charles Wilson (Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre) suggests the probable explanation that the line of wall from the southwestern to the "Zion Gate" was determined by the legionary camp which stood on the part of the city now covered by the barracks and the Armenian quarter. Allowing that the remains of the first wall on the North and West were utilized for this fortified camp (from 70-132 AD), and supposing the camp to have occupied the area of 50 acres, as was the case with various European Roman camps, whose remains are known, the southern camp wall would have run along the line of the existing southern walls. This line of fortification having been thus selected appears to have been followed through the greater part of the succeeding centuries down to modern times. The line connecting the two extremities of the southern wall, thus determined by the temple-platform and legionary camp, respectively, was probably that first followed by the southern wall of Hadrian's city AElia.
3. The Existing Gate: Of the 8 existing city gates, on the west side there is but one, Babylonian el Khulil (the "Gate of Hebron"), commonly known to travelers as the Jaffa Gate. It is probably the site of several earlier gates. On the North there are 3 gates, Babylonian Abd'ul Kamid (named after the sultan who made it) or the "New Gate"; Babylonian el `amud ("Gate of the Columns"), now commonly called the "Damascus Gate," but more in ancient times known as "St. Stephen's Gate," and clearly, from the existing remains, the site of an earlier gateway; and, still farther east, the Babylonian es Sahirah ("Gate of the Plain"), or "Herod's Gate." On the east side the only open gate is the Babylonian el `Asbat ("Gate of the Tribes"), commonly called by native Christians, Babylonian Sitti Miriam ("Gate of the Lady Mary"), but in European guide-books called "St. Stephen's Gate." A little farther South, near the northeastern corner of the Charam, is the great walled-up Byzantine Gate, known as Babylonian edition Dahariyeh ("Gate of the Conqueror"), but to Europeans as the "Golden Gate." This structure has been variously ascribed to Justinian and Heraclius, but there are massive blocks which belong to a more ancient structure, and early Christian tradition places the "Beautiful Gate" of the Temple here. In the southern wall are two city gates; one, insignificant and mean, occupies the center of el Wad and is known as Babylonian el Mugharibeh ("Gate of the Moors"), and to Europeans as the "Dung Gate"; the other, which is on the crown of the western hill, traditional Zion, is the important Babylonian Nebi Daoud ("Gate of the Prophet David"), or the "Zion Gate."
All these gates assumed their present form at the time of the reconstruction of the walls by Suleiman the Magnificent, but the more important ones occupy the sites of earlier gates. Their names have varied very much even since the times of the Crusaders. The multiplicity of names for these various gates--they all have two or three today--and their frequent changes are worth noticing in connection with the fact that in the Old Testament history some of the gates appear to have had two or more names.
As has been mentioned, the course of the present southern wall is the result of Roman reconstruction of the city since the time of Titus. To Warren, Guthe, Maudslay and Bliss we owe a great deal of certain knowledge of its more ancient course. These explorers have shown that in all the pre-Roman period (and at least one period since) the continuation southward of the western and eastern ridges, as well as the wide valley between--an area now but sparsely inhabited--was the site of at once the most crowded life, and the most stirring scenes in the Hebrew history of the city. The sanctity of the Holy Sepulchre has caused the city life to center itself more and more around that sanctuary, thereby greatly confusing the ancient topography for many centuries.
4. Buried Remains of Earlier Walls: (1) Warren's excavations revealed: (a) a massive masonry wall 46 ft. East of the Golden Gate, which curved toward the West at its northern end, following the ancient rock contours at this spot. It is probable that this was the eastern wall of the city in pre-Herodian times. Unfortunately the existence of a large Moslem cemetery outside the eastern wall of the Charam precludes the possibility of any more excavations in this neighborhood. (b) More important remains in the southeastern hill, commonly known as "Ophel." Here commencing at the southeastern angle of the Charam, Warren uncovered a wall 14 1/2 ft. thick running South for 90 ft. and then Southwest along the edge of the hill for 700 ft. This wall, which shows at least two periods of construction, abuts on the sanctuary wall with a straight joint. Along its course were found 4 small towers with a projection of 6 ft. and a face from 22 to 28 ft. broad, and a great corner tower projecting 41 1/2 ft. from the wall and with a face 80 ft. broad. The face of this great tower consists of stones one to two ft. high and 2 or 3 ft. long; it is founded upon rock and stands to the height of 66 ft. Warren considers that this may be ha-mighdal ha-yotse' or "tower that standeth out" of Nehemiah 3:25.
(2) In 1881 Professor Guthe picked up fragmentary traces of this city-wall farther south, and in the excavations of Captain Parker (1910-1911) further fragments of massive walls and a very ancient gate have been found.
(3) Maudslay's excavations were on the southwestern hill, on the site occupied by "Bishop Gobat's School" for boys, and in the adjoining Anglo-German cemetery. The school is built over a great mass of scarped rock 45 ft. square, which rises to a height of 20 ft. from a platform which surrounds it and with which it is connected by a rock-cut stairway; upon this massive foundation must have stood a great tower at what was in ancient times the southwestern corner of the city. From this point a scarp facing westward was traced for 100 ft. northward toward the modern southwestern angle of the walls, while a rock scarp, in places 40 ft. high on the outer or southern side and at least 14 ft. on the inner face, was followed for 250 ft. eastward until it reached another great rock projection with a face of 43 ft. Although no stones were found in situ, it is evident that such great rock cuttings must have supported a wall and tower of extraordinary strength, and hundreds of massive squared stones belonging to this wall are now incorporated in neighboring buildings.
(4) Bliss and Dickie's work commenced at the southeastern extremity of Maudslay's scarp, where was the above-mentioned massive projection for a tower, and here were found several courses of masonry still in situ. This tower appears to have been the point of divergence of two distinct lines of wall, one of which ran in a direction Northeast, skirting the edge of the southeastern hill, and probably joined the line of the modern walls at the ruined masonry tower known as Burj el Kebrit, and another running Southeast down toward the Pool of Siloam, along the edge of the Wady er Rababi (Hinnom). The former of these walls cannot be very ancient, because of the occurrence of late Byzantine moldings in its foundations. The coenaculum was included in the city somewhere about 435-450 AD (see IX , 55), and also in the 14th century. Bliss considers it probable that this is the wall built in 1239 By Frederick II, and it is certainly that depicted in the map of Marino Sanuto (1321 AD). Although these masonry remains are thus comparatively late, there were some reasons for thinking that at a much earlier date a wall took a similar direction along the edge of the southwestern hill; and it is an attractive theory, though unsupported by any very definite archaeological evidence, that the wall of Solomon took also this general line. The wall running Southeast from the tower, along the edge of the gorge of Hinnom, is historically of much greater importance. Bliss's investigations showed that here were remains belonging to several periods, covering altogether considerably over a millennium. The upper line of wall was of fine masonry, with stones 1 ft. by 3 ft. in size, beautifully jointed and finely dressed; in some places this wall was founded upon the remains of the lower wall, in others a layer of debris intervened. It is impossible that this upper wall can be pre-Roman, and Bliss ascribes it to the Empress Eudoxia (see IX , 55). The lower wall rested upon the rock and showed at least 3 periods of construction. In the earliest the stones had broad margins and were carefully jointed, without mortar. This may have been the work of Solomon or one of the early kings of Judah. The later remains are evidently of the nature of repairs, and include the work of the later Judean kings, and of Nehemiah and of all the wall-repairers, down to the destruction in 70 AD. At somewhat irregular intervals along the wall were towers of very similar projection and breadth to those found on Warren's wall on the southeastern hill. The wall foundations were traced--except for an interval where they passed under a Jewish cemetery--all the way to the mouth of the Tyropeon valley. The upper wall disappeared (the stones having been all removed for later buildings) before the Jewish cemetery was reached.
5. The Great Dam of the Tyropeon: During most periods, if not indeed in all, the wall was carried across the mouth of the Tyropeon valley upon a great dam of which the massive foundations still exist under the ground, some 50 ft. to the East of the slighter dam which today supports the Birket el Kamra (see SILOAM). This ancient dam evidently once supported a pool in the mouth of the Tyropeon, and it showed evidences of having undergone buttressing and other changes and repairs. Although it is clear that during the greater part of Jewish history, before and after the captivity, the southern wall of Jerusalem crossed upon this dam, there were remains of walls found which tended to show that at one period, at any rate, the wall circled round the two Siloam pools, leaving them outside the fortifications.
6. Ruins of Ancient Gates: In the stretch of wall from "Maudslay's Scarp" to the Tyropeon valley remains of 2 city gates were found, and doubtful indications of 2 others. The ruins of the first of these gates are now included in the new extension of the Anglo-German cemetery. The gate had door sills, with sockets, of 4 periods superimposed upon each other; the width of the entrance was 8 ft. 10 inches during the earliest, and 8 ft. at the latest period. The character of the masonry tended to show that the gate belonged to the upper wall, which is apparently entirely of the Christian era. If this is so, this cannot be the "Gate of the Gai" of Nehemiah 3:13, although the earlier gate may have occupied this site. Bliss suggests as a probable position for this gate an interval between the two contiguous towers IV and V, a little farther to the East.
Another gate was a small one, 4 ft. 10 inches wide, marked only by the cuttings in the rock for the door sockets. It lay a little to the West of the city gate next to be described, and both from its position and its insignificance, it does not appear to have been an entrance to the city; it may, as Bliss suggests, have given access to a tower, now destroyed.
The second great city gateway was found some 200 ft. South of the Birket el Kamra, close to the southeastern angle of the ancient wall. The existing remains are bonded into walls of the earlier period, but the three superimposed door sills, with their sockets--to be seen uncovered today in situ--mark three distinct periods of long duration. The gate gave access to the great main street running down the Tyropeon, underneath which ran a great rock-cut drain, which probably traversed the whole central valley of the city. During the last two periods of the gate's use, a tower was erected--at the exact southeastern angle--to protect the entrance. The earliest remains here probably belong to the Jewish kings, and it is very probable that we have here the gate called by Neh (3:13) the "Dung Gate." Bliss considered that it might be the "Fountain Gate" (Nehemiah 3:15), which, however, was probably more to the East, although Bliss could find no remains of it surviving. The repairs and alterations here have been so extensive that its disappearance is in no way surprising. The Fountain Gate is almost certainly identical with the "Gate between the Two Walls," through which Zedekiah and his men of war fled (2 Kings 25:4; Jeremiah 39:4; 52:7).
7. Josephus' Description of the Walls: The most definite account of the old walls is that of Josephus (Jewish Wars, V, iv, 1, 2), and though it referred primarily to the existing walls of his day, it is a convenient one for commencing the historical survey. He describes three walls. The first wall "began on the North, at the tower called Hippicus, and extended as far as the Xistus, and then Joining at the Council House, ended at the western cloister of the temple." On the course of this section of the wall there is no dispute. The tower Hippicus was close to the present Jaffa Gate, and the wall ran from here almost due West to the temple-area along the southern edge of the western arm of the Tyropeon (see III , 2, above). It is probable that the Karet edition Dawayeh, a street running nearly parallel with the neighboring "David Street," but high up above it, lies above the foundations of this wall.
8. First Wall: It must have crossed the main Tyropeon near the Tarik bab es Silsilel, and joined the western cloisters close to where the Mechkemeh, the present "Council House," is situated.
Josephus traces the southern course of the first wall thus: "It began at the same place (i.e. Hippicus), and extended through a place called Bethso to the gate of the Essenes; and after that it went southward, having its bending above the fountain Siloam, when it also bends again toward the East at Solomon's Pool, and reaches as far as a certain place which they called `Ophlas,' where it was joined to the eastern cloister of the temple." Although the main course of this wall has now been followed with pick and shovel, several points are still uncertain. Bethso is not known, but must have been close to the southwestern angle, which, as we have seen, was situated where "Bishop Gobat's School" is today. It is very probably identical with the "Tower of the Furnaces" of Nehemiah 3:11, while the "Gate of the Essenes" must have been near, if not identical with, the "Gate of the Gai" of Nehemiah 3:13. The description of Josephus certainly seems to imply that the mouth of the Siloam aqueduct ("fountain of Siloam") and the pools were both outside the fortification. We have seen from these indications in the underground remains that this was the case at one period. Solomon's Pool is very probably represented by the modern Birket el Khamra. It is clear that the wall from here to the southeastern angle of the temple-platform followed the edge of the southeastern hill, and coincided farther north with the old wall excavated by Warren. As will be shown below, this first wall was the main fortification of the city from the time of the kings of Judah onward. In the time of Josephus, this first wall had 60 towers.
9. Second Wall: The Second Wall of Josephus "took its beginning from that gate which they called `Gennath,' which belonged to the first wall: it only encompassed the northern quarter of the city and reached as far as the tower Antonia" (same place). In no part of Jerusalem topography has there been more disagreement than upon this wall, both as regards its curve and as regards its date of origin. Unfortunately, we have no idea at all where the "Gate Gennath" was. The Tower Antonia we know. The line must have passed in a curved or zigzag direction from some unknown point on the first wall, i.e. between the Jaffa Gate and the Charam to the Antonia. A considerable number of authorities in the past and a few careful students today would identify the general course of this wall with that of the modern northern wall. The greatest objections to this view are that no really satisfactory alternative course has been laid down for the third wall (see below), and that it must have run far North of the Antonia, a course which does not seem to agree with the description of Josephus, which states that the wall "went up" to the Antonia. On the other hand, no certain remains of any city wall within the present north wall have ever been found; fragments have been reported by various observers (e.g. the piece referred to as forming the eastern wall of the so-called "Pool of Hezekiah"; see VII , ii, below), but in an area so frequently desolated and rebuilt upon--where the demand for squared stones must always have been great--it is probable that the traces, if surviving at all, are very scanty. This is the case with the south wall excavated by Bliss (see VI ), and that neighborhood has for many centuries been unbuilt upon. It is quite probable that the area included within the second wall may have been quite small, merely the buildings which clustered along the sides of the Tyropeon. Its 40 towers may have been small and built close together, because the position was, from the military aspect, weak. It must be remembered that it was the unsatisfactory state of the second wall which necessitated a third wall. There is no absolute reason why it may not have excluded the greater part of the northwestern hill--and with it the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre--but there is no proof that it did. The date of the second wall is unknown (see below).
10. Third Wall: This third wall, which was commenced after the time of Christ by Herod Agrippa I, is described in more detail by Josephus. It was begun upon an elaborate plan, but was not finished in its original design because Agrippa feared Claudius Caesar, "lest he should suspect that so strong a wall was built in order to make some innovation in public affairs" (Jewish Wars, V, iv, 2). It, however, at the time of the siege, was of a breadth of over 18 ft., and a height of 40 ft., and had 90 massive towers. Josephus describes it as beginning at the tower Hippicus (near the Jaffa Gate), "where it reached as far as the north quarter of the city, and the tower Psephinus." This mighty tower, 135 ft. high, was at the northwestern corner and overlooked the whole city. From it, according to Josephus (Jewish Wars, V, vi, 3), there was a view of Arabia (Moab) at sunrising, and also of "the utmost limits of the Hebrew possessions at the Sea westward." From this corner the wall turned eastward until it came over against the monuments of Helene of Adiabene, a statement, however, which must be read in connection with another passage (Ant., XX, iv, 3), where it says that this tomb "was distant no more than 3 furlongs from the city of Jerusalem." The wall then "extended to a very great length" and passed by the sepulchral caverns of the kings--which may well be the so-called "Solomon's Quarries," and it then bent at the "Tower of the Corner," at a monument which is called the Monument of the Fuller (not identified), and joined to the old wall at the Kidron valley.
The commonly accepted theory is that a great part of this line of wall is that pursued by the modern north wall, and Kal`at el Jalud, or rather the foundation of it, that marks the site of Psephinus. The Damascus Gate is certainly on the line of some earlier gate. The "Tower of the Corner" was probably about where the modern Herod's Gate is, or a little more to the East, and the course of the wall was from here very probably along the southern edge of the "St. Anne's Valley," joining on to the Northeast corner of the Charam a little South of the present Stephen's Gate. This course of the wall fits in well with the description of Josephus. If the so-called "Tombs of the Kings" are really those of Queen Helena of Adiabene and her family, then the distance given as 3 furlongs is not as far out as the distance to the modern wall; the distance is actually 3 1/2 furlongs.
Others, following the learned Dr. Robinson, find it impossible to believe that the total circuit of the walls was so small, and would carry the third wall considerably farther north, making the general line of the modern north wall coincide with the second wall of Josephus. The supporters of this view point to the description of the extensive view from Psephinus, and contend that this presupposed a site on still higher ground, e.g. where the present Russian buildings now are. They also claim that the statement that the wall came "over against" the monument of Queen Helena certainly should mean very much nearer that monument than the present walls. Dr. Robinson and others who have followed him have pointed to various fragments which they claim to have been pieces of the missing wall. The present writer, after very many years' residence in Jerusalem, watching the buildings which in the last 25 years have sprung up over the area across which this line of wall is claimed to have run, has never seen a trace of wall foundations or of fosse which was in the very least convincing; while on the other hand this area now being rapidly covered by the modern suburb of Jerusalem presents almost everywhere below the surface virgin rock. There is no evidence of any more buildings than occasional scattered Roman villas, with mosaic floors. The present writer has rather unwillingly come to the opinion that the city walls were never farther north than the line they follow today. With respect to the objection raised that there could not possibly have been room enough between the two walls for the "Camp of the Assyrians," where Titus pitched his camp (Jewish Wars, V, vii, 3), any probable line for the second wall would leave a mean of 1,000 ft. between the two walls, and in several directions considerably more. The probable position of the "Camp of the Assyrians" would, according to this view, be in the high ground (the northwestern hill) now occupied by the Christian quarter of the modern city. The question of what the population of Jerusalem was at this period is discussed in IX, 49, below. For the other great buildings of the city at this period, see also IX , 43-44, below.
11. Date of Second Wall: Taking then the walls of Jerusalem as described by Josephus, we may work backward and see how the walls ran in earlier periods. The third wall does not concern us any more, as it was built after the Crucifixion. With respect to the second wall, there is a great deal of difference of opinion regarding its origin. Some consider, like Sir Charles Watson, that it does not go back earlier than the Hasmoneans; whereas others (e.g. G.A. Smith), because of the expression in 2 Chronicles 32:5 that Hezekiah, after repairing the wall, raised "another wall without," think that this wall goes back as far as this monarch. The evidence is inconclusive, but the most probable view seems to be that the "first wall," as described by Josephus, was the only circuit of wall from the kings of Judah down to the 2nd century BC, and perhaps later.
12. Nehemiah's Account of the Walls: The most complete Scriptural description we have of the walls and gates of Jerusalem is that given by Nehemiah. His account is valuable, not only as a record of what he did, but of what had been the state of the walls before the exile. It is perfectly clear that considerable traces of the old walls and gates remained, and that his one endeavor was to restore what had been before--even though it produced a city enclosure much larger than necessary at his time. The relevant passages are Nehemiah 2:13-15, the account of his night ride; Nehemiah 3:1-32, the description of the rebuilding; and Nehemiah 12:31-39, the routes of the two processions at the dedication.
13. Valley Gate: In the first account we learn that Nehemiah went out by night by the VALLEY GATE (which see), or Gate of the Gai, a gate (that is, opening) into the Gai Hinnom, and probably at or near the gate discovered by Bliss in what is now part of the Anglo-German cemetery; he passed from it to the Dung Gate, and from here viewed the walls of the city.
14. Dung Gate: This, with considerable assurance, may be located at the ruined foundations of a gate discovered by Bliss at the southeastern corner of the city. The line of wall clearly followed the south edge of the southwestern hill from the Anglo-German cemetery to this point. He then proceeded to the Fountain Gate, the site of which has not been recovered, but, as there must have been water running out here (as today) from the mouth of the Siloam tunnel, is very appropriately named here.
15. Fountain Gate: Near by was the KING'S POOL (which see), probably the pool--now deeply buried--which is today represented by the Birket el Kamra. Here Nehemiah apparently thought of turning into the city, "but there was no place for the beast that was under me to pass" (2:14), so he went up by the Nachal (Kidron), viewed the walls from there, and then retraced his steps to the Valley Gate. There is another possibility, and that is that the King's Pool was the pool (which certainly existed) at Gihon, in which case the Fountain Gate may also have been in that neighborhood.
All the archaeological evidence is in favor of the wall having crossed the mouth of the Tyropeon by the great dam at this time, and the propinquity of this structure to the Fountain Gate is seen in Nehemiah 3:15, where we read that Shallum built the Fountain Gate "and covered it, and set up the doors thereof .... and the bars thereof, and the wall of the pool of Shelah (see SILOAM) by theKING'S GARDEN (which see), even unto the stairs that go down from the city of David." All these localities were close together at the mouth of el Wad.
Passing from here we can follow the circuit of the city from the accounts of the rebuilding of the walls in Nehemiah 3:15 f. The wall from here was carried "over against the sepulchres of David," which we know to have stood in the original "City of David" above Gihon, past "the pool that was made," and "the house of the Gibborim" (mighty men)--both unknown sites. It is clear that the wall is being carried along the edge of the southeastern hill toward the temple. We read of two angles in the wall--both needed by the geographical conditions--the high priest's house, of "the tower that standeth out" (supposed to have been unearthed by Warren), and the wall of the OPHEL (which see).
16. Water Gate: There is also mention of a Water Gate in this position, which is just where one would expect a road to lead from the temple-area down to Gihon. From the great number of companies engaged in building, it may be inferred that all along this stretch of wall from the Tyropeon to the temple, the destruction of the walls had been specially great.
17. Horse Gate: Proceeding North, we come to the Horse Gate. This was close to the entry to the king's house (2 Kings 11:16; 2 Chronicles 23:15; Jeremiah 31:40). The expression used, "above" the Horse Gate, may imply that the gate itself may have been uninjured; it may have been a kind of rock-cut passage or tunnel. It cannot have been far from the present southeastern angle of the city. Thence "repaired the priests, every one over against his own house"--the houses of these people being to the East of the temple. Then comes the Gate of Hammiphkad (see HAMMIPHKAD,GATE OF ), the ascent (or "upper chamber," margin) of the corner, and finally theSHEEP GATE (which see), which was repaired by the goldsmiths and merchants.
18. Sheep Gate: This last gate was the point from which the circuit of the repairs was traced. The references, Nehemiah 3:1, 31; 12:39, clearly show that it was at the eastern extremity of the north wall.
The details of the gates and buildings in the north wall as described by Nehemiah, are difficult, and certainty is impossible; this side must always necessarily have been the weak side for defense because it was protected by no, or at best by very little, natural valley. As has been said, we cannot be certain whether Nehemiah is describing a wall which on its western two-thirds corresponded with the first or the second wall of Josephus. Taking the first theory as probable, we may plan it as follows: West of the Sheep Gate two towers are mentioned (Nehemiah 3:1; 12:39). Of these HANANEL (which see) was more easterly than HAMMEAH (which see), and, too, it would appear from Zechariah 14:10 to have been the most northerly point of the city. Probably then two towers occupied the important hill where afterward stood the fortress Baris and, later, the Antonia. At the Hammeah tower the wall would descend into the Tyropeon to join the eastern extremity of the first wall where in the time of Josephus stood the Council House (BJ, V, iv, 2).
19. Fish Gate: It is generally considered that the FISH GATE (which see) (Nehemiah 3:3; 12:39; Zephaniah 1:10; 2 Chronicles 33:14) stood across the Tyropeon in much the same way as the modern Damascus Gate does now, only considerably farther South. It was probably so called because here the men of Tyre sold their fish (Nehemiah 13:16). It is very probably identical with the "Middle Gate" of Jeremiah 39:3. With this region are associated the MISHNEH (which see) or "second quarter" (Zephaniah 1:10 margin) and the MAKTESH (which see) or "mortar" (Zephaniah 1:11).
20. "Old Gate": The next gate westward, after apparently a considerable interval, is translated in English Versions of the Bible the "OLD GATE" (which see), but is more correctly the "Gate of the old ...."; what the word thus qualified is, is doubtful. Nehemiah 3:6 margin suggests "old city" or "old wall," whereas Mitchell (Wall of Jerusalem according to the Book of Neh) proposes "old pool," taking the pool in question to be the so-called "Pool of Hezekiah." According to the view here accepted, that the account of Nehemiah refers only to the first wall, the expression "old wall would be peculiarly suitable, as here must have been some part of that first wall which went back unaltered to the time of Solomon. The western wall to the extent of 400 cubits had been rebuilt after its destruction by Jehoash, king of Israel (see IX , 12, below), and Manasseh had repaired all the wall from Gihon round North and then West to the Fish Gate. This gate has also been identified with the Sha`ar ha-Pinnah, or "Corner Gate," of 2 Kings 14:13; 2 Chronicles 25:23; Jeremiah 31:38; Zechariah 14:10, and with the Sha`ar ha-Ri'shon, or "First Gate," of Zechariah 14:10, which is identified as the same as the Corner Gate; indeed ri'shon ("first") is probably a textual error for yashan ("old"). If this is so, this "Gate of the Old" or "Corner Gate" must have stood near the northwestern corner of the city, somewhere near the present Jaffa Gate.
21. Gate of Ephraim: The next gate mentioned is the Gate of Ephraim (Nehemiah 12:39), which, according to 2 Kings 14:13; 2 Chronicles 25:23, was 400 cubits or 600 ft. from the Corner Gate. This must have been somewhere on the western wall; it is scarcely possible to believe, as some writers would suggest, that there could have been no single gate between the Corner Gate near the northwestern corner and the Valley Gate on the southern wall.
22. Tower of the Furnaces: The "Broad Wall" appears to correspond to the southern stretch of the western wall as far as the "Tower of the Furnaces" or ovens, which was probably the extremely important corner tower now incorporated in "Bishop Gobat's School." This circuit of the walls satisfies fairly well all the conditions; the difficulties are chiefly on the North and West. It is a problem how the Gate of Ephraim comes to be omitted in the account of the repairs, but G.A. Smith suggests that it may be indicated by the expression, "throne of the governor beyond the river" (Nehemiah 3:7). See, however, Mitchell (loc. cit.). If theory be accepted that the second wall already existed, the Corner Gate and the Fish Gate will have to be placed farther north.
23. The Gate of Benjamin: In Old Testament as in later times, some of the gates appear to have received different names at various times. Thus the Sheep Gate, at the northeastern angle, appears to be identical with the Gate of Benjamin or Upper Gate of Benjamin (Jeremiah 20:2; 37:13; 38:7); the prophet was going, apparently, the nearest way to his home in Anathoth. In Zechariah 14:10 the breadth of the city is indicated, where the prophet writes, "She shall be lifted up, and shall dwell in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate."
24. Upper Gate of the Temple: The Upper Gate of the Temple (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chronicles 27:3; compare 2 Chronicles 23:20; Ezekiel 9:2) is probably another name for the same gate. It must be remembered the gates were, as excavations have shown us, reduced to a minimum in fortified sites: they were sources of weakness.
The general outline of the walls and gates thus followed is in the main that existing from Nehemiah back until the early Judean monarchy, and possibly to Solomon.
25. The Earlier Walls: Of the various destructions and repairs which occurred during the time of the monarchy, a sufficient account is given in IX below, on the history. Solomon was probably the first to enclose the northwestern hill within the walls, and to him usually is ascribed all the northern and western stretch of the "First Wall"; whether his wall ran down to the mouth of the Tyropeon, or only skirted the summit of the northwestern hill is uncertain, but the latter view is probable. David was protected by the powerful fortifications of the Jebusites, which probably enclosed only the southeastern hill; he added to the defenses the fortress MILLO (which see). It is quite possible that the original Jebusite city had but one gate, on the North (2 Samuel 15:2), but the city must have overflowed its narrow limits during David's reign and have needed an extended and powerful defense, such as Solomon made, to secure the capital. For the varied history and situation of the walls in the post-Biblical period, see IX ("History"), below.
Continued in JERUSALEM, 3.
Jerusalem, 3
Jerusalem, 3 - Continued from JERUSALEM, 2.
VII. Antiquarian Remains Connected with the Water-Supply.
In a city like Jerusalem, where the problem of a water-supply must always have been one of the greatest, it is only natural that some of the most ancient and important works should have centered round it. The three sources of supply have been (1) springs, (2) cisterns, (3) aqueducts.
1. Gihon: The Natural Spring: (1) The natural springs have been described in II, 3; but connected with them, and especially with the city's greatest and most venerated source, the Gihon, there are certain antiquarian remains of great interest.
(a) The "Virgin's Fount," ancient Gihon, arises, as has been described (II, 3), in a rocky cleft in the Kidron valley bottom; under natural conditions the water would run along the valley bed, now deeply buried under debris of the ancient city, and doubtless when the earliest settlers made their dwellings in the caves (which have been excavated) on the sides of the valley near the spring, they and their flocks lived on the banks of a stream of running water in a sequestered valley among waterless hills. From, however, a comparatively early period--at the least 2000 BC--efforts were made to retain some of the water, and a solid stone dam was built which converted the sources into a pool of considerable depth. Either then, or somewhat later, excavations were made in the cliffs overhanging the pool, whereby some at least of these waters were conducted, by means of a tunnel, into the heart of the southeastern hill, "Ophel," so that the source could be reached from within the city walls. There are today two systems of tunnels which are usually classed as one under the name of the "Siloam aqueduct," but the two systems are probably many centuries apart in age.
2. The Aqueduct of the Canaanites: The older tunnel begins in a cave near the source and then runs westward for a distance of 67 ft.; at the inner end of the tunnel there is a perpendicular shaft which ascends for over 40 ft. and opens into a lofty rock-cut passage which runs, with a slight lateral curvature, to the North, in the direction of the surface. The upper end has been partially destroyed, and the roof, which had fallen in, was long ago partially restored by a masonry arch. At this part of the passage the floor is abruptly interrupted across its whole width by a deep chasm which Warren partially excavated, but which Parker has since conclusively shown to end blindly. It is clear that this great gallery, which is 8 to 9 ft. wide, and in places as high or higher, was constructed (a natural cavern possibly utilized in the process) to enable the inhabitants of the walled-in city above it to reach the spring. It is in fact a similar work to the great water-passage at GEZER (which see), which commenced in a rock-cut pit 26 ft. deep and descended with steps, to a depth of 94 ft. 6 inches below the level of the rock surface; the sloping passage was 23 ft. high and 13 ft. broad. This passage which could be dated with certainty as before 1500 BC, and almost certainly as early as 2000 BC, was cut out with flint knives and apparently was made entirely to reach a great underground source of water.
3. Warren's Shaft: The discovery of this Gezer well-passage has thrown a flood of light upon the "Warren's Shaft" in Jerusalem, which would appear to have been made for an exactly similar purpose. The chasm mentioned before may have been an effort to reach the source from a higher point, or it may have been made, or later adapted, to prevent ingress by means of the system of tunnels into the city. This passage is in all probability the "watercourse" (tsinnor) of 2 Samuel 5:8 up which, apparently, Joab and his men (1 Chronicles 11:6) secretly made their way; they must have waded through the water at the source, ascended the perpendicular shaft (a feat performed in 1910 by some British officers without any assistance from ladders), and then made their way into the heart of the city along the great tunnel. Judging by the similar Gezer water tunnel, this great work may not only have existed in David's time, but may have been constructed as much as 1,000 years before.
4. Hezekiah's "Siloam" Aqueduct: The true Siloam tunnel is a considerably later work. It branches off from the older aqueduct at a point 67 ft. from the entrance, and after running an exceedingly winding course of 1,682 ft., it empties itself into the Pool of Siloam (total length 1,749 ft.). The whole canal is rock cut; it is 2 to 3 ft. wide, and varies in height from 16 ft. at the south end to 4 ft. 6 inches at the lowest point, near the middle. The condition of this tunnel has recently been greatly changed through Captain Parker's party having cleared out the accumulated silt of centuries; before this, parts of the channel could be traversed only with the greatest difficulty and discomfort. The primitive nature of this construction is shown by the many false passages made, and also by the extensive curves which greatly add to its length. This latter may also be partly due to the workmen following lines of soft strata. M. Clermont-Ganneau and others have thought that one or more of the great curves may have been made deliberately to avoid the tombs of the kings of Judah. The method of construction of the tunnel is narrated in the Siloam Inscription (see SILOAM). It was begun simultaneously from each end, and the two parties met in the middle. It is a remarkable thing that there is a difference of level of only one foot at each end; but the lofty height of the southern end is probably due to a lowering of the floor here after the junction was effected. It is practically certain that this great work is that referred to in 2 Kings 20:20: "Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made the pool, and the conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?" And in 2 Chronicles 32:30: "This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, and brought them straight down on the west side of the city of David."
5. Other Aqueducts at Gihon: In addition to these two conduits, which have a direct Scriptural interest, there are remains of at least two other aqueducts which take their origin at the Virgin's Fount--one a channel deeply cut in rock along the western sides of the Kidron valley, found by Captain Parker, and the other a built channel, lined with very good cement, which takes its rise at a lower level than any of the other conduits close to the before-mentioned rocky cleft from which the water rises, and runs in a very winding direction along the western side of the Kidron. This the present writer has described in PEFS, 1902. One of these, perhaps more probably the former, may be the conduit which is referred to as Shiloah (shiloach), or "conducted" (Isaiah 8:6), before the construction of Hezekiah s work (see SILOAM).
There are other caves and rock-cut channels around the ancient Gihon which cannot fully be described here, but which abundantly confirm the sanctity of the site.
6. Bir Eyyub: (b) Bir Eyyub has a depth of 125 ft.; the water collects at the bottom in a large rock-hewn chamber, and it is clear that it has been deepened at some period, because at the depth of 113 ft. there is a collecting chamber which is now replaced by the deeper one. Various rock-cut passages or staircases were found by Warren in the neighborhood of this well.
7. Varieties of Cisterns: (2) The cisterns and tanks.--Every ancient site in the hill country of Palestine is riddled with cisterns for the storage of rain water. In Jerusalem for very many centuries the private resident has depended largely upon the water collected from the roof of his house for all domestic purposes. Such cisterns lie either under or alongside the dwelling. Many of the earliest of these excavations are bottle-shaped, with a comparatively narrow mouth cut through the hard Mizzeh and a large rounded excavation made in the underlying Melekeh (see II , 1 above). Other ancient cisterns are cavities hewn in the rock, of irregular shape, with a roof of harder rock and often several openings. The later forms are vaulted over, and are either cut in the rock or sometimes partially built in the superlying rubbish.
For more public purposes large cisterns were made in the Charam, or temple-area. Some 3 dozen are known and planned; the largest is calculated to contain 3,000,000 gallons. Such structures were made largely for the religious ritual, but, as we shall see, they have been supplied by other sources than the rainfall. In many parts of the city open tanks have been constructed, such a tank being known in Arabic as a birkeh, or, followed by a vowel, birket. With most of these there is considerable doubt as to their date of construction, but probably none of them, in their present form at any rate, antedates the Roman period.
8. Birket Israel: Within the city walls the largest reservoir is the Birket Israel which extends from the northeastern angle of the Charam westward for 360 ft. It is 125 ft. wide and was originally 80 ft. deep, but has in recent years been largely filled up by the city's refuse. The eastern and western ends of this pool are partially rock-cut and partly masonry, the masonry of the former being a great dam 45 ft. thick, the lower part of which is continuous with the ancient eastern wall of the temple-area. The sides of the pool are entirely masonry because this reservoir is built across the width of the valley referred to before (III, 2) as "St. Anne's Valley." Other parts of this valley are filled with debris to the depth of 100 ft. The original bottom of the reservoir is covered with a layer of about 19 inches of very hard concrete and cement. There was a great conduit at the eastern end of the pool built of massive stones, and connected with the pool by a perforated stone with three round holes 5 1/2 inches in diameter. The position of this outlet shows that all water over a depth of 22 ft. must have flowed away. Some authorities consider this pool to have been pre-exilic. By early Christian pilgrims it was identified as the "Sheep Pool" of John 5:2, and at a later period, until quite recent times, it was supposed to have been the Pool of Bethesda.
9. Pool of Bethesda: The discovery, a few years ago, of the long-lost Piscina in the neighborhood of the "Church of Anne," which was without doubt the Pool of Bethesda of the 5th century AD, has caused this identification to be abandoned.
See BETHESDA.
10. The Twin Pools: To the West of the Birket Israel are the "twin pools" which extend under the roadway in the neighborhood of the "Ecce Homo" arch. The western one is 165 ft. by 20 ft. and the eastern 127 ft. by 20 ft. M. Clermont-Ganneau considers them to be identical with the Pool Struthius of Josephus (BJ, V, xi, 4), but others, considering that they are actually made in the fosse of the Antonia, give them a later date of origin. In connection with these pools a great aqueduct was discovered in 1871, 2 1/2-3 ft. wide and in places 12 ft. high, running from the neighborhood of the Damascus Gate--but destroyed farther north--and from the pools another aqueduct runs in the direction of the Charam.
11. Birket Hammam el Batrak: On the northwestern hill, between the Jaffa Gate and the Church of the Sepulchre there is a large open reservoir, known to the modern inhabitants of the city as Birket Kammam el Batrak, "the Pool of the Patriarch's Bath." It is 240 ft. long (North to South), 144 ft. broad and 19-24 ft. deep. The cement lining of the bottom is cracked and practically useless. The eastern wall of this pool is particularly massive, and forms the base of the remarkably level street Karet en Nasara, or "Christian Street"; it is a not improbable theory that this is actually a fragment of the long-sought "second" wall. If so, the pool, which is proved to have once extended 60 ft. farther north, may have been constructed originally as part of the fosse. On the other hand, this pool appears to have been the Amygdalon Pool, or "Pool of the Tower" (berekhath ha-mighdalin), mentioned by Josephus (Jewish Wars, V, xi, 4), which was the scene of the activities of the 10th legion, and this seems inconsistent with the previous theory, as the events described seem to imply that the second wall ran outside the pool. The popular travelers' name, "Pool of Hezekiah," given to this reservoir is due to theory, now quite discredited, that this is the pool referred to in 2 Kings 20:20, "He made the pool, and the conduit, and brought water into the city." Other earlier topographists have identified it as the "upper pool" of Isaiah 7:3; 36:2.
12. Birket Mamilla: The Birket Kammam el Batrak is supplied with water from the Birket Mamilla, about 1/2 mile to the West. This large pool, 293 ft. long by 193 ft. broad and 19 1/2 ft. deep, lies in the midst of a large Moslem cemetery at the head of the Wady Mes, the first beginning of the Wady er Rababi (Hinnom). The aqueduct which connects the two pools springs from the eastern end of the Birket Mamilla, runs a somewhat winding course and enters the city near the Jaffa Gate. The aqueduct is in bad repair, and the water it carries, chiefly during heavy rain, is filthy. In the Middle Ages it was supposed that this was the "Upper Pool of Gihon" (see GIHON), but this and likewise the "highway of the FULLER'S FIELD" (which see) are now located elsewhere. Wilson and others have suggested that it is the "Serpent's Pool" of Josephus (Jewish Wars, V, iii, 2). Titus leveled "all the places from Scopus to Herod's monument which adjoins the pool called that of the Serpent." Like many such identifications, there is not very much to be said for or against it; it is probable that the pool existed at the time of the siege. It is likely that this is the Beth Memel of the Talmud (the Babylonian Talmud, `Erubin 51 b; Sanhedrin 24 a; Bere'shith Rabba' 51).
13. Birket es Sultan: The Birket es Sultan is a large pool--or, more strictly speaking, enclosure--555 ft. North and South by 220 ft. East and West. It is bounded on the West and North by a great curve of the low-level aqueduct as it passes along and then across the Wady er Rababi. The southern side consists of a massive dam across the valley over which the Bethlehem carriage road runs. The name may signify either the "great" pool or be connected with the fact that it was reconstructed in the 16th century by the sultan Suleiman ibn Selim, as is recorded on an inscription upon a wayside fountain upon the southern wall. This pool is registered in the cartulary of the Holy Sepulchre as the Lacus Germani, after the name of a knight of Germanus, who built or renovated the pool in 1176 AD. Probably a great part of the pool is a catchment area, and the true reservoir is the rock-cut birkeh at the southern end, which has recently been cleaned out. It is extremely difficult to believe that under any conditions any large proportion of the whole area could ever have even been filled. Today the reservoir at the lower end holds, after the rainy season, some 10 or 12 ft. of very dirty water, chiefly the street drainage of the Jaffa road, while the upper two-thirds of the enclosure is used as a cattle market on Fridays. The water is now used for sprinkling the dusty roads in dry seasons.
The Pool of Siloam and the now dry Birket el Kamra are described under SILOAM (which see).
There are other tanks of considerable size in and around the city, e.g. the Birket Sitti Miriam, near "St. Stephen's Gate," an uncemented pool in the Wady Joz, connected with which there is a rockcut aqueduct and others, but they are not of sufficient historical importance to merit description here.
14. "Solomon's Pools": (3) The conduits bringing water to the city from a distance are called the "high-level" and "low-level" aqueducts respectively, because they reached the city at different levels--the former probably somewhere near the present Jaffa Gate, the latter at the temple-platform.
15. Low-Level Aqueduct: The low-level aqueduct which, though out of repair, can still be followed along its whole course, conveyed water from three great pools in the Wady `Artas, 7 miles South of Jerusalem. They are usually called "Solomon's pools," in reference perhaps partly to Ecclesiastes 2:6: "I made me pools o water, to water therefrom the forest where trees were reared," but as any mighty work in Palestine is apt to be referred to the wise king of Israel, much stress cannot be laid on the name. These three storage reservoirs are constructed across the breadth of the valley, the lowest and largest being 582 ft. long by 177 ft. broad and, at the lowest end, 50 ft. deep. Although the overflow waters of `Ain es Saleh, commonly known as the "sealed fountain" (compare Song of Solomon 4:12), reach the pools, the chief function was probably to collect the flood waters from the winter rains, and the water was passed from tank to tank after purification. There are in all four springs in this valley which supply the aqueduct which still conveys water to Bethlehem, where it passes through the hill by means of a tunnel and then, after running, winding along the sides of the hill, it enters another tunnel now converted into a storage tank for Jerusalem; from this it runs along the mountain sides and along the southern slopes of the site of Jerusalem to the Charam. The total length of this aqueduct is nearly 12 miles, but at a later date the supply was increased by the construction of a long extension of the conduit for a further 28 miles to Wady `Arrub on the road to Hebron, another 5 miles directly South of the pools. Here, too, there is a reservoir, the Birket el `Arrub, for the collection of the flood-water, and also several small springs, which are conducted in a number of underground rock-cut channels to the aqueduct. The total length of the low-level aqueduct is about 40 miles, and the fall in level from Birket el `Arrub (2,645 ft. above sea-level) at its far end to el Kas, the termination in the Charam Jerusalem (2,410 ft. above sea-level), is 235 ft.
16. High-Level Aqueduct: The high-level aqueduct commences in a remarkable chain of wells connected with a tunnel, about 4 miles long, in the Wady Biar, "the Valley of Wells." Upward of 50 wells along the valley bottom supplied each its quotient; the water thence passed through a pool where the solid matter settled, and traversed a tunnel 1,700 ft. long into the `Artas valley. Here, where its level was 150 ft. above that of the low-level aqueduct, the conduit received the waters of the "sealed fountain," and finally "delivered them in Jerusalem at a level of about 20 ft. above that of the Jaffa Gate" (Wilson). The most remarkable feature of this conduit is the inverted siphon of perforated limestone blocks, forming a stone tube 15 inches in diameter, which carried the water across the valley near Rachel's Tomb.
17. Dates of Construction of These Aqueducts: On a number of these blocks, Latin inscriptions with the names of centurions of the time of Severus (195 AD) have been found, and this has led many to fix a date to this great work. So good an authority as Wilson, however, considers that these inscriptions may refer to repairs, and that the work is more probably Herodian. Unless the accounts of Josephus (Jewish Wars, V, iv, 4; II, xvii, 9) are exaggerated, Herod must have had some means of bringing abundant running water into the city at the level obtained by this conduit. The late Dr. Schick even suggested a date as early as Hyrcanus (135-125 BC). With regard to the low-level aqueduct, we have two definite data. First Josephus (Ant., XVIII, iii, 2) states that Pontius Pilate "undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of 200 furlongs," over 22 miles; in Jewish Wars, II, ix, 4 he is said to have brought the water "from 400 furlongs"--probably a copyist's error. But these references must either be to restorations or to the extension from Wady `Arrub to Wady `Artas (28 miles), for the low-level aqueduct from the pools to Jerusalem is certainly the same construction as the aqueduct from these pools to the "Frank Mountain," the Herodium, and that, according to the definite statements of Josephus (Ant., XV, ix, 4; BJ, I, xxi, 10), was made by Herod the Great. On the whole the usual view is that the high-level aqueduct was the work of Severus, the low-level that of Herod, with an extension southward by Pontius Pilate.
Jerus still benefits somewhat from the low-level aqueduct which is in repair as far as Bethlehem, though all that reaches the city comes only through a solitary 4-inch pipe. The high-level aqueduct is hopelessly destroyed and can be traced only in places; the wells of Wady Biar are choked and useless, and the long winding aqueduct to Wady `Arrub is quite broken.
VIII. Tombs, Antiquarian Remains and Ecclesiastical Sites.
1. The "Tombs of the Kings": Needless to say all the known ancient tombs in the Jerusalem area have been rifled of their contents long ago. The so-called Tombs of the Kings in the Wady el Joz are actually the monument of Queen Helena of Adiabene, a convert to Judaism (circa 48 AD). Josephus (Ant., XX, iv, 3) states that her bones, with those of members of her family, were buried "at the pyramids," which were 3 in number and distant from Jeremiah 3:1-25 furlongs. A Hebrew inscription upon a sarcophagus found here by De Saulcy ran: (tsarah malkethah), "Queen Sarah," possibly the Jewish name of Queen Helena.
2. "Herod's Tomb": On the western side of the Wady el Mes (the higher part of Hinnom), is a very interesting Greek tomb containing beautifully carved sarcophagi. These are commonly known as "Herod's Tombs" (although Herod the Great was buried on the Herodium), and, according to Schick, one of the sarcophagi may have belonged to Mariamne, Herod's wife. A more probable theory is that this is the tomb of the high priest Ananias (Jewish Wars, V, xii, 2).
3. "Absalom's Tomb": On the eastern side of the Kidron, near the southeastern angle of the Charam, are 3 conspicuous tombs. The most northerly, Tantur Fer`on, generally called "Absalom's Tomb," is a Greek-Jewish tomb of the Hasmonean period, and, according to Conder, possibly the tomb of Alexander Janneus (HDB, article "Jerusalem"). S. of this is the traditional "Grotto of James," which we know by a square Hebrew inscription over the pillars to be the family tomb of certain members of the priestly family (1 Chronicles 24:15), of the Beni Hazir. It may belong to the century before Christ.
The adjoining traditional tomb of Zachariah is a monolithic monument cut out of the living rock, 16 ft. square and 30 ft. high. It has square pilasters at the corners, Ionic pillars between, and a pyramidal top. Its origin is unknown; its traditional name is due to our Lord's word in Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51 (see ZACHARIAH).
4. The "Egyptian Tomb": A little farther down the valley of the Kidron, at the commencement of the village of Siloam, is another rock-cut tomb, the so-called Egyptian Tomb, or according to some, "the tomb of Solomon's Egyptian wife." It is a monolith 18 ft. square and 11 ft. high, and the interior has at one time been used as a chapel. It is now Russian property. It probably belongs to much the same period as the three before-mentioned tombs, and, like them, shows strong Egyptian influence.
The so-called "Tombs of the Judges" belong to the Roman period, as do the scores of similar excavations in the same valley. The "Tombs of the Prophets" on the western slopes of the Mount of Olives are now considered to belong to the 4th or 5th Christian century.
Near the knoll over Jeremiah's Grotto, to the West and Northwest, are a great number of tombs, mostly Christian. The more northerly members of the group are now included in the property of the Dominicans attached to the Church of Stephen, but one, the southernmost, has attracted a great deal of attention because it was supposed by the late General Gordon to be the tomb of Christ.
5. The "Garden Tomb": In its condition when found it was without doubt, like its neighbors, a Christian tomb of about the 5th century, and it was full of skeletons. Whether it may originally have been a Jewish tomb is unproved; it certainly could not have been recognized as a site of any sanctity until General Gordon promulgated his theory (see PEFS , 1892, 120-24; see also GOLGOTHA).
6. Tomb of "Simon the Just": The Jews greatly venerate a tomb on the eastern side of the Wady el Joz, not far South of the great North Road; they consider it to be the tomb of Simon the Just, but it is in all probability not a Jewish tomb at all.
7. Other Antiquities: Only passing mention can here be made of certain remains of interest connected with the exterior walls of the Charam. The foundation walls of the temple-platform are built, specially upon the East, South and West, of magnificent blocks of smooth, drafted masonry with an average height of 3 1/2 ft. One line, known as the "master course," runs for 600 ft. westward from the southeastern angle, with blocks 7 ft. high. Near the southeastern angle at the foundation itself, certain of the blocks were found by the Palestine Exploration Fund engineers to be marked with Phoenician characters, which it was supposed by many at the time of their discovery indicated their Solomonic origin. It is now generally held that these "masons' marks" may just as well have been used in the time of Herod the Great, and on other grounds it is held that all this magnificent masonry is due to the vast reconstruction of the Temple which this great monarch initiated (see TEMPLE). In the western wall of the Charam, between the southwestern corner and the "Jewish wailing place," lies "Robinson's Arch." It is the spring of an arch 50 ft. wide, projecting from the temple-wall; the bridge arising from it had a span of 50 ft., and the pier on the farther side was discovered by Warren. Under the bridge ran a contemporary paved Roman street, and beneath the unbroken pavement was found, lying inside a rock aqueduct, a voussoir of an older bridge. This bridge connected the temple-enclosure with the upper city in the days of the Hasmonean kings. It was broken down in 63 BC by the Jews in anticipation of the attack of Pompey (Antiquities, XIV, iv, 2; BJ, I, vii, 2), but was rebuilt by Herod in 19 BC (Jewish Wars, VI, viii, 1; vi, 2), and finally destroyed in 70 AD.
Nearly 600 ft. farther North, along this western temple-wall is Wilson's Arch, which lies under the surface within the causeway which crosses the Tyropeon to the Babylonian es Silseleh of the Charam; although not itself very ancient there are here, deeper down, arches belonging to the Herodian causeway which here approached the temple-platform.
8. Ecclesiastical Sites: With regard to the common ecclesiastical sites visited by pious pilgrims little need be said here. The congeries of churches that is included under that name of Church of the Holy Sepulchre includes a great many minor sites of the scenes of the Passion which have no serious claims. Besides the Holy Sepulchre itself--which, apart from its situation, cannot be proved or disproved, as it has actually been destroyed--the only important site is that of "Mount Calvary." All that can be said is that if the Sepulchre is genuine, then the site may be also; it is today the hollowed-out shell of a rocky knoll encased in marble and other stones and riddled with chapels.
See GOLGOTHA.
The coenaculum, close to the Moslem "Tomb of David" (a site which has no serious claims), has been upheld by Professor Sanday (Sacred Sites of the Gospels) as one which has a very strong tradition in its favor. The most important evidence is that of Epiphanias, who states that when Hadrian visited Jerusalem in 130, one of the few buildings left standing was "the little Church of God, on the site where the disciples, returning after the Ascension of the Saviour from Olivet, had gone up to the Upper room, for there it had been built, that is to say in the quarter of Zion." In connection with this spot there has been pointed out from early Christian times the site of the House of Caiaphas and the site of the death of the Virgin Mary--the Dormitio Sanctae Virginis. It is in consequence of this latter tradition that the German Roman Catholics have now erected here their magnificent new church of the Dormition. A rival line of traditions locates the tomb of the Virgin in the Kidron valley near Gethsemane, where there is a remarkable underground chapel belonging to the Greeks.
Continued in JERUSALEM, 4.
Jerusalem, 4
Jerusalem, 4 - Continued from JERUSALEM, 3.
IX. History. Pre-Israelite period.--The beginnings of Jerusalem are long before recorded history: at various points in the neighborhood, e.g. at el Bukei`a to the Southwest, and at the northern extremity of the Mount of Olives to the Northeast, were very large settlements of Paleolithic man, long before the dawn of history, as is proved by the enormous quantities of Celts scattered over the surface. It is certain that the city's site itself was occupied many centuries before David, and it is a traditional view that the city called SALEM (which see) (Genesis 14:18), over which Melchizedek was king, was identical with Jerusalem.
1. Tell el-Amarna Correspondence: The first certain reference to this city is about 1450 BC, when the name Ur-u-salem occurs in several letters belonging to the Tell el-Amarna Letters correspondence. In 7 of these letters occurs the name Abd Khiba, and it is clear that this man was "king," or governor of the city, as the representative of Pharaoh of Egypt. In this correspondence Abd Khiba represents himself as hard pressed to uphold the rights of his suzerain against the hostile forces which threaten to overwhelm him. Incidentally we may gather that the place was then a fortified city, guarded partly by mercenary Egyptian troops, and there are reasons for thinking that then ruler of Egypt, Amenhotep IV, had made it a sanctuary of his god Aten--the sun-disc. Some territory, possibly extending as far west as Ajalon, seems to have been under the jurisdiction of the governor. Professor Sayce has stated that Abd Khiba was probably a Hittite chief, but this is doubtful. The correspondence closes abruptly, leaving us in uncertainty with regard to the fate of the writer, but we know that the domination of Egypt over Palestine suffered an eclipse about this time.
2. Joshua's Conquest: At the time of Joshua's invasion of Canaan, ADONI-ZEDEK (which see) is mentioned (Joshua 10:1-27) as king of Jerusalem; he united with the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish and Eglon to fight against the Gibeonites who had made peace with Joshua; the 5 kings were defeated and, being captured in hiding at the cave Makkedah, were all slain. Another king, ADONIBEZEK (which see) (whom some identify with Adoni-zedek), was defeated by Judah after the death of Joshua, and after being mutilated was brought to Jerusalem and died there (Judges 1:1-7), after which it is recorded (Judges 1:8) that Judah "fought against Jerusalem, and took it .... and set the city on fire." But it is clear that the city remained in the hands of the "Jebusites" for some years more (Judges 1:21; 19:11), although it was theoretically reckoned on the southern border of Benjamin (Joshua 15:8; 16, 28). David, after he had reigned 7 1/2 years at Hebron, determined to make the place his capital and, about 1000 BC, captured the city.
3. Site of the Jebusite City: Up to this event it is probable that Jerusalem was like other contemporary fortified sites, a comparatively small place encircled with powerful walls, with but one or perhaps two gates; it is very generally admitted that this city occupied the ridge to the South of the temple long incorrectly called "Ophel," and that its walls stood upon steep rocky scarps above the Kidron valley on the one side, and the Tyropeon on the other. We have every reason to believe that the great system of tunnels, known as "Warren's Shaft" (see VII , 3, above) existed all through this period.
4. David: The account of the capture of Jerusalem by David is obscure, but it seems a probable explanation of a difficult passage (2 Samuel 5:6-9) if we conclude that the Jebusites, relying upon the extraordinary strength of their position, challenged David: "Thou shalt not come in hither, but the blind and the lame shall turn thee away" (2 Samuel 5:6 margin), and that David directed his followers to go up the "watercourse" and smite the "lame and the blind"--a term he in his turn applies mockingly to the Jebusites. "And Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was made chief" (1 Chronicles 11:6). It seems at least probable that David's men captured the city through a surprise attack up the great tunnels (see VII , 3, above). David having captured the stronghold "Zion," renamed it the "City of David" and took up his residence there; he added to the strength of the fortifications "round about from the MILLO (which see) and onward"; with the assistance of Phoenician workmen supplied by Hiram, king of Tyre, he built himself "a house of cedar" (2 Samuel 5:11; compare 2 Samuel 7:2). The ark of Yahweh was brought from the house of Obed-edom and lodged in a tent (2 Samuel 6:17) in the "city of David" (compare 1 Kings 8:1). The threshing-floor of Araunah (2 Samuel 24:18), or Ornan (1 Chronicles 21:15), the Jebusite, was later purchased as the future site of the temple.
5. Expansion of the City: The Jerusalem which David captured was small and compact, but there are indications that during his reign it must have increased considerably by the growth of suburbs outside the Jebusite walls. The population must have been increased from several sources. The influx of David's followers doubtless caused many of the older inhabitants to be crowded out of the walled area. There appear to have been a large garrison (2 Samuel 15:18; 20:7), many officials and priests and their families (2 Samuel 8:16-18; 2 Samuel 20:23-26; 23:8 ff), and the various members of David's own family and their relatives (2 Samuel 5:13-16; 24, 28; 1 Kings 1:5, 53, etc.). It is impossible to suppose that all these were crowded into so narrow an area, while the incidental mention that Absalom lived two whole years in Jerusalem without seeing the king's face implies suburbs (2 Samuel 14:24, 28). The new dwellings could probably extend northward toward the site of the future temple and northwestward into and up the Tyropeon valley along the great north road. It is improbable that they could have occupied much of the western hill.
6. Solomon: With the accession of Solomon, the increased magnificence of the court, the foreign wives and their establishments, the new officials and the great number of work people brought to the city for Solomon's great buildings must necessarily have enormously swelled the resident population, while the recorded buildings of the city, the temple, the king's house, the House of the Daughter of Pharaoh, the House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Throne Hall and the Pillared Hall (1 Kings 7:1-8) must have altered the whole aspect of the site. In consequence of these new buildings, the sanctuary together with the houses of the common folk, a new wall for the city was necessary, and we have a statement twice made that Solomon built "the wall of Jerusalem round about" (1 Kings 3:1; 9:15); it is also recorded that he built Millo (1 Kings 9:15, 24; 11:27), and that "he repaired the breach of the city of David his father" (1 Kings 11:27). The question of the Millo is discussed elsewhere (see MILLO); the "breach" referred to may have been the connecting wall needed to include the Millo within the complete circle of fortifications, or else some part of David's fortification which his death had left incomplete.
7. Solomon's City Wall: As regards the "Wall of Jerus" which Solomon built, it is practically certain that it was, on the North and West, that described by Josephus as the First Wall (see VI , 7 above). The vast rock-cut scarps at the southwestern corner testify to the massiveness of the building. Whether the whole of the southwestern hill was included is matter of doubt. Inasmuch as there are indications at Bliss's tower (see VI , 4th above) of an ancient wall running northeasterly, and enclosing the summit of the southwestern hill, it would appear highly probable that Solomon's wall followed that line; in this case this wall must have crossed the Tyropeon at somewhat the line of the existing southern wall, and then have run southeasterly to join the western wall of the old city of the Jebusites. The temple and palace buildings were all enclosed in a wall of finished masonry which made it a fortified place by itself--as it appears to have been through Hebrew history--and these walls, where external to the rest of the city, formed part of the whole circle of fortification.
Although Solomon built so magnificent a house for Yahweh, he erected in the neighborhood shrines to other local gods (1 Kings 11:7-8), a lapse ascribed largely to the influence of his foreign wives and consequent foreign alliances.
8. The Disruption (933 BC): The disruption of the kingdom must have been a severe blow to Jerusalem, which was left the capital, no longer of a united state, but of a petty tribe. The resources which were at the command of Solomon for the building up of the city were suddenly cut off by Jeroboam's avowed policy, while the long state of war which existed between the two peoples--a state lasting 60 years (1 Kings 14:30; 6, 16; 22:44)--must have been very injurious to the growth of commerce and the arts of peace.
9. Invasion of Shishak (928 BC): In the 5th year of Rehoboam (928), Shishak (Sheshonq) king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:25 ff) and took "the fenced cities of Judah" (2 Chronicles 12:4 the King James Version). It has been commonly supposed that he besieged and captured Jerusalem itself, but as there is no account of the destruction of fortifications and as the name of this city has not been deciphered upon the Egyptian records of this campaign, it is at least as probable, and is as consistent with the Scriptural references, that Shishak was bought off with "the treasures of the house of Yahweh, and the treasures of the king's house" and "all the shields of gold which Solomon had made" (1 Kings 14:26).
10. City Plundered by Arabs: It is clear that by the reign of Jehoshaphat the city had again largely recovered its importance (compare 1 Kings 22:1-53), but in his son Jehoram's reign (849-842 BC) Judah was invaded and the royal house was pillaged by Philistines and Arabs (2 Chronicles 21:16-17). Ahaziah (842 BC), Jehoram's son, came to grief while visiting his maternal relative at Jezreel, and after being wounded in his chariot near Ibleam, and expiring at Megiddo, his body was carried to Jerusalem and there buried (2 Kings 9:27-28). Jerusalem was now the scene of the dramatic events which center round the usurpation and death of Queen Athaliah (2 Kings 11:16; 2 Chronicles 23:15) and the coronation and reforms of her grandson Joash (2 Kings 12:1-16; 2 Chronicles 24:1-14).
11. Hazael King of Syria Bought Off (797 BC): After the death of the good priest Jehoiada, it is recorded (2 Chronicles 24:15 ff) that the king was led astray by the princes of Judah and forsook the house of Yahweh, as a consequence of which the Syrians under Hazael came against Judah and Jerusalem, slew the princes and spoiled the land, Joash giving him much treasure from both palace and temple (2 Kings 12:17-18; 2 Chronicles 24:23). Finally Joash was assassinated (2 Kings 12:20-21; 2 Chronicles 24:25) "at the house of Millo, on the way that goeth down to Silla."
12. Capture of the City of Jehoash of Israel: During the reign of Amaziah (797-729 BC), the murdered king's son, a victory over Edom appears to have so elated the king that he wantonly challenged Jehoash of Israel to battle (2 Kings 14:8 f). The two armies met at Beth-shemesh, and Judah was defeated and "fled every man to his tent." Jerusalem was unable to offer any resistance to the victors, and Jehoash "brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, 400 cubits" and then returned to Samaria, loaded with plunder and hostages (2 Kings 14:14). Fifteen years later, Amaziah was assassinated at Lachish whither he had fled from a conspiracy; nevertheless they brought his body upon horses, and he was buried in Jerusalem.
13. Uzziah's Refortification (779-740 BC): Doubtless it was a remembrance of the humiliation which his father had undergone which made Uzziah (Azariah) strengthen his position. He subdued the Philistines and the Arabs in Gur, and put the Ammonites to tribute (2 Chronicles 26:7-8). He "built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate, and at the valley gate, and at the turnings (Septuagint) of the walls, and fortified them" (2 Chronicles 26:9). He is also described as having made in Jerusalem "engines, invented by skillful men, to be on the towers and upon the battlements, wherewith to shoot arrows and great stones" (2 Chronicles 26:15). The city during its long peace with its northern neighbors appears to have recovered something of her prosperity in the days of Solomon. During his reign the city was visited by a great earthquake (Zechariah 14:4; Amos 1:1; compare Isaiah 9:10; 29:6; Amos 4:11; 8:8). Jotham, his son, built the upper gate of the house of Yahweh" (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chronicles 27:3), probably the same as the "upper gate of Benjamin" (Jeremiah 20:2). He also built much on the wall of Ophel--probably the ancient fortress of Zion on the southeastern hill (2 Chronicles 27:3); see OPHEL.
14. Ahaz Allies with Assyria (736-728 BC): His son Ahaz was soon to have cause to be thankful for his father's and grandfather's work in fortifying the city, for now its walls were successful in defense against the kings of Syria and Israel (2 Kings 16:5-6); but Ahaz, feeling the weakness of his little kingdom, bought with silver and gold from the house of Yahweh the alliance of Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria. He met the king at Damascus and paid him a compliment by having an altar similar to his made for his own ritual in the temple (2 Kings 16:10-12). His reign is darkened by a record of heathen practices, and specially by his making "his son to pass through the fire"--as a human sacrifice in, apparently, the Valley of Hinnom (1 Kings 16:3-4; compare 2 Chronicles 28:3).
15. Hezekiah's Great Works: Hezekiah (727-699 BC), his son, succeeded to the kingdom at a time of surpassing danger. Samaria, and with it the last of Israel's kingdom, had fallen. Assyria had with difficulty been bought off, the people were largely apostate, yet Jerusalem was never so great and so inviolate to prophetic eyes (Isaiah 7:4 f; Isaiah 8:8, 10; 10:28 f; Isaiah 14:25-32, etc.). Early in his reign, the uprising of the Chaldean Merodach-baladan against Assyria relieved Judah of her greatest danger, and Hezekiah entered into friendly relations with this new king of Babylon, showing his messengers all his treasures (Isaiah 39:1-2). At this time or soon after, Hezekiah appears to have undertaken great works in fitting his capital for the troubled times which lay before him. He sealed the waters of Gihon and brought them within the city to prevent the kings of Assyria from getting access to them (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:4, 30).
See SILOAM.
It is certain, if their tunnel was to be of any use, the southwestern hill must have been entirely enclosed, and it is at least highly probable that in the account (2 Chronicles 32:5), he "built up all the wall that was broken down, and built towers thereon (margin), and the other wall without," the last phrase may refer to the stretch of wall along the edge of the southwestern hill to Siloam. On the other hand, if that was the work of Solomon, "the other wall" may have been the great buttressed dam, with a wall across it which closed the mouth of the Tyropeon, which was an essential part of his scheme of preventing a besieging army from getting access to water. He also strengthened MILLO (which see), on the southeastern hill. Secure in these fortifications, which made Jerusalem one of the strongest walled cities in Western Asia, Hezekiah, assisted, as we learn from Sennacherib's descriptions, by Arab mercenaries, was able to buy off the great Assyrian king and to keep his city inviolate (2 Kings 18:13-16). A second threatened attack on the city appears to be referred to in 2 Kings 19:9-37.
16. His Religious Reforms: Hezekiah undertook reforms. "He removed the high places, and brake the pillars, and cut down the Asherah: and he brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made and .... he called it Nehushtan," i.e. a piece of brass (2 Kings 18:4).
Manasseh succeeded his father when but 12, and reigned 55 years (698-643) in Jerusalem (2 Kings 21:1). He was tributary to Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, as we know from their inscriptions; in one of the latter's he is referred to as king "of the city of Judah." The king of Assyria who, it is said (2 Chronicles 33:11; compare Ant, X, iii, 2 Chronicles 2:1-18), carried Manasseh in chains to Babylon, was probably Ashurbanipal. How thoroughly the country was permeated by Assyrian influence is witnessed by the two cuneiform tablets recently found at Gezer belonging to this Assyrian monarch's reign (PEFS, 1905, 206, etc.).
17. Manasseh's Alliance with Assyria: The same influence, extending to the religious sphere, is seen in the record (2 Kings 21:5) that Manasseh "built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of Yahweh." There are other references to the idolatrous practices introduced by this king (compare Jeremiah 7:18; 2 Kings 23:5, 11-12, etc.). He also filled Jerusalem from one end to the other with the innocent blood of martyrs faithful to Yahweh (2 Kings 21:16; compare Jeremiah 19:4). Probably during this long reign of external peace the population of the city much increased, particularly by the influx of foreigners from less isolated regions.
18. His Repair of the Walls: Of this king's improvements to the fortifications of Jerusalem we have the statement (2 Chronicles 33:14), "He built an outer wall to the city of David, on the west side of Gihon in the valley, even to the entrance at the fish gate." This must have been a new or rebuilt wall for the whole eastern side of the city. He also compassed about the OPHEL (which see) and raised it to a very great height.
Manasseh was the first of the Judahic kings to be buried away from the royal tombs. He was buried (as was his son Amon) "in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza" (2 Kings 21:18). These may be the tombs referred to (Ezekiel 43:7-9) as too near the temple precincts.
19. Josiah and Religious Reforms (640-609 BC): In the reign of Josiah was found the "Book of the Law," and the king in consequence instituted radical reforms (2 Kings 22:1-20; 2 Kings 23:1-37). Kidron smoked with the burnings of the Asherah and of the vessels of Baal, and Topheth in the Valley of Hinnom was defiled. At length after a reign of 31 years (2 Kings 23:29-30), Josiah, in endeavoring to intercept Pharaoh-necoh from combining with the king of Babylon, was defeated and slain at Megiddo and was buried "in his own sepulchre" in Jerusalem--probably in the same locality where his father and grandfather lay buried. Jehoahaz, after a reign of but 3 months, was carried captive (2 Kings 23:34) by Necoh to Egypt, where he died--and apparently was buried among strangers (Jeremiah 22:10-12). His brother Eliakim, renamed Jehoiakim, succeeded. In the 4th year of his reign, Egypt was defeated at Carchemish by the Babylonians, and as a consequence Jehoiakim had to change from subjection to Egypt to that of Babylon.
20. Jeremiah Prophesies the Approaching Doom: During this time Jeremiah was actively foretelling in streets and courts of Jerusalem (5:1, etc.) the approaching ruin of the city, messages which were received with contempt and anger by the king and court (Jeremiah 36:23). In consequence of his revolt against Babylon, bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites came against him (2 Kings 24:2), and his death was inglorious (2 Kings 24:6; Jeremiah 22:18-19).
21. Nebuchadnezzar Twice Takes Jerusalem (586 BC):
His son Jehoiachin, who succeeded him, went out with all his household and surrendered to the approaching Nebuchadnezzar (597), and was carried to Babylon where he passed more than 37 years (2 Kings 25:27-30). Jerusalem was despoiled of all its treasures and all its important inhabitants. The king of Babylon's nominee, Zedekiah, after 11 years rebelled against him, and consequently Jerusalem was besieged for a year and a half until "famine was sore in the city." On the 9th of Ab all the men of war "fled by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the king's garden," i.e. near the mouth of the Tyropeon, and the king "went by the way of the Arabah," but was overtaken and captured "in the plains of Jericho." A terrible punishment followed his faithlessness to Babylon (2 Kings 25:1-7). The city and the temple were despoiled and burnt; the walls of Jerusalem were broken down, and none but the poorest of the land "to be vinedressers and husbandmen" were left behind (2 Kings 25:8 f; 2 Chronicles 36:17 f). It is probable that the ark was removed also at this time.
22. Cyrus and the First Return (538 BC): With the destruction of their city, the hopes of the best elements in Judah turned with longing to the thought of her restoration. It is possible that some of the remnant left in the land may have kept up some semblance of the worship of Yahweh at the temple-site. At length, however, when in 538 Cyrus the Persian became master of the Babylonian empire, among many acts of a similar nature for the shrines of Assyrian and Babylonian gods, he gave permission to Jews to return to rebuild the house of Yahweh (Ezra 1:1 f). Over 40,000 (Ezra 1:1-11; Ezra 2:1-70) under Sheshbazzar, prince of Judah (Ezra 1:8, 11), governor of a province, returned, bringing with them the sacred vessels of the temple. The daily sacrifices were renewed and the feasts and fasts restored (Ezra 3:3-7), and later the foundations of the restored temple were laid (Ezra 3:10; 5:16), but on account of the opposition of the people of the land and the Samaritans, the building was not completed until 20 years later (Ezra 6:15).
23. Nehemiah Rebuilds the Walls: The graphic description of the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem in 445 by Nehemiah gives us the fullest account we have of these fortifications at any ancient period. It is clear that Nehemiah set himself to restore the walls, as far as possible, in their condition before the exile. The work was done hurriedly and under conditions of danger, half the workers being armed with swords, spears and bows to protect the others, and every workman was a soldier (Nehemiah 4:13, 16-21). The rebuilding took 52 days, but could not have been done at all had not much of the material lain to hand in the piles of ruined masonry. Doubtless the haste and limited resources resulted in a wall far weaker than that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed 142 years previously, but it followed the same outline and had the same general structure.
24. Bagohi Governor: For the next 100 years we have scarcely any historical knowledge of Jerusalem. A glimpse is afforded by the papyri of Elephantine where we read of a Jewish community in Upper Egypt petitioning Bagohi, the governor of Judea, for permission to rebuild their own temple to Yahweh in Egypt; incidentally they mention that they had already sent an unsuccessful petition to Johanan the high priest and his colleagues in Jerusalem. In another document we gather that this petition to the Persian governor was granted. These documents must date about 411-407 BC. Later, probably about 350, we have somewhat ambiguous references to the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of numbers of Jews in the time of Artaxerxes (III) Ochus (358-337 BC).
With the battle of Issus and Alexander's Palestinian campaign (circa 332 BC), we are upon surer historical ground, though the details of the account (Ant., XI, viii, 4) of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem itself are considered of doubtful authenticity.
25. Alexander the Great: After his death (323 BC), Palestine suffered much from its position, between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Antioch. Each became in turn its suzerain, and indeed at one time the tribute appears to have been divided between them (Ant., XII, iv, 1).
26. The Ptolemaic Rule: In 321 Ptolemy Soter invaded Palestine, and, it is said (Ant., XII, i, 1), captured Jerusalem by a ruse, entering the city on the Sabbath as if anxious to offer sacrifice. He carried away many of his Jewish prisoners to Egypt and settled them there. In the struggles between the contending monarchies, although Palestine suffered, the capital itself, on account of its isolated position, remained undisturbed, under the suzerainty of Egypt. In 217 BC, Ptolemy (IV) Philopator, after his victory over Antiochus III at Raphia, visited the temple at Jerusalem and offered sacrifices; he is reported (3 Maccabees 1) to have entered the "Holy of Holies." The comparative prosperity of the city during the Egyptian domination is witnessed to by Hecataeus of Abdera, who is quoted by Jos; he even puts the population of the city at 120,000, which is probably an exaggeration.
27. Antiochus the Great: At length in 198, Antiochus the Great having conquered Coele-Syria in the epoch-making battle at Banias, the Jews of their own accord went over to him and supplied his army with plentiful provisions; they assisted him in besieging the Egyptian garrison in the AKRA (which see) (Ant., XII, iii, 3). Josephus produces letters in which Antiochus records his gratification at the reception given him by the Jews and grants them various privileges (same place) . We have an account of the prosperity of the city about this time (190-180 BC) by Jesus ben Sira in the Book of Ecclus; it is a city of crowded life and manifold activities. He refers in glowing terms to the great high priest, Simon ben Onias (226-199 BC), who (Ecclesiasticus 50:1-4) had repaired and fortified the temple and strengthened the walls against a siege. The letter of Aristeas, dated probably at the close of this great man's life (circa 200 BC), gives a similar picture. It is here stated that the compass of the city was 40 stadia. The very considerable prosperity and religious liberty which the Jews had enjoyed under the Egyptians were soon menaced under the new ruler; the taxes were increased, and very soon fidelity to the tenets of Judaism came to be regarded as treachery to the Seleucid rule.
28. Hellenization of the City under Antiochus Epiphanes:
Under Antiochus Epiphanes the Hellenization of the nation grew apace (2 Maccabees 4:9-12; Ant, XII, v, 1); at the request of the Hellenizing party a "place of exercise" was erected in Jerusalem (1 Maccabees 1:14; 2 Maccabees 4:7 f). The Gymnasium was built and was soon thronged by young priests; the Greek hat--the petasos--became the fashionable headdress in Jerusalem. The Hellenistic party, which was composed of the aristocracy, was so loud in its professed devotion to the king's wishes that it is not to be wondered at that Antiochus, who, on a visit to the city, had been received with rapturous greetings, came to think that the poor and pious who resisted him from religious motives were largely infected with leanings toward his enemies in Egypt. The actual open rupture began when tidings reached Antiochus, after a victorious though politically barren campaign in Egypt, that Jerusalem had risen in his rear on behalf of the house of Ptolemy. Jason, the renegade high priest, who had been hiding across the Jordan, had, on the false report of the death of Antiochus, suddenly returned and re-possessed himself of the city. Only the Akra remained to Syria, and this was crowded with Menelaus and those of his followers who had escaped the sword of Jason.
29. Capture of the City (170 BC): Antiochus lost no time; he hastened (170 BC) against Jerusalem with a great army, captured the city, massacred the people and despoiled the temple (1 Maccabees 1:20-24; Ant, XII, v, 3). Two years later Antiochus, balked by Rome in Egypt (Polyb. xxix. 27; Livy xlv. 12), appears to have determined that in Jerusalem, at any rate, he would have no sympathizers with Egypt.
30. Capture of 168 BC: He sent his chief collector of tribute (1 Maccabees 1:29), who attacked the city with strong force and, by means of stratagem, entered it (1 Maccabees 1:30). After he had despoiled it, he set it on fire and pulled down both dwellings and walls. He massacred the men, and many of the women and children he sold as slaves (1 Maccabees 1:31-35; 2 Maccabees 5:24).
31. Attempted Suppression of Judaism: He sacrificed swine (or at least a sow) upon the holy altar, and caused the high priest himself--a Greek in all his sympathies--to partake of the impure sacrificial feasts; he tried by barbarous cruelties to suppress the ritual of circumcision (Ant., XII, v, 4). In everything he endeavored, in conjunction with the strong Hellenizing party, to organize Jerusalem as a Greek city, and to secure his position he built a strong wall, and a great tower for the Akra, and, having furnished it well with armor and victuals, he left a strong garrison (1 Maccabees 1:33-35). But the Syrians had overreached themselves this time, and the reaction against persecution and attempted religious suppression produced the great uprising of the Maccabeans.
32. The Maccabean Rebellion: The defeat and retirement of the Syrian commander Lysias, followed by the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, led to an entire reversal of policy on the part of the Council of the boy-king, Antiochus V. A general amnesty was granted, with leave to restore the temple-worship in its ancestral forms. The following year (165 BC) Judas Maccabeus found "the sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned, the gates burned up, and shrubs growing in the courts as in a forest . . . . and the priests' chambers pulled down" (1 Maccabees 4:38).
33. The Dedication of the Temple (165 BC): He at once saw to the reconstruction of the altar and restored the temple-services, an event celebrated ever after as the "Feast of the Dedication," or chanukkah (1 Maccabees 4:52-59; 2 Maccabees 10:1-11; Ant, XII, vii, 7; compare John 10:22). Judas also "builded up Mt. Zion," i.e. the temple-hill, making it a fortress with "high walls and strong towers round about," and set a garrison in it (1 Maccabees 4:41-61).
34. Defeat of Judas and Capture of the City: The Hellenizing party suffered in the reaction, and the Syrian garrison in the Akra, Syria's one hold on Judea, was closely invested, but though Judas had defeated three Syrian armies in the open, he could not expel this garrison. In 163 BC a great Syrian army, with a camel corps and many elephants, came to the relief of the hard-pressed garrison. Lysias, accompanied by the boy-king himself (Antiochus V), approached the city from the South via BETH-ZUR (which see). At Beth-zachariah the Jews were defeated, and Judas' brother Eleazar was slain, and Jerusalem was soon captured. The fort on Mt. Zion which surrounded the sanctuary was surrendered by treaty, but when the king saw its strength he broke his oath and destroyed the fortifications (1 Maccabees 6:62). But even in this desperate state Judas and his followers were saved. A certain pretender, Philip, raised a rebellion in a distant part of the empire, and Lysias was obliged to patch up a truce with the nationalist Jews more favorable to Judas than before his defeat; the garrison in the Akra remained, however, to remind the Jews that they were not independent. In 161 BC another Syrian general, Nicanor, was sent against Judas, but he was at first won over to friendship and when, later, at the instigation of the Hellenistic party, he was compelled to attack Judas, he did so with hastily raised levies and was defeated at Adasa, a little North of Jerusalem. Judas was, however, not long suffered to celebrate his triumph. A month later Bacchides appeared before Jerusalem, and in April, 161, Judas was slain in battle with him at Berea.
35. His Death (161 BC): Both the city and the land were re-garrisoned by Syrians; nevertheless, by 152, Jonathan, Judas' brother, who was residing at Michmash, was virtual ruler of the land, and by astute negotiation between Demetrius and Alexander, the rival claimants to the throne of Antioch, Jonathan gained more than any of his family had ever done. He was appointed high priest and strategos, or deputy for the king, in Judea. He repaired the city and restored the temple-fortress with squared stones (1 Maccabees 10:10-11).
36. Jonathan's Restorations: He made the walls higher and built up a great part of the eastern wall which had been destroyed and "repaired which was called Caphenatha" (1 Maccabees 12:36-37; Ant, XIII, v, ii); he also made a great mound between the Akra and the city to isolate the Syrian garrison (same place) .
37. Surrender of City to Antiochus Sidetes (134 BC):
Simon, who succeeded Jonathan, finally captured the Akra in 139, and, according to Josephus (Ant., XIII, vi, 7), not only destroyed it, but partially leveled the very hill on which it stood (see, however, 1 Maccabees 14:36, 37). John Hyrcanus, 5 years later (134 BC), was besieged in Jerusalem by Antiochus Sidetes in the 4th year of his reign; during the siege the Syrian king raised 100 towers each 3 stories high against the northern wall--possibly these may subsequently have been used for the foundations of the second wall. Antiochus was finally bought off by the giving of hostages and by heavy tribute, which Hyrcanus is said to have obtained by opening the sepulcher of David. Nevertheless the king "broke down the fortifications that encompassed the city" (Ant., XIII, viii, 2-4).
38. Hasmonean Buildings: During the more prosperous days of the Hasmonean rulers, several important buildings were erected. There was a great palace on the western (southwestern) hill overlooking the temple (Ant., XX, viii, 11), and connected with it at one time by means of a bridge across the Tyropeon, and on the northern side of the temple a citadel--which may (see VIII , 7 above) have been the successor of one here in pre-exilic times--known as the Baris; this, later on, Herod enlarged into the Antonia (Ant., XV, xi, 4; BJ, V, v, 8).
39. Rome's Intervention: In consequence of the quarrel of the later Hasmonean princes, further troubles fell upon the city. In 65 BC, Hyrcanus II, under the instigation of Antipas the Idumean, rebelled against his brother Aristobulus, to whom he had recently surrendered his claim to sovereignty. With the assistance of Aretas, king of the Nabateans, he besieged Aristobulus in the temple. The Roman general Scaurus, however, by order of Pompey, compelled Aretas to retire, and then lent his assistance to Aristobulus, who overcame his brother (Ant., XIV, ii, 1-3). Two years later (63 BC) Pompey, having been met by the ambassadors of both parties, bearing presents, as well as of the Pharisees, came himself to compose the quarrel of the rival factions, and, being shut out of the city, took it by storm.
40. Pompey Takes the City by Storm: He entered the "Holy of Holies," but left the temple treasures unharmed. The walls of the city were demolished; Hyrcanus II was reinstated high priest, but Aristobulus was carried a prisoner to Rome, and the city became tributary to the Roman Empire (Ant., XIV, iv, 1-4; BJ, I, vii, 1-7). The Syrian proconsul, M. Lucinius Crassus, going upon his expedition against the Parthians in 55 BC, carried off from the temple the money which Pompey had left (Ant., XIV, vii, 1).
41. Julius Caesar Appoints Antipater Procurator (47 BC):
In 47 BC Antipater, who for 10 years had been gaining power as a self-appointed adviser to the weak Hyrcanus, was made a Roman citizen and appointed procurator in return for very material services which he had been able to render to Julius Caesar in Egypt (Ant., XIV, viii, 1, 3, 5); at the same time Caesar granted to Hyrcanus permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem besides other privileges (Ant., XIV, x, 5). Antipater made his eldest son, Phaselus, governor of Jerusalem, and committed Galilee to the care of his able younger son, Herod.
42. Parthian Invasion: In 40 BC Herod succeeded his father as procurator of Judea by order of the Roman Senate, but the same year the Parthians under Pacorus and Barzapharnes captured and plundered Jerusalem (Ant., XIV, xiii, 3,1) and re-established Antigonus (Jewish Wars, I, xiii, 13). Herod removed his family and treasures to Massada and, having been appointed king of Judea by Antony, returned, after various adventures, in 37 BC. Assisted by Sosius, the Roman proconsul, he took Jerusalem by storm after a 5 months siege; by the promise of liberal reward he restrained the soldiers from sacking the city (Ant., XIV, xvi, 2-3).
43. Reign of Herod the Great (37-4 BC): During the reign of this great monarch Jerusalem assumed a magnificence surpassing that of all other ages. In 24 BC the king built his vast palace in the upper city on the southwestern hill, near where today are the Turkish barracks and the Armenian Quarter. He rebuilt the fortress to the North of the temple--the ancient Baris--on a great scale with 4 lofty corner towers, and renamed it the Antonia in honor of his patron. He celebrated games in a new theater, and constructed a hippodrome (Jewish Wars, II, iii, 1) or amphitheater (Antiquities, XV, viii, 1).
44. Herod's Great Buildings: He must necessarily have strengthened and repaired the walls, but such work was outshone by the 4 great towers which he erected, Hippicus, Pharsel and Mariamne, near the present Jaffa Gate--the foundations of the first two Great are supposed to be incorporated in the present so-called "Tower of David"--and the lofty octagonal tower, Psephinus, farther to the Northwest. The development of Herod's plans for the reconstruction of the temple was commenced in 19 BC, but they were not completed till 64 AD (John 2:20; Matthew 24:1-2; Luke 21:5-6). The sanctuary itself was built by 1,000 specially trained priests within a space of 18 months (11-10 BC). The conception was magnificent, and resulted in a mass of buildings of size and beauty far surpassing anything that had stood there before. Practically all the remains of the foundations of the temple-enclosure now surviving in connection with the Charam belong to this period. In 4 BC--the year of the Nativity--occurred the disturbances following upon the destruction of the Golden Eagle which Herod had erected over the great gate of the temple, and shortly afterward Herod died, having previously shut up many of the leading Jews in the hippodrome with orders that they should be slain when he passed away (Jewish Wars, I, xxxiii, 6). The accession of Archelaus was signalized by Passover riots which ended in the death of 3,000, an after-result of the affair of the Golden Eagle.
45. Herod Archelaus (4 BC-6 AD): Thinking that order had been restored, Archelaus set out for Rome to have his title confirmed. During his absence Sabinus, the Roman procurator, by mismanagement and greed, raised the city about his ears, and the next Passover was celebrated by a massacre, street fighting and open robbery. Varus, the governor of Syria, who had hastened to the help of his subordinate, suppressed the rebellion with ruthless severity and crucified 2,000 Jews. Archelaus returned shortly afterward as ethnarch, an office which he retained until his exile in 6 AD. During the procuratorship of Coponius (6-10 AD) another Passover riot occurred in consequence of the aggravating conduct of some Samaritans.
46. Pontius Pilate: During the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate (26-37 AD) there were several disturbances, culminating in a riot consequent upon his taking some of the "corban" or sacred offerings of the temple for the construction of an aqueduct (Ant., XVIII, iii, 2)--probably part at least of the "lowlevel aqueduct" (see VII , 15, above). Herod Agrippa I enclosed the suburbs, which had grown up North of the second wall and of the temple, by what Josephus calls the "Third Wall" (see V, above).
47. King Agrippa: His son, King Agrippa, built--about 56 AD--a large addition to the old Hasmonean palace, from which he could overlook the temple area. This act was a cause of offense to the Jews who built a wall on the western boundary of the Inner Court to shut off his view. In the quarrel which ensued the Jews were successful in gaining the support of Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 11). In 64 AD the long rebuilding of the temple-courts, which had been begun in 19 BC, was concluded. The 18,000 workmen thrown out of employment appear to have been given "unemployed work" in "paving the city with white stone" (Ant., XX, ix, 6-7).
48. Rising against Florus and Defeat of Gallus: Finally the long-smoldering discontent of the Jews against the Romans burst forth into open rebellion under the criminal incompetence of Gessius Florus, 66 AD (Ant., XX, xi, 1). Palaces and public buildings were fired by the angered multitude, and after but two days' siege, the Antonia itself was captured, set on fire and its garrison slain (Jewish Wars, II, xvii, 6-7). Cestius Gallus, hastening from Syria, was soon engaged in a siege of the city. The third wall was captured and the suburb BEZETHA (which see) burnt, but, when about to renew the attack upon the second wall, Gallus appears to have been seized with panic, and his partial withdrawal developed into an inglorious retreat in which he was pursued by the Jews down the pass to the Beth-horons as far as Antipatris (Jewish Wars, II, xix).
49. The City Besieged by Titus (70 AD): This victory cost the Jews dearly in the long run, as it led to the campaign of Vespasian and the eventual crushing of all their national hopes. Vespasian commenced the conquest in the north, and advanced by slow and certain steps. Being recalled to Rome as emperor in the midst of the war, the work of besieging and capturing the city itself fell to his son Titus. None of the many calamities which had happened to the city are to be compared with this terrible siege. In none had the city been so magnificent, its fortifications so powerful, its population so crowded. It was Passover time, but, in addition to the crowds assembled for this event, vast numbers had hurried there, flying from the advancing Roman army. The loss of life was enormous; refugees to Titus gave 600,000 as the number dead (Jewish Wars, V, xiii, 7), but this seems incredible. The total population today within the walls cannot be more than 20,000, and the total population of modern Jerusalem, which covers a far greater area than that of those days, cannot at the most liberal estimate exceed 80,000. Three times this, or, say, a quarter of a million, seems to be the utmost that is credible, and many would place the numbers at far less.
50. Party Divisions within the Besieged Walls: The siege commenced on the 14th of Nisan, 70 AD, and ended on the 8th of Elul, a total of 134 days. The city was distracted by internal feuds. Simon held the upper and lower cities; John of Gischala, the temple and "Ophel"; the Idumeans, introduced by the Zealots, fought only Walls for themselves, until they relieved the city of their terrors. Yet another party, too weak to make its counsels felt, was for peace with Rome, a policy which, if taken in time, would have found in Titus a spirit of reason and mercy. The miseries of the siege and the destruction of life and property were at least as much the work of the Jews themselves as of their conquerors. On the 15th day of the siege the third wall (Agrippa's), which had been but hastily finished upon the approach of the Romans, was captured; the second wall was finally taken on the 24th day; on the 72nd day the Antonia fell, and 12 days later the daily sacrifice ceased. On the 105th day--the ominous 9th of Ab--the temple and the lower city were burnt, and the last day found the whole city in flames.
51. Capture and Utter Destruction of the City: Only the three great towers of Herod, Hippicus, Pharsel and Mariamne, with the western walls, were spared to protect the camp of the Xth Legion which was left to guard the site, and "in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was and how well fortified"; the rest of the city was dug up to its foundations (Jewish Wars, VII, i, 1).
52. Rebellion of Bar-Cochba: For 60 years after its capture silence reigns over Jerusalem. We know that the site continued to be garrisoned, but it was not to any extent rebuilt. In 130 AD it was visited by Hadrian, who found but few buildings standing. Two years later (132-35 AD) occurred the last great rebellion of the Jews in the uprising of Bar-Cocha ("son of a star"), who was encouraged by the rabbi Akiba. With the suppression of this last effort for freedom by Julius Severus, the remaining traces of Judaism were stamped out, and it is even said (the Jerusalem Talmud, Ta`anith 4) that the very site of the temple was plowed up by T. Annius Rufus; An altar of Jupiter was placed upon the temple-site, and Jews were excluded from Jerusalem on pain of death.
53. Hadrian Builds AElia Capitolina: In 138 Hadrian rebuilt the city, giving it the name AElia Capitolina. The line of the Southern wall of AElia was probably determined by the southern fortification of the great Roman legionary camp on the western (southwestern) hill, and it is probable that it was the general line of the existing southern wall. At any rate, we know that the area occupied by the coenaculum and the traditional "Tomb of David" was outside the walls in the 4th century. An equestrian statue of Hadrian was placed on the site of the "Holy of Holies" (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 2:8; Matthew 24:15). An inscription now existing in the southern wall of the temple-area, in which occurs the name of Hadrian, may have belonged to this monument, while a stone head, discovered in the neighborhood of Jerusalem some 40 years ago, may have belonged to the statue. Either Hadrian himself, or one of the Antonine emperors, erected a temple of Venus on the northwestern hill, where subsequently was built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Euseb., Life of Constantine, III, 36). The habit of pilgrimage to the holy sites, which appears to have had its roots far back in the 2nd century (see Turner, Journal of Theological Studies, I, 551, quoted by Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 75-76), seems to have increasingly flourished in the next two centuries; beyond this we know little of the city.
54. Constantine Builds the Church of the Anastasis:
In 333 AD, by order of Constantine, the new church of the Anastasis, marking the supposed site of the Holy Sepulchre, was begun. The traditions regarding this site and the Holy Cross alleged to have been found there, are recorded some time after the events and are of doubtful veracity. The building must have been magnificent, and covered a considerably larger area than that of the existing church. In 362 Julian is said to have attempted to rebuild the temple, but the work was interrupted by an explosion. The story is doubtful.
At some uncertain date before 450 the coenaculum and "Church of the Holy Zion" were incorporated within the walls. This is the condition depicted in the Madeba Mosaic and also that described by Eucherius who, writing between 345-50 AD, states that the circuit of the walls "now receives within itself Mt. Zion, which was once outside, and which, lying on the southern side, overhangs the city like a citadel." It is possible this was the work of the emperor Valentinian who is known to have done some reconstruction of the walls.
55. The Empress Eudoxia Rebuilds the Walls: In 450 the empress Eudoxia, the widow of Theodosius II, took up her residence in Jerusalem and rebuilt the walls upon their ancient lines, bringing the whole of the southwestern hill, as well as the Pool of Siloam, within the circuit (Evagarius, Hist. Eccles., I, 22). At any rate, this inclusion of the pool existed in the walls described by Antoninus Martyr in 560 AD, and it is confirmed by Bliss's work (see aboveVI , 4). She also built the church of Stephen, that at the Pool of Siloam and others.
56. Justinian: The emperor Justinian, who was perhaps the greatest of the Christian builders, erected the great Church of Mary, the remains of which are now considered by some authorities to be incorporated in the el Aqsa Mosque; he built also a "Church of Sophia" in the "Pretorian," i.e. on the site of the Antonia (see, however, PRAETORIUM), and a hospital to the West of the temple. The site of the temple itself appears to have remained in ruins down to the 7th century.
57. Chosroes II Captures the City: In 614 Palestine was conquered by the Persian Chosroes II, and the Jerusalem churches, including that of the Holy Sepulchre, were destroyed, an event which did much to prepare the way for the Moslem architects of half a century later, who freely used the columns of these ruined churches in the building of the "Dome of the Rock."
58. Heracleus Enters It in Triumph: In 629 Heracleus, having meanwhile made peace with the successor of Chosroes II, reached Jerusalem in triumph, bearing back the captured fragment of the cross. He entered the city through the "Golden Gate," which indeed is believed by many to have reached its present form through his restorations. The triumph of Christendom was but short. Seven years earlier had occurred the historic flight of Mohammed from Mecca (the Hegira), and in 637 the victorious followers of the Prophet appeared in the Holy City. After a short siege, it capitulated, but the khalif Omar treated the Christians with generous mercy.
59. Clemency of Omar: The Christian sites were spared, but upon the temple-site, which up to this had apparently been occupied by no important Christian building but was of peculiar sanctity to the Moslems through Mohammed's alleged visions there, a wooden mosque was erected, capable of accommodating 3,000 worshippers. This was replaced in 691 AD by the magnificent Kubbet es Sakah], or "Dome of the Rock," built by `Abd'ul Malek, the 10th khalif. For some centuries the relations of the Christians and Moslems appear to have been friendly: the historian el Muqaddasi, writing in 985, describes the Christians and Jews as having the upper hand in Jerusalem. In 969 Palestine passed into the power of the Egyptian dynasty, and in 1010 her ruler, the mad Hakim, burnt many of the churches, which, however, were restored in a poor way.
60. The Seljuk Turks and Their Cruelties: In 1077 Isar el Atsis, a leader of the Seljuk Turks conquered Palestine from the North, drove out the Egyptians and massacred 3,000 of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The cruelty of the Turks--in contrast, be it noted, with the conduct of the Arab Moslems--was the immediate cause of the Crusades. In 1098 the city was retaken by the Egyptian Arabs, and the following year was again captured after a 40 days' seige by the soldiers of the First Crusade, and Godfrey de Bouillon became the first king. Great building activity marked the next 80 peaceful years of Latin rule: numbers of churches were built, but, until toward the end of this period, the walls were neglected.
61. Crusaders Capture the City in 1099: In 1177 they were repaired, but 10 years later failed to resist the arms of the victorious Saladin. The city surrendered, but City the inhabitants were spared. In 1192 Saladin repaired the walls, but in 1219 they were dismantled by orders of the sultan of Damascus. In 1229 the emperor Frederick II of Germany obtained the Holy City by treaty, on condition that he did not restore the fortifications, a stipulation which, being broken by the inhabitants 10 years later, brought down upon them the vengeance of the emir of Kerak. Nevertheless, in 1243 the city was again restored to the Christians unconditionally.
62. The Kharizimians: The following year, however, the Kharizimian Tartars--a wild, savage horde from Central Asia--burst into Palestine, carrying destruction before them; they seized Jerusalem, massacred the people, and rifled the tombs of the Latin kings. Three years later they were ejected from Palestine by the Egyptians who in their turn retained it until, in 1517, they were conquered by the Ottoman Turks, who still hold it. The greatest of their sultans, Suleiman the Magnificent, built the present walls in 1542.
63. Ottoman Turks Obtain the City (1517 AD): In 1832 Mohammed Ali with his Egyptian forces came and captured the city, but 2 years later the fellahin rose against his rule and for a time actually gained possession of the city, except the citadel, making their entrance through the main drain. The besieged citadel was relieved by the arrival of Ibrahim Pasha from Egypt with reinforcements. The city and land were restored to the Ottoman Turks by the Great Powers in 1840.
X. Modern Jerusalem. 1. Jews and "Zionism": The modern city of Jerusalem has about 75,000 inhabitants, of whom over two-thirds are Jews. Until about 50 years ago the city was confined within its 16th-century walls, the doors of its gates locked every night, and even here there were considerable areas unoccupied. Since then, and particularly during the last 25 years, there has been a rapid growth of suburbs to the North, Northwest, and West of the old city. This has been largely due to the steady stream of immigrant Jews from every part of the world, particularly from Russia, Romania, Yemin, Persia, Bokhara, the Caucasus, and from all parts of the Turkish empire. This influx of Jews, a large proportion of whom are extremely poor, has led to settlements or "colonies" of various classes of Jews being erected all over the plateau to the North--an area never built upon before--but also on other sides of the city. With the exception of the Bokhara Colony, which has some fine buildings and occupies a lofty and salubrious situation, most of the settlements are mean cottages or ugly almshouses. With the exception of a couple of hospitals, there is no Jewish public building of any architectural pretensions. The "Zionist" movement, which has drawn so many Jews to Jerusalem, cannot be called a success, as far as this city is concerned, as the settlers and their children as a rule either steadily deteriorate physically and morally--from constant attacks of malaria, combined with pauperism and want of work--or, in the case of the energetic and enlightened, they emigrate--to America especially; this emigration has been much stimulated of late by the new law whereby Jews and Christians must now, like Moslems, do military service.
The foreign Christian population represents all nations and all sects; the Roman church is rapidly surpassing all other sects or religions in the importance of their buildings. The Russians are well represented by their extensive enclosure, which includes a large cathedral, a hospital, extensive hospice in several blocks, and a handsome residence for the consul-general, and by the churches and other buildings on the Mount of Olives. The Germans have a successful colony belonging to the "Temple" sect to the West of Jerusalem near the railway station, and are worthily represented by several handsome buildings, e.g. the Protestant "Church of the Redeemer," built on the site and on the ground plan of a fine church belonging to the Knights of John, the new (Roman Catholic) Church of the Dormition on "Mount Zion," with an adjoining Benedictine convent, a very handsome Roman Catholic hospice outside the Damascus Gate, the Kaiserin Augusta Victoria Sanatorium on the Mount of Olives, and a Protestant Johanniter Hospice in the city, a large general hospital and a leper hospital, a consulate and two large schools. In influence, both secular and religious, the Germans have rapidly gained ground in the last 2 decades. British influence has much diminished, relatively.
2. Christian Buildings and Institutions: The British Ophthalmic Hospital, belonging to the "Order of the Knights of John," the English Mission Hospital, belonging to the London Jews Society, the Bishop Gobat's School and English College connected with the Church Missionary Society, 3 Anglican churches, of which the handsome George's Collegiate Church adjoins the residence of the Anglican bishop, and a few small schools comprise the extent of public buildings connected with British societies. France and the Roman Catholic church are worthily represented by the Dominican monastery and seminary connected with the handsome church of Stephen--rebuilt on the plan of an old Christian church--by the Ratisbon (Jesuit) Schools, the Hospital of Louis, the hospice and Church of Augustine, and the monastery and seminary of the "white fathers" or Freres de la mission algerienne, whose headquarters center round the beautifully restored Church of Anne. Not far from here are the convent and school of the Saeurs de Sion, at the Ecce Homo Church. Also inside the walls near the New Gate is the residence of the Latin Patriarch--a cardinal of the Church of Rome--with a church, the school of the Freres de la doctrine chretienne, and the schools, hospital and convent of the Franciscans, who are recognized among their co-religionists as the "parish priests" in the city, having been established there longer than the numerous other orders.
All the various nationalities are under their respective consuls and enjoy extra-territorial rights. Besides the Turkish post-office, which is very inefficiently managed, the Austrians, Germans, French, Russians and Italians all have post-offices open to all, with special "Levant" stamps. The American mail is delivered at the French post-office. There are four chief banks, French, German, Ottoman and Anglo-Palestinian (Jewish). As may be supposed, on account of the demand for land for Jewish settlements or for Christian schools or convents, the price of such property has risen enormously. Unfortunately in recent years all owners of land--and Moslems have not been slow to copy the foreigners--have taken to enclosing their property with high and unsightly walls, greatly spoiling both the walks around the city and the prospects from many points of view. The increased development of carriage traffic has led to considerable dust in the dry season, and mud in winter, as the roads are metaled with very soft limestone. The Jerus-Jaffa Railway (a French company), 54 miles long, which was opened in 1892, has steadily increased its traffic year by year, and is now a very paying concern. There is no real municipal water-supply, and no public sewers for the new suburbs--though the old city is drained by a leaking, ill-constructed medieval sewer, which opens just below the Jewish settlement in the Kidron and runs down the Wady en Nauru. A water-supply, new Sewers, electric trams and electric lights for the streets, are all much-talked-of improvements. There are numerous hotels, besides extensive accommodations in the religious hospices, and no less than 15 hospitals and asylums.
LITERATURE.
This is enormous, but of very unequal value and much of it out of date. For all purposes the best book of reference is Jerusalem from the Earliest Times to AD 70, 2 volumes, by Principal G.A. Smith. It contains references to all the literature. To this book and to its author it is impossible for the present writer adequately to express his indebtedness, and no attempt at acknowledgment in detail has been made in this article. In supplement of the above, Jerusalem, by Dr. Selah Merrill, and Jerusalem in Bible Times, by Professor Lewis B. Paton, will be found useful. The latter is a condensed account, especially valuable for its illustrations and its copious references. Of the articles in the recent Bible Dictionaries on Jerusalem, that by Conder in HDB is perhaps the most valuable. Of guide-books, Baedeker's Guide to Palestine and Syria (1911), by Socin and Benzinger, and Barnabe Meistermann's (R.C.) New Guide to the Holy Land (1909), will be found useful; also Hanauer's Walks about Jerusalem.
On Geology, Climate and Water-Supply:
Hull's "Memoir on Physical Geography and Geology of Arabian Petrea, Palestine, and Adjoining Districts," PEF; and Blankenhorn," Geology of the Nearer Environs of Jerusalem," ZDPV, 1905; Chaplin, "Climate of Jerusalem," PEFS, 1883; Glaisher, "Meteorol. Observations in Palestine," special pamphlet of the Palestine Exploration Fund; Hilderscheid, "Die Niederschlagsverhaltnisse Palestine in alter u. neuer Zeit," ZDPV (1902); Huntington, Palestine and Its Transformation (1911); Andrew Watt, "Climate in Hebron," etc., Journal of the Scottish Meteorological Society (1900-11); Schick, "Die Wasserversorgung der Stadt Jerusalem," ZDPV, 1878; Wilson "Water Supply of Jerusalem," Proceedings of the Victoria Institute, 1906; Masterman, in Biblical World, 1905.
On Archaeology and Topography:
PEF, volume on Jerusalem, with accompanying maps and plans; Clermont-Ganneau, Archaeological Researches, I, 1899 (PEF); William, Holy City (1849); Robinson, Biblical Researches (1856); Wilson, Recovery of Jerusalem (1871); Warren Underground Jerusalem (1876); Vincent, Underground Jerusalem (1911); Guthe, "Ausgrabungen in Jerusalem," ZDPV, V; Bliss and Dickie, Excavations in Jerusalem (1894-97); Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels (1903); Mitchell, "The Wall of Jerusalem according to the Book of Neh," JBL (1903); Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre (1906); Kuemmel, Materialien z. Topographie des alten Jerusalem; also numerous reports in the PEFS; Zeitschrift des deutschen Palestine Vereins; and the Revue biblique.
On History:
Besides Bible, Apocrypha, works of Josephus, and History of Tacitus: Besant and Palmer, History of Jerusalem; Conder, Judas Maccabeus and Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem; Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems (1890); C.F. Kent, Biblical Geography and History (1911). Bevan, Jerusalem under the High-Priests; Watson, The Story of Jerusalem.
E. W. G. Masterman
Jerusalem, New
Jerusalem, New - (Hierousalem kaine): This name occurs in Revelation 21:2 (Revelation 21:10, "holy city"). The conception is based on prophecies which predict a glorious future to Jerusalem after the judgment (Isaiah 52:1). In Revelation, however, it is not descriptive of any actual locality on earth, but allegorically depicts the final state of the church ("the bride," "the wife of the Lamb," Revelation 21:2, 9), when the new heaven and the new earth shall have come into being. The picture is drawn from a twofold point of view: the new Jerusalem is a restoration of Paradise (Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:1-2, 14); it is also the ideal of theocracy realized (Revelation 21:3, 12, 14, 22). The latter viewpoint explains the peculiar representation that the city descends "out of heaven from God" (Revelation 21:2, 10), which characterizes it as, on the one hand, a product of God's supernatural workmanship, and as, on the other hand, the culmination of the historic process of redemption. In other New Testament passages, where theocratic point of view is less prominent, the antitypical Jerusalem appears as having its seat in heaven instead of, as here, coming down from heaven to earth (compare Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 11:10; 12:22).
See also REVELATION OF JOHN.
Geerhardus Vos
Jerusha
Jerusha - je-roo'-sha (yerusha', "taken possession of," i.e. "married"): In 2 Kings 15:33 = "Jerushah" (yerushah, same meaning) of 2 Chronicles 27:1, the mother of King Jotham of Judah. Zadok was her father's name; he may be the priest of 1 Chronicles 6:12 (Hebrews 5:14).
Jeshaiah
Jeshaiah - je-sha'-ya, je-shi'-a ((a) yesha`yahu; (b) yesha`yah, "deliverance of Yah"; (2) (3) below have form (a), the others form (b)):
(1) Son of Hananiah, and grandson of Zerubbabel, according to 1 Chronicles 3:21, the King James Version "Jesaiah."
But commentators follow Hebrew (and the Revised Version margin) in the first part of the verse, and Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac in the second part, thus reading, "And the son of Hananiah (was) Pelatiah, and Jeshaiah (was) his son, and Arnan his son," etc., thus making Jeshaiah a grandson of Hananiah.
(2) A "son" of Jeduthun, and like him a temple musician; head of the family of that name (1 Chronicles 25:3, 15).
(3) A Levite, ancestor of Shelemoth, one of David's treasurers (1 Chronicles 26:25).
(4) A descendant of Elam; he went with Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:7) = "Jesias" (Revised Version), "Josias" (the King James Version), 1 Esdras 8:33.
(5) A descendant of Merari and a contemporary of Ezra (Ezra 8:19) = "Osaias" of 1 Esdras 8:48.
(6) A Benjamite (Nehemiah 11:7), the King James Version "Jesaiah."
David Francis Roberts
Jeshanah
Jeshanah - jesh'-a-na, je-sha'-na (yeshanah): A town named with Bethel and Ephron among the places taken by Abijah from Jeroboam (2 Chronicles 13:19). Most scholars are agreed that the same name should be read instead of ha-shen, in 1 Samuel 7:12. It is probably identical with the Isanas, of Josephus (Ant., XIV, xv, 12). It is represented by the modern `Ain Sinia, 3 1/4 miles North of Bethel, with a spring and interesting ancient remains.
Jesharelah
Jesharelah - jesh-a-re'-la (yesar'elah, meaning doubtful): One of the (or probably a family of) Levitical musicians (1 Chronicles 25:14), called "Asharelah" in verse 2. The names should be written "Asarelah" and "Jesarelah."
Jeshebeab
Jeshebeab - je-sheb'-e-ab (yeshebh'abh, meaning uncertain): A Levite of the 14th course (1 Chronicles 24:13). Kittel and Gray (HPN, 24) read with Septuagint, A, "Ishbaal"; the name is omitted in Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus) and the change in Massoretic Text as well as the omission in Septuagint may be due to the word ba`al forming part of the name. Compare JERUBBESHETH.
Jesher
Jesher - je'-sher (yesher, or yesher, "uprightness"): A son of Caleb (1 Chronicles 2:18).
Jeshimon
Jeshimon - je-she'-mon, jesh'-i-mon (ha-yeshimon, "the desert," and in the Revised Version (British and American) so translated but in the King James Version, Numbers 21:20; 23:28; 1 Samuel 23:19, 24; 1, 3, "Jeshimon" as a place-name. In Numbers, the Septuagint reads he eremos, "the desert"; in 1 Samuel, the Septuagint reads Iessaimon): In these passages probably two districts are referred to: (1) The "desert" North of the Dead Sea, which was overlooked from Pisgah (Numbers 21:20; 23:28). This is the bare and sterile land, saturated with salt, lying on each side of the Jordan North of the Dead Sea, where for miles practically no vegetable life can exist. (2) The sterile plateau West of the steep cliffs bordering the western shores of the Dead Sea. Here between the lower slopes of the Judean hills, where thousands of Bedouin live and herd their flocks, and the more fertile borders of the sea with their oases (`Ain Feshkhah, `Ain Jidy, etc.), is a broad strip of utterly waterless land, the soft chalky hills of which are, for all but a few short weeks, destitute of practically any vegetation. The Hill of Hachilah was on the edge of this desert (1 Samuel 23:19; 1, 3), and the Arabah was to its south (1 Samuel 23:24). It is possible that the references in Numbers may also apply to this region.
The word "Jeshimon" (yeshimon) is often used as a common noun in referring to the desert of Sinai (Deuteronomy 32:10; Psalms 78:40; 106:14; Isaiah 43:19, etc.), and except in the first two of these references, when we have "wilderness," it is always translated "desert." Although used in 7 passages in poetical parallelism to midhbar, translated "wilderness," it really means a much more hopeless place; in a midhbar animals can be pastured, but a yeshimon is a desolate waste.
E. W. G. Masterman
Jeshishai
Jeshishai - je-shish'-a-i (yeshishay, "aged"): A Gadite chief (and family?) (1 Chronicles 5:14).
Jeshohaiah
Jeshohaiah - jesh-o-ha'-ya, jesh-o-hi'-a (yeshochayah, meaning unknown): A prince in Simeon (1 Chronicles 4:36).
Jeshua
Jeshua - jesh'-u-a, je-shu'-a (yeshua`): A place occupied by the children of Judah after their return from captivity (Nehemiah 11:26), evidently, from the places named with it, in the extreme South of Judah. It may correspond with the Shema of Joshua 15:26, and possibly to the Sheba of Joshua 19:2. The site may be Khirbet Sa`weh, a ruin upon a prominent hill, Tell es Sa`weh, 12 miles East-Northeast of Beersheba. The hill is surrounded by a wall of large blocks of stone. PEF, III, 409-10, Sh XXV.
Jeshua; Jeshuah
Jeshua; Jeshuah - jesh'-u-a, je-shu'-a (yeshua`, "Yahweh is deliverance" or "opulence"; compare JOSHUA):
(1) the King James Version "Jeshuah," head of the 9th course of priests, and possibly of "the house of Jeshua" (1 Chronicles 24:11; Ezra 2:36; Nehemiah 7:39).
(2) A Levite of Hezekiah's time (2 Chronicles 31:15).
(3) Son of Jozadak = Joshua the high priest (Ezra 2:2; 2, 8; 4:3; 5:2; 10:18; Nehemiah 7:7; 1, 7, 10, 26); see JOSHUA(4) = "Jesus" (1 Esdras 5:48 and Sirach 49:12).
(4) A man of Pahath-moab, some of whose descendants returned from Babylon to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:6; Nehemiah 7:11) = "Jesus" (1 Esdras 58).
(5) Head of a Levitical house which had oversight of the workmen in the temple (Ezra 2:40; 3:9; Nehemiah 7:43). He is mentioned again in Nehemiah 8:7 as taking part in explaining the Torah to the people, in Nehemiah 9:4 f (compare Nehemiah 12:8) as leading in the worship, and in Nehemiah 10:9 (Hebrews 10:1-39) as sealing the covenant; this Jeshua is called son of Azaniah (Nehemiah 10:9). To these references should be added probably Nehemiah 12:24, where commentators read, "Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel" for "Jeshua the son of Kadmiel." Perhaps Jozabad (Ezra 8:33) is a "son" of this same Jeshua; compare Ezra 8:33 = 1 Esdras 8:63, where the King James Version is "Jesu," the Revised Version (British and American) "Jesus." He is the same as Jessue (the King James Version), Jesus (Revised Version) (1 Esdras 5:26).
(6) Father of Ezer, a repairer of the wall (Nehemiah 3:19).
(7) JOSHUA, son of Nun (Nehemiah 8:17) (which see).
David Francis Roberts
Jeshurun
Jeshurun - je-shu'-run, jesh'-u-run (yeshurun, "upright one," Deuteronomy 32:15; 5, 26; Isaiah 44:2): Septuagint translates it "the beloved one" egapemenos, the perfect participle passive of agapao), and in Isaiah 44:2 adds "Israel"; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has dilectus in Deuteronomy 32:15, elsewhere rectissimus; Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion have "upright." For the form, Duhm compares zebhulun, Zebulun. (1) The name used to be explained as a diminutive form, a pet name, and some, e.g. Cornill, Schultz (Old Testament Theology, English translation, II, 29, note 12) still explain it so, "the righteous little people." But there is no evidence that the ending -un had a diminutive force. (2) Most moderns take it as a poetical or ideal title of Israel, derived from yashar, "upright"; it is held to contain a tacit reference to the word Israel (yisra'el), of which the first three consonants are almost the same as those of "Jeshurun"; in Numbers 23:10 the term "the righteous ones" (yesharim) is supposed to contain a similar reference. Most commentators compare also "the Book of Jashar," and it has been held that "Jashar" is similarly a name by which Israel is called.
See JASHAR.
Following Bacher (ZATW, 1885, 161 ff), commentators hold that in Isaiah this new name, a coinage due to the author of Second Isaiah and adopted in Deuteronomy, stands in contrast to Jacob, "the supplanter," as his name was explained by the Hebrews (compare Hosea 12:2-4). Israel is here given a new name, "the upright, pious one," and with the new name goes new chance in life, to live up to its meaning. Driver (Deuteronomy, 361) says that in Deuteronomy 32:15 "where the context is of declension from its ideal (it is) applied reproachfully. `Nomen Recti pro Israele ponens, ironice eos perstringit qui a rectitudine defecerant' (Calv.). Elsewhere it is used as a title of honor." the King James Version has "Jesurun" in Isaiah 44:2.
David Francis Roberts
Jesiah
Jesiah - je-si'-a (1 Chronicles 23:20 the King James Version).
See ISSHIAH.
Jesias
Jesias - je-si'-as (Iesias; the King James Version Josias (1 Esdras 8:33)): Corresponding to Jeshaiah, son of Athaliah (Ezra 8:7).
Jesimiel
Jesimiel - je-sim'-i-el (yesimi'el, "God establishes"): A prince of Simeon (1 Chronicles 4:36).
Jesse
Jesse - jes'-e (yishay, meaning doubtful; according to Gesenius it = "wealthy"; Olshausen, Gram., sections 277 f, conjectures yesh yah, "Yahweh exists"; Wellhausen (1 Samuel 14:49) explains it as 'abhishay (see ABISHAI); Iessai; Ruth 4:17, 22; 1 Samuel 16:1-23; 1 Samuel 17:1-58; 1 Samuel 20:1-42; 1 Samuel 22:1-23; 25:10; 2 Samuel 20:1; 23:1; 1 Kings 12:16; 1 Chronicles 10:14; 12:18; Psalms 72:20; Isaiah 11:1, 10 ( = Romans 15:12)); Matthew 1:5-6; Acts 13:22): Son of Obed, grandson of Boaz, and father of King David. The grouping of the references to Jesse in 1 Sam is bound up with that of the grouping of the whole narrative of David and Saul. See SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. There seem to be three main veins in the narrative, so far as Jesse is concerned.
(1) In 1 Samuel 16:1-13, where Jesse is called the Bethlehemite. Samuel is sent to seek among Jesse's sons successor to Saul.
Both Samuel and Jesse fail to discern at first Yahweh's choice, Samuel thinking that it would be the eldest son (1 Samuel 16:6), while Jesse had not thought it worth while to call the youngest to the feast (1 Samuel 16:11).
(2) (a) In 1 Samuel 16:14-23, Saul is mentally disturbed, and is advised to get a harpist. David "the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite" is recommended by a courtier, and Saul sends to Jesse for David.
"And Jesse took ten loaves (so emend and translate, and not as the Revised Version (British and American), "an ass laden with bread"), and a (skin) bottle of wine, and a kid, and sent them" to Saul as a present with David, who becomes a courtier of Saul's with his father's consent.
(b) The next mention of Jesse is in three contemptuous references by Saul to David as "the son of Jesse" in 1 Samuel 20:27, 30-31, part of the quarrel-scene between Saul and Jonathan. (But it is not quite certain if 1 Samuel 20:1-42 belongs to the same source as 1 Samuel 16:14-23.) In answer to the first reference, Jonathan calls his friend "David," and Saul repeats the phrase "the son of Jesse," abusing Jonathan personally (1 Samuel 20:30, where the meaning is uncertain). The reference to David as "the son of Jesse" here and in the following verse is contemptuous, not because of any reproach that might attach itself to Jesse, but, as Budde remarks, because "an upstart is always contemptuously referred to under his father's name" in courts and society. History repeats itself!
(c) Further references of a like kind are in the passage, 1 Samuel 22:6-23, namely, in 1 Samuel 22:7-8, 13 by Saul, and repeated by Doeg in 1 Samuel 22:9.
(d) The final one of this group is in 1 Samuel 25:10, where Nabal sarcastically asks "Who is David ? and who is the son of Jesse?"
(3) The parts of 1 Samuel 17:1-58 through 1 Samuel 18:5 which are omitted by Septuagint B, i.e. 1 Samuel 17:12-31, 411,48b,50,55 through 1 Samuel 188:6a. Here Jesse is mentioned as "an Ephrathite of Beth-lehem-judah" (1 Samuel 17:12, not "that" Ephrathite, which is a grammatically impossible translation of the Massoretic Text), Ephrath or Ephrathah being another name for Bethlehem, or rather for the district. He is further said to have eight sons (1 Samuel 17:12), of whom the three eldest had followed Saul to the war (1 Samuel 17:13).
Jesse sends David, the shepherd, to his brothers with provisions (1 Samuel 17:17). Afterward David, on being brought to Saul and asked who he is, answers, "I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite" (1 Samuel 17:58). Jesse is also described (1 Samuel 17:12) as being "in the days of Saul an old man, advanced in years" (so emend and translate, not as the Revised Version (British and American), "stricken in years among men"). The mention of his having 8 sons in 1 Samuel 17:12 is not in agreement with 1 Chronicles 2:13-15, which gives only 7 sons with two sisters, but where Syriac gives 1 Chronicles 8:1-40, adding, from 1 Chronicles 27:18, Elihu which Massoretic Text has there probably by corruption (Curtis, Chronicles, 88). 1 Samuel 16:10 should be translated" and Jesse made his 7 sons to pass before Samuel" (not as the Revised Version (British and American), the King James Version, "seven of his sons"). Budde (Kurz. Hand-Komm., "Samuel," 114) holds 1 Samuel 16:1-13 to be a late Midrash, and (ibid., 123 f) omits (a) "that" in 17:12; (b) also "and he had 8 sons" as due to a wrong inference from 16:10; (c) the names of the 3 eldest in 17:13; (d) 17:14b; he then changes 17:15a, and reads thus: (12) "Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem-Judah, whose name was Jesse who was .... (years) old at the time of Saul. (13) And the 3 eldest sons of Jesse had marched with Saul to the war, (14) and David was the youngest, (15) and David had remained to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem. (16) Now the Philistines came," etc.
According to all these narratives in 1 Samuel, whether all 3 be entirely independent of one another or not, Jesse had land in Bethlehem, probably outside the town wall, like Boaz (see BOAZ) his grandfather (Ruth 4:17). In 1 Samuel 22:3, 1 David entrusts his father and mother to the care of the king of Moab, but from 20:29 some have inferred that Jesse was dead (although most critics assign 22:3 at any rate to the same stratum as chapter 20).
Jonathan tells Saul that David wanted to attend a family sacrificial feast at Bethlehem (1 Samuel 20:29). Massoretic Text reads, "And he, my brother, has commanded me," whereas we should probably read with Septuagint, "and my brethren have commanded me," i.e. the members of the clan, as we have farther on in the verse, "Let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren." As to Jesse's daughters, see ABIGAIL; NAHASH.
(4) Of the other references to Jesse, the most noteworthy is that in Isaiah 11:1: "There shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit," i.e. out of Jesse's roots (compare Revelation 5:5). "Why Jesse and not David?" asks Duhm; and he answers, "Because the Messiah will be a second David, rather than a descendant of David." Marti explains it to mean that he will be, not from David, but from a collateral line of descent. Duhm's explanation suggests a parallelism between David and Christ, of whom the former may be treated as a type similar to Aaron and Melchizedek in He. Saul might pour contempt upon "the son of Jesse," but Isaiah has given Jesse here a name above all Hebrew names, and thus does Providence mock "society."
See also ROOT OF JESSE.
David Francis Roberts
Jesting
Jesting - jest'-ing: Used from Tyndale down as the translation of eutrapelia (Ephesians 5:4). Aristotle uses the original in his Ethics iv.14 as an equivalent of "quick-witted," from its root meaning "something easily turned," adding that, since the majority of people love excessive jesting, the word is apt to be degraded. This is the case here, where it clearly has a flavor of the coarse or licentious.
Jesui
Jesui - jes'-u-i.
See ISHVI.
Jesuites
Jesuites - jes'-u-its.
See ISHVI.
Jesurun
Jesurun - je-su'-run, jes'-u-run.
See JESHURUN.
Jesus
Jesus - je'-zus (Iesous, for yehoshua`):
(1) Joshua, son of Nun (the King James Version Acts 7:45; Hebrews 4:8; compare 1 Maccabees 2:55; 2 Esdras 7:37).
(2) (3) High priest and Levite.
See JESHUA, 2, 5.
(4) Son of Sirach.
See SIRACH.
(5) An ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:29, the King James Version "Jose").
(6) (7) See the next three articles.
Jesus Christ, 1 Outline
Jesus Christ, 1 Outline - je'-zus krist (Iesous Christos):
I. THE NAMES
II. ORDER OF TREATMENT
PART I. INTRODUCTORY
I. THE SOURCES
1. In General
2. Denial of Existence of Jesus
3. Extra-Christian Notices
4. The Gospels
(1) The Synoptics
(2) The Fourth Gospel
II. THE PREPARATION
1. Both Gentile and Jewish
2. Old Testament Preparation
3. Post-exilic Preparation
III. THE OUTWARD SITUATION
1. The Land
Its Divisions
2. Political Situation
Changes in Territory
3. The Religious Sects
(1) The Scribes
(2) The Pharisees
(3) The Sadducees
(4) The Essenes
IV. THE CHRONOLOGY
1. Date of the Birth of Jesus
2. Date of His Baptism
3. Length of Ministry
4. Date of Christ's Death
PART II. THE PROBLEMS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS
I. THE MIRACLES
1. The "Modern" Attitude
2. Supernatural in the Gospels
II. THE MESSIAHSHIP
1. Reserve of Jesus and Modern Criticism
2. A Growing Revelation
III. KINGDOM AND APOCALYPSE
1. The Kingdom--Present or Future?
2. Apocalyptic Beliefs
IV. THE CHARACTER AND CLAIMS
1. Denial of Christ's Moral Perfection
2. Sinlessness and the Messianic Claim
PART III. COURSE OF THE EARTHLY LIFE OF JESUS
1. Divisions of the History
2. Not a Complete "Life"
A. FROM THE NATIVITY TO THE BAPTISM AND TEMPTATION
I. THE NATIVITY
1. Hidden Piety in Judaism
2. Birth of the Baptist
3. The Annunciation and Its Results
4. The Birth at Bethlehem
(1) The Census of Quirinius
(2) Jesus Born
5. The Incidents of the Infancy
(1) The Visit of the Shepherds
(2) The Circumcision and Presentation in the Temple
(3) Visit of the Magi
6. Flight to Egypt and Return to Nazareth
7. Questions and Objections
(1) The Virgin Birth
(2) The Genealogies
II. THE YEARS OF SILENCE--THE TWELFTH YEAR
1. The Human Development
2. Jesus in the Temple
IlI. THE FORERUNNER AND THE BAPTISM
1. The Preaching of John
The Coming Christ
2. Jesus Is Baptized
IV. THE TEMPTATION
1. Temptation Follows Baptism
2. Nature of the Temptation
3. Stages of the Temptation
Its Typical Character
B. THE EARLY JUDAEAN MINISTRY
I. THE TESTIMONIES OF THE BAPTIST
1. The Synoptics and John
2. Threefold Witness of the Baptist
II. THE FIRST DISCIPLES
1. Spiritual Accretion
2. "Son of Man" and "Son of God"
III. THE FIRST EVENTS
1. The First Miracle
2. The First Passover, and Cleansing of the Temple
3. The Visit of Nicodemus
4. Jesus and John
IV. JOURNEY TO GALILEE--THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA
1. Withdrawal to Galilee
2. The Living Water
3. The True Worship
4. Work and Its Reward
C. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY AND VISITS TO THE FEASTS
1. The Scene
2. The Time
First Period--From the Beginning of the Ministry in Galilee till the Mission of the Twelve
I. OPENING INCIDENTS
1. Healing of Nobleman's Son
2. The Visit to Nazareth
3. Call of the Four Disciples
4. At Capernaum
a) Christ's Teaching
b) The Demoniac in the Synagogue
Demon-Possession: Its Reality
c) Peter's Wife's Mother
d) The Eventful Evening
II. FROM THE FIRST GALILEAN CIRCUIT TILL THE CHOICE OF THE APOSTLES
1. The First Circuit
2. Capernaum Incidents
a) Cure of the Paralytic
b) Call and Feast of Matthew
3. The Unnamed Jerusalem Feast
a) The Healing at Bethesda
b) Son and Father
c) The Threefold Witness
4. Sabbath Controversies
a) Plucking of the Ears of Grain
b) The Man with the Withered Hand
c) Withdrawal to the Sea
5. The Choosing of the Twelve
a) The Apostolic Function
b) The Lists
c) The Men
III. FROM THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT WILL THE PARABLES OF THE KINGDOM--A SECOND CIRCUIT
1. The Sermon on the Mount
a) The Blessings
b) True Righteousness--the Old and the New Law
c) Religion and Hypocrisy--True and False Motive
d) The True Good and Cure for Care
e) Relation to the World's Evil--the Conclusion
2. Intervening Incidents
a) Healing of the Centurion's Servant
b) The Widow of Nain's Son Raised
c) Embassy of John's Disciples--Christ and His Generation
d) The First Anointing--the Woman who Was a Sinner
3. Second Galilean Circuit--Events at Capernaum
a) Galilee Revisited
b) Cure of Demoniac--Discourse on Blasphemy
The Sign of Jonah
c) Christ's Mother and Brethren
4. Teaching in Parables
Parables of the Kingdom
IV. FROM THE CROSSING TO GADARA TO THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE--A THIRD CIRCUIT
1. Crossing of the Lake--Stilling of the Storm
a) Aspirants for Discipleship
b) The Storm Calmed
2. The Gadarene (Gerasene) Demoniac
3. Jairus' Daughter Raised--Woman with Issue of Blood
a) Jairus' Appeal and Its Result
b) The Afflicted Woman Cured
4. Incidents of Third Circuit
5. The Twelve Sent Forth--Discourse of Jesus
a) The Commission
b) Counsels and Warnings
Second Period--After the Mission of the Twelve till the Departure from Galilee
I. FROM THE DEATH OF THE BAPTIST TILL THE DISCOURSE ON THE BREAD OF LIFE
1. The Murder of the Baptist and Herod's Alarms
2. The Feeding of the Five Thousand
3. Walking on the Sea
4. Gennesaret--Discourse on the Bread of Life
Peter's First Confession
II. FROM DISPUTES WITH THE PHARISEES TILL THE TRANSFIGURATION
1. Jesus and Tradition--Outward and Inward Purity
2. Retirement to Tyre and Sidon--the Syrophoenician Woman
3. At Decapolis--New Miracles
a) The Deaf Man
b) Feeding of the Four Thousand
4. Leaven of the Pharisees, etc.--Cure of Blind Man
5. At Caesarea Philippi--the Great Confession--First Announcement of Passion
6. The Transfiguration--the Epileptic Boy
III. FROM PRIVATE JOURNEY THROUGH GALILEE TILL RETURN FROM THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES
1. Galilee and Capernaum
a) Second Announcement of the Passion
b) The Temple Tax
c) Discourse on Greatness and Forgiveness
(1) Greatness in Humility
(2) Tolerance
(3) The Erring Brother
(4) Parable of Unmerciful Servant
2. The Feast of Tabernacles--Discourses, etc.
a) The Private Journey--Divided Opinions
b) Christ's Self-Witness
c) The Woman Taken in Adultery
d) The Cure of the Blind Man.
e) The Good Shepherd
Chronological Note
D. LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM--JESUS IN PERAEA
I. FROM LEAVING GALILEE TILL THE FEAST OF THE DEDICATION
1. Rejected by Samaria
2. Mission of the Seventy
3. The Lawyer's Question--Parable of Good Samaritan
4. Discourses, Parables, and Miracles
a) Original to Luke
b) The Infirm Woman--the Dropsied Man
c) Parable of the Great Supper
d) Counting the Cost
5. Martha and Mary
6. Feast of the Dedication
II. FROM THE ABODE AT BETHABARA TILL THE RAISING OF LAZARUS
1. Parables of Lost Sheep, Lost Piece of Silver and Prodigal Son
2. Parables of the Unjust Steward and the Rich Man and Lazarus
3. The Summons to Bethany--Raising of Lazarus
III. FROM THE RETIREMENT TO EPHRAIM TILL THE ARRIVAL AT BETHANY
1. Retreat to Ephraim
2. The Journey Resumed
3. Cure of the Lepers
4. Pharisaic Questionings
a) Divorce
b) Coming of the Kingdom
c) Parable of the Unjust Judge
5. The Spirit of the Kingdom
a) Parable of Pharisee and Publican
b) Blessing of the Babies
c) The Rich Young Ruler
6. Third Announcement of the Passion
7. The Rewards of the Kingdom
a) Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard
b) The Sons of Zebedee
8. Jesus at Jericho
a) The Cure of Bartimeus
b) Zaccheus the Publican
c) Parable of the Pounds
Arrival at Bethany
E. THE PASSION WEEK--BETRAYAL, TRIAL, AND CRUCIFIXION
I. THE EVENTS PRECEDING THE LAST SUPPER
1. The Chronology
2. The Anointing at Bethany
3. The Entry into Jerusalem
Jesus Weeping over Jerusalem--Return to Bethany
4. Cursing of the Fig Tree--Second Cleansing of the Temple
Were There Two Cleansings?
5. The Eventful Tuesday
a) The Demand for Authority--Parables
The Two Sons--the Wicked Husbandmen--the Marriage of the King's Son
b) Ensnaring Questions, etc.
(1) Tribute to Caesar--the Resurrection--the Great Commandment
(2) David's Son and Lord
c) The Great Denunciation
d) The Widow's Offering
e) The Visit of the Greeks
f) Discourse on the Last Things
g) Parables of Ten Virgins, Talents and Last Judgment
6. A Day of Retirement
7. An Atmosphere of Plotting--Judas and the Priests
II. FROM THE LAST SUPPER TILL THE CROSS
1. The Chronology
2. The Last Supper
a) The Preparation
b) Dispute about Precedence--Washing of the Disciples' Feet--Departure of Judas
c) The Lord's Supper
d) The Last Discourses--Intercessory Prayer
e) The Departure and Warning
3. Gethsemane--the Betrayal and Arrest
a) Agony in the Garden
b) Betrayal by Judas--Jesus Arrested
4. Trial before the Sanhedrin
Legal and Historical Aspects
a) Before Annas and Caiaphas--the Unjust Judgment
b) The Threefold Denial
c) Remorse and Suicide of Judas
5. Trial before Pilate
a) The Attitude of the Accusers
b) The Attitude of Pilate
(1) Jesus Sent to Herod
(2) "Not This Man, but Barabbas"
(3) "Ecce Homo"
(4) A Last Appeal--Pilate Yields
c) The Attitude of Jesus
III. THE CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL
1. The Crucifixion
a) On the Way
b) Between the Thieves--the Superscription--the Seamless Robe
c) The Mocking--the Penitent Thief--Jesus and His Mother
d) The Great Darkness--the Cry of Desertion
e) Last Words and Death of Jesus
f) The Spear-Thrust--Earthquake and Rending of the Veil
2. The Burial
a) The New Tomb
b) The Guard of Soldiers
F. THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION
The Resurrection a Fundamental Fact
1. The Resurrection
a) The Easter Morning--the Open Tomb
(1) The Angel and the Keepers
(2) Visit of the Women
(3) The Angelic Message
b) Visit of Peter and John--Appearance to Mary
Report to the Disciples--Incredulity
c) Other Easter-Day Appearances (Emmaus, Jerusalem)
d) The Second Appearance to the Eleven--the Doubt of Thomas
e) The Galilean Appearances
(1) At the Sea of Tiberias--the Draught of Fish--Peter's Restoration
(2) On the Mountain--the Great Commission--Baptism
f) Appearance to James
g) The Last Meeting
2. The Ascension
PART IV. EPILOGUE: THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING
1. After the Ascension
2. Revelation through the Spirit
3. Gospels and Epistles
4. Fact of Christ's Lordship
5. Significance of Christ's Person
6. Significance of the Cross and Resurrection
7. Hope of the Advent
Jesus Christ, 2
Jesus Christ, 2 - LITERATURE
Jesus Christ: The Founder of the Christian religion; the promised Messiah and Saviour of the world; the Lord and Head of the Christian church.
I. The Names. 1. Jesus: (Iesous) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Joshua" (yehoshua`), meaning "Yahweh is salvation." It stands therefore in the Septuagint and Apocrypha for "Joshua," and in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 likewise represents the Old Testament Joshua; hence, in the Revised Version (British and American) is in these passages rendered "Joshua." In Matthew 1:21 the name as commanded by the angel to be given to the son of Mary, "for it is he that shall save his people from their sins" (see below on "Nativity"). It is the personal name of the Lord in the Gospels and the Acts, but generally in the Epistles appears in combination with "Christ" or other appellative (alone in Romans 3:26; 4:24; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Philippians 2:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; Hebrews 7:22; 10:19, etc.).
2. Christ: (Christos) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah" (mashiach; compare in the New Testament, John 1:41; 4:25, "Messiah"), meaning "anointed" (see MESSIAH). It designates Jesus as the fulfiller of the Messianic hopes of the Old Testament and of the Jewish people. It will be seen below that Jesus Himself made this claim. After the resurrection it became the current title for Jesus in the apostolic church. Most frequently in the Epistles He is called "Jesus Christ," sometimes "Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1-2, 39; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 30; 4:15; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:4, 28 the King James Version; 1 Thessalonians 2:14, etc.), often "Christ" alone (Romans 1:16 the King James Version; Romans 5:6, 8; Romans 6:4, 8-9; 8:10, etc.). In this case "Christ" has acquired the force of a proper name. Very frequently the term is associated with "Lord" (kurios)--"the (or "our") Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 11:17; 15:11 the King James Version; Acts 16:31 the King James Version; Acts 20:21; 28:31; Romans 1:7; 1, 11; 13:14; 1 Corinthians 16:23, etc.).
II. Order of Treatment. In studying, as it is proposed to do in this article, the earthly history of Jesus and His place in the faith of the apostolic church, it will be convenient to pursue the following order:
First, as introductory to the whole study, certain questions relating to the sources of our knowledge of Jesus, and to the preparation for, and circumstances of, His historical appearance, invite careful attention (Part I).
Next, still as preliminary to the proper narrative of the life of Jesus, it is desirable to consider certain problems arising out of the presentation of that life in the Gospels with which modern thought is more specially concerned, as determining the attitude in which the narratives are approached. Such are the problems of the miracles, the Messiahship, the sinless character and supernatural claims of Jesus (Part II).
The way is then open for treatment in order of the actual events of Christ's life and ministry, so far as recorded. These fall into many stages, from His nativity and baptism till His death, resurrection and ascension (Part III).
A final division will deal with Jesus as the exalted Lord in the aspects in which He is presented in the teaching of the Epistles and remaining writings of the New Testament (Part IV).
PART I. INTRODUCTORY
I. The Sources. 1. In General: The principal, and practically the only sources for our knowledge of Jesus Christ are the four Canonical Gospels--distinction being made in these between the first three (Synoptic) Gospels, and the Gospel of John. Nothing, either in the few notices of Christ in non-Christian authors, or in the references in the other books of the New Testament, or in later Christian literature, adds to the information which the Gospels already supply. The so-called apocryphal Gospels are worthless as authorities (see under the word); the few additional sayings of Christ (compare Acts 20:35) found in outside writings are of doubtful genuineness (compare a collection of these in Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Appendix C; see also LOGIA).
2. Denial of Existence of Jesus: It marks the excess to which skepticism has gone that writers are found in recent years who deny the very existence of Jesus Christ (Kalthoff, Das Christus-Problem, and Die Entstehung des Christenthums; Jensen, Das Gilgamesch-Epos, I; Drews, Die Christusmythe; compare on Kalthoff, Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, English translation, 313 ff; Jensen is reviewed in the writer's The Resurrection of Jesus, chapter ix). The extravagance of such skepticism is its sufficient refutation.
3. Extra-Christian Notices: Of notices outside the Christian circles the following may be referred to.
(1) Josephus. There is the famous passage in Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iii, 3, commencing, "Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man," etc. It is not unlikely that Josephus had some reference to Jesus, but most agree that the passage in question, if not entirely spurious, has been the subject of Christian interpolation (on the lit. and different views, see Schurer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ, DivII , volumeII , 143 ff; in support of interpolation, Edersheim on "Josephus," in Dictionary of Christ. Biography).
(2) Tacitus. The Roman historian, Tacitus, in a well-known passage relating to the persecution of Nero (Ann. xv.44), tells how the Christians, already "a great multitude" (ingens multitudo), derived their name "from one Christus, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate."
(3) Suetonius also, in his account of Claudius, speaks of the Jews as expelled from Rome for the raising of tumults at the instigation of one "Chrestus" (impulsore Chresto), plainly a mistake for "Christus." The incident is doubtless that referred to in Acts 18:2.
4. The Gospels: The four Gospels, then, with their rich contents, remain as our primary sources for the knowledge of the earthly life of Jesus.
(1) The Synoptics. It may be taken for granted as the result of the best criticism that the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) all fall well within the apostolic age (compare Harnack, Altchr. Lit., Pref; see GOSPELS). The favorite theory at present of the relations of these Gospels is, that Mk is an independent Gospel, resting on the teaching of Peter; that Mt and Lk have as sources the Gospel of Mk and a collection of discourses, probably attributable to the apostle Matthew (now commonly called Q) ; and that Lk has a third, well-authenticated source (Luke 1:1-4) peculiar to himself. The present writer is disposed to allow more independence to the evangelists in the embodying of a tradition common to all; in any case, the sources named are of unexceptionable authority, and furnish a strong guaranty for the reliability of the narratives. The supreme guaranty of their trustworthiness, however, is found in the narratives themselves; for who in that (or any) age could imagine a figure so unique and perfect as that of Jesus, or invent the incomparable sayings and parables that proceeded from His lips? Much of Christ's teaching is high as heaven above the minds of men still.
(2) The Fourth Gospel. The Fourth Gospel stands apart from the Synoptics in dealing mainly with another set of incidents (the Jerusalem ministry), and discourses of a more private and intimate kind than those belonging to the Galilean teaching. Its aim, too, is doctrinal--to show that Jesus is "the Son of God," and its style and mode of conception are very different from those of the Synoptic Gospels. Its contents touch their narratives in only a few points (as in John 6:4-21). Where they do, the resemblance is manifest. It is obvious that the reminiscences which the Gospel contains have been long brooded over by the apostle, and that a certain interpretative element blends with his narration of incidents and discourses. This, however, does not warrant us in throwing doubt, with so many, on the genuineness of the Gospel, for which the external evidence is exceptionally strong (compare Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel; Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel; and see JOHN,GOSPEL OF ). The Gospel is accepted here as a genuine record of the sayings and doings of Jesus which it narrates.
II. The Preparation. 1. Both Gentile and Jewish: In the Gospels and throughout the New Testament Jesus appears as the goal of Old Testament revelation, and the point to which all providential developments tended. He came, Paul says, in "the fullness of the time" (Galatians 4:4). It has often been shown how, politically, intellectually, morally, everything in the Greco-Roman world was ready for such a universal religion as Jesus brought into it (compare Baur's Hist of the Church in the First Three Cents., English translation, chapter i). The preparation in Israel is seen alike in God's revelations to, and dealings with, the chosen people in the patriarchal, Mosaic, monarchical and prophetic periods, and in the developments of the Jewish mind in the centuries immediately before Christ.
2. Old Testament Preparation: As special lines in the Old Testament preparation may be noted the ideas of the Messianic king, a ruler of David's house, whose reign would be righteous, perpetual, universal (compare Isaiah 7:13:Isaiah 7:1-25; Isaiah 32:1-2; Jeremiah 33:15-16; Psalms 2:1-10, etc.); of a Righteous Sufferer (Psalms 22:1-31, etc.), whose sufferings are in Isaiah 53:1-12 declared to have an expiatory and redeeming character; and of a Messianic kingdom, which, breaking the bounds of nationalism, would extend through the whole earth and embrace all peoples (compare Isaiah 60:1-22; Psalms 87:1-7; Daniel 2:44; 7:27, etc.). The kingdom, at the same time, is now conceived of under a more spiritual aspect. Its chief blessings are forgiveness and righteousness.
3. Post-exilian Preparation: The age succeeding the return from exile witnessed a manifold preparation for the advent of Christ. Here may be observed the decentralization of the Jewish religious ideals through the rise of synagogue worship and the widespread dispersion of the race; the contact with Hellenic culture (as in Philo); but especially the marked sharpening of Messianic expectations. Some of these were of a crude apocalyptic character (see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT); many were political and revolutionary; but some were of a purer and more spiritual kind (compare Luke 2:25, 38). To these purer elements Jesus attached Himself in His preaching of the kingdom and of Himself as its Lord. Even in the Gentileworld, it is told, there was an expectation of a great One who about this time would come from Judea (Tacitus, History v.13; Suet. Vespas. 4).
III. The Outward Situation. 1. The Land: Of all lands Palestine was the most fitted to be the scene of the culminating revelation of God's grace in the person and work of Jesus Christ, as before it was fitted to be the abode of the people chosen to receive and preserve the revelations that prepared the way for that final manifestation. At once central and secluded--at the junction of the three great continents of the Old World, Asia, Africa and Europe--the highway of nations in war and commerce--touching mighty powers on every hand, Egypt, Syria, Assyria, kingdoms of Asia Minor, as formerly more ancient empires, Hittite and Babylonian, now in contact with Greece and Rome, yet singularly enclosed by mountain, desert, Jordan gorge, and Great Sea, from ready entrance of foreign influences, Palestine has a place of its own in the history of revelation, which only a Divine wisdom can have given it (compare Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, PartII , chapter ii; G.A. Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land, Book I, chapters i, ii; Lange, Life of Christ, I, 246 ff).
Its Divisions.
Palestine, in the Roman period, was divided into four well-defined provinces or districts--Judaea, with Jerusalem as its center, in the South, the strong-hold of Jewish conservatism; Samaria, in the middle, peopled from Assyrian times by mixed settlers (2 Kings 17:24-34), preponderatingly heathen in origin, yet now professing the Jewish religion, claiming Jewish descent (compare John 4:12), possessing a copy of the law (Sam Pentateuch), and a temple of their own at Gerizim (the original temple, built by Manasseh, circa 409 BC, was destroyed by John Hyrcanus, 109 BC); Galilee--"Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matthew 4:15; compare Isaiah 9:1)--in the North, the chief scene of Christ's ministry, freer and more cosmopolitan in spirit, through a large infusion of Gentile population, and contact with traders, etc., of varied nationalities: these in Western Palestine, while on the East, "beyond Jordan," was Peraea, divided up into Peraea proper, Batanea, Gaulonitis, Ituraea, Trachonitis, Decapolis, etc. (compare Matthew 4:25; 19:1; Luke 3:1). The feeling of bitterness between Jews and Samaritans was intense (John 4:9). The language of the people throughout was ARAMAIC (which see), but a knowledge of the Greek tongue was widely diffused, especially in the North, where intercourse with Greek-speaking peoples was habitual (the New Testament writings are in Greek). Jesus doubtless used the native dialect in His ordinary teaching, but it is highly probable that He also knew Greek, and was acquainted with Old Testament Scriptures in that language (the Septuagint). In this case He may have sometimes used it in His preaching (compare Roberts, Discussions on the Gospels).
2. Political Situation: The miserable story of the vicissitudes of the Jewish people in the century succeeding the great persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt--a story made up of faction, intrigue, wars, murders, massacres, of growing degeneracy of rulers and nation, of repeated sackings of Jerusalem and terrible slaughters--till Herod, the Idumean, misnamed "the Great," ascended the throne by favor of the Romans (37 BC), must be read in the books relating to the period (Ewald, History of Israel, V; Milman, Hist of Jews; Schurer, History of the Jewish People in Time of Christ, Div I, Vol I; Stanley, Jewish Church, III, etc.). Rome's power, first invited by Judas Maccabeus (161 BC), was finally established by Pompey's capture of Jerusalem (63 BC). Herod's way to the throne was tracked by crime and bloodshed, and murder of those most nearly related to him marked every step in his advance. His taste for splendid buildings--palace, temple (Matthew 24:1; John 2:20), fortresses, cities (Sebaste, Caesarea, etc.)--and lavish magnificence of his royal estate and administration, could not conceal the hideousness of his crafty, unscrupulous selfishness, his cold-blooded cruelty, his tyrannous oppression of his subjects. "Better be Herod's hog (hus) than his son (huios)," was the comment of Augustus, when he heard of the dying king's unnatural doings.
Changes in Territory.
At the time of Christ's birth, the whole of Palestine was united under Herod's rule, but on Herod's death, after a long reign of 37 (or, counting from his actual accession, 34) years, his dominions were, in accordance with his will, confirmed by Rome, divided. Judea and Samaria (a few towns excepted) fell to his son Archelaus (Matthew 2:22), with the title of "ethnarch"; Galilee and Perea were given to Herod Antipas, another son, with the title of "tetrarch" (Matthew 14:1; Luke 3:1, 19; 23:7; Acts 13:1); Herod Philip, a third son, received Iturea, Trachonitis, and other parts of the northern trans-Jordanic territory, likewise as "tetrarch" (Luke 3:1; compare Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17). A few years later, the tyranny of Archelaus provoked an appeal of his subjects to Augustus, and Archelaus, summoned to Rome, was banished to Gaul (7 AD). Thereafter Judea, with Samaria, was governed by a Roman procurator, under the oversight of the prefect of Syria.
3. The Religious Sects: In the religious situation the chief fact of interest is the place occupied and prominent part played by the religious sects--the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and (though unmentioned in the Gospels, these had an important influence on the early history of the church) the Essenes. The rise and characteristics of these sects can here only be alluded to (see special articles).
(1) The Scribes. From the days of Ezra zealous attention had been given to the study of the law, and an order of men had arisen--the "scribes"--whose special business it was to guard, develop and expound the law. Through their labors, scrupulous observance of the law, and, with it, of the innumerable regulations intended to preserve the law, and apply it in detail to conduct (the so-called "tradition of the elders," Matthew 15:2 ff), became the ideal of righteousness. The sects first appear in the Maccabean age. The Maccabean conflict reveals the existence of a party known as the "Assidaeans" (Hebrew chacidhim), or "pious" ones, opposed to the lax Hellenizing tendencies of the times, and staunch observers of the law. These in the beginning gave brave support to Judas Maccabeus, and doubtless then embraced the best elements of the nation.
(2) The Pharisees. From them, by a process of deterioration too natural in such cases, developed the party of legalists known in the Gospels as the "Pharisees" ("separated"), on which Christ's sternest rebukes fell for their self-righteousness, ostentation, pride and lack of sympathy and charity (Matthew 6:2 ff; Matthew 23:1-39; Luke 18:9-14). They gloried in an excessive scrupulosity in the observance of the externals of the law, even in trivialities. To them the multitude that knew not the law were "accursed" (John 7:49). To this party the great body of the scribes and rabbis belonged, and its powerful influence was eagerly sought by contending factions in the state.
(3) The Sadducees. Alongside of the Pharisees were the "Sadducees" (probably from "Zadok")--rather a political and aristocratic clique than a religious sect, into whose possession the honors of the high-priesthood and other influential offices hereditarily passed. They are first met with by name under John Hyrcanus (135-106 BC). The Sadducees received only the law of Moses, interpreted it in a literal, secularistic spirit, rejected the Pharisaic traditions and believed in neither resurrection, angel nor spirit (Acts 23:8). Usually in rivalry with the Pharisees, they are found combining with these to destroy Jesus (Matthew 26:3-5, 57).
(4) The Essenes. The third party, the "Essenes," differed from both (some derive also from the Assideans) in living in fraternities apart from the general community, chiefly in the desert of Engedi, on the Northwest shore of the Dead Sea, though some were found also in villages and towns; in rejecting animal sacrifices, etc., sending only gifts of incense to the temple; in practicing celibacy and community of goods; in the wearing of white garments; in certain customs (as greeting the sunrise with prayers) suggestive of oriental influence. They forbade slavery, war, oaths, were given to occult studies, had secret doctrines and books, etc. As remarked, they do not appear in the Gospel, but on account of certain resemblances, some have sought to establish a connection between them and John the Baptist and Jesus. In reality, however, nothing could be more opposed than Essenism to the essential ideas and spirit of Christ's teaching (compare Schurer, as above, Div. II, Vol. II, 188 ff; Kuenen, Hibbert Lects on National Religions and Universal Religions, 199-208; Lightfoot, Colossians, 114-79).
IV. The Chronology. The leading chronological questions connected with the life of Jesus are discussed in detail elsewhere (CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; QUIRINIUS, etc.); here it is sufficient to indicate the general scheme of dating adopted in the present article, and some of the grounds on which it is preferred. The chief questions relate to the dates of the birth and baptism of Jesus, the duration of the ministry and the date of the crucifixion.
1. Date of the Birth of Jesus: Though challenged by some (Caspari, Bosanquet, Conder, etc., put it as late as 1 BC) the usual date for the death of Herod the Great, March, 4 BC (year of Rome 750), may be assumed as correct (for grounds of this dating, see Schurer, op. cit., Div. I, Vol. I, 464-67). The birth of Jesus was before, and apparently not very long before, this event (Matthew 2:1-23). It may therefore be placed with probability in the latter part of the previous year (5 BC), the ordinary dating of the commencement of the Christian era being thus, as is generally recognized, four years too late. There is no certainty as to the month or day of the birth. The Christmas date, December 25, is first met with in the West in the 4th century (the eastern date was January 6), and was then possibly borrowed from a pagan festival. December, in the winter season, seems unlikely, as unsuitable for the pasturing of flocks (Luke 2:8), though this objection is perhaps not decisive (Andrews, Conder). A more probable date is a couple of months earlier. The synchronism with Quirinius (Luke 2:2) is considered in connection with the nativity. The earlier datings of 6, 7, or even 8 BC, suggested by Ramsay, Mackinlay and others, on grounds of the assumed Roman census, astronomical phenomena, etc., appear to leave too long an interval before the death of Herod, and conflict with other data, as Luke 3:1 (see below).
2. Date of Baptism: John is said by Luke to have begun to preach and baptize "in the fifteenth year of Tiberius" (Luke 3:1), and Jesus "was about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23) when He was baptized by John, and entered on His ministry. If the 15th year of Tiberius is dated, as seems most likely, from his association with Augustus as colleague in the government, 765 AUC, or 12 AD (Tacitus, Annals i.3; Suetonius on Augustus, 97), and if Jesus may be supposed to have been baptized about 6 months after John commenced his work, these data combine in bringing us to the year 780 AUC, or 27 AD, as the year of our Lord's baptism, in agreement with our former conclusion as to the date of His birth in 5 BC. To place the birth earlier is to make Jesus 32 or 33 years of age at His baptism--an unwarrantable extension of the "about." In accord with this is the statement in John 2:20 that the temple had been 46 years in building (it began in 20-19 BC) at the time of Christ's first Passover; therefore in 780 AUC, or 27-AD (compare Schurer, op. cit., Div. I, Vol. I, 410).
3. Length of Ministry: The determination of the precise duration of our Lord's ministry involves more doubtful elements. Setting aside, as too arbitrary, schemes which would, with some of the early Fathers, compress the whole ministry into little over a single year (Browne, Hort, etc.)--a view which involves without authority the rejection of the mention of the Passover in John 6:4--there remains the choice between a two years' and a three years' ministry. Both have able advocates (Turner in article "Chronology," and Sanday in article "Jesus Christ," in H D B, advocate the two years' scheme; Farrar, Ramsay, D. Smith, etc., adhere to the three years' scheme). An important point is the view taken of the unnamed "feast" in John 5:1. John has already named a Passover--Christ's first--in John 2:13, 23; another, which Jesus did not attend, is named in John 6:4; the final Passover, at which He was crucified, appears in all the evangelists. If the "feast" of John 5:1 (the article is probably to be omitted) is also, as some think, a Passover, then John has four Passovers, and a three years' ministry becomes necessary. It is claimed, however, that in this case the "feast" would almost certainly have been named. It still does not follow, even if a minor feast--say Purim--is intended, that we are shut up to a two years' ministry. Mr. Turner certainly goes beyond his evidence in affirming that "while two years must, not more than two years can, be allowed for the interval from John 2:13, 23 to John 11:55." The two years' scheme involves, as will be seen on consideration of details, a serious overcrowding and arbitrary transposition of incidents, which speak to the need of longer time. We shall assume that the ministry lasted for three years, reserving reasons till the narrative is examined.
4. Date of Christ's Death: On the hypothesis now accepted, the crucifixion of Jesus took place at the Passover of 30 AD. On the two years' scheme it would fall a year earlier. On both sides it is agreed that it occurred on the Friday of the week of the Passover, but it is disputed whether this Friday was the 14th or the 15th day of the month. The Gospel of John is pleaded for the former date, the Synoptics for the latter. The question will be considered in connection with the time of the Last Supper. Meanwhile it is to be observed that, if the 15th is the correct date, there seems reason to believe that the 15th of Nisan fell on a Friday in the year just named, 783 AUG, or 30 AD. We accept this provisionally as the date of the crucifixion.
Continued in JESUS CHRIST, 3.
Jesus Christ, 3
Jesus Christ, 3 - Continued from JESUS CHRIST, 2.
PART II. THE PROBLEMS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS
I. The Miracles. 1. The "Modern" Attitude: Everyone is aware that the presence of miracle in the Gospels is a chief ground of the rejection of its history by the representatives of the "modern" school. It is not questioned that it is a super-natural person whose picture is presented in the Gospels. There is no real difference between the Synoptics and John in this respect. "Even the oldest Gospel," writes Bousset, "is written from the standpoint of faith; already for Mark, Jesus is not only the Messiah of the Jewish people, but the miraculous eternal Son of God, whose glory shone in the world" (Was wissen wir von Jesus? 54, 57). But the same writer, interpreting the "modern" spirit, declares that no account embracing supernatural events can be accepted as historical. "The main characteristic of this modern mode of thinking," he says, "rests upon the determination to try to explain everything that takes place in the world by natural causes, or--to express it in another form--it rests on the determined assertion of universal laws to which all phenomena, natural and spiritual, are subject" (What Is Religion? English translation, 283).
2. Supernatural in the Gospels: With such an assumption it is clear that the Gospels are condemned before they are read. Not only is Jesus there a supernatural person, but He is presented as super-natural in natural in character, in works, in claims (see below); He performs miracles; He has a supernatural birth, and a supernatural resurrection. All this is swept away. It may be allowed that He had remarkable gifts of healing, but these are in the class of "faithcures" (thus Harnack), and not truly supernatural. When one seeks the justification for this selfconfident dogmatism, it is difficult to discover it, except on the ground of a pantheistic or monistic theory of the universe which excludes the personal God of Christianity. If God is the Author and Sustainer of the natural system, which He rules for moral ends, it is impossible to see why, for high ends of revelation and redemption, a supernatural economy should not be engrafted on the natural, achieving ends which could not otherwise be attained. This does not of course touch the question of evidence for any particular miracle, which must be judged of from its connection with the person of the worker, and the character of the apostolic witnesses. The well-meant effort to explain all miracles through the action of unknown natural laws--which is what Dr. Sanday calls "making both ends meet" (Life of Christ in Recent Research, 302)--breaks down in the presence of such miracles as the instantaneous cleansing of the leper, restoration of sight to the blind, the raising of the dead, acts which plainly imply an exercise of creative power. In such a life as Christ's, transcendence of the ordinary powers of Nature is surely to be looked for.
II. The Messiahship. 1. Reserve of Jesus and Modern Criticism: A difficulty has been found in the fact that in all the Gospels Jesus knew Himself to be the Messiah at least from the time of His baptism, yet did not, even to His disciples, unreservedly announce Himself as such till after Peter's great confession at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13 ff). On this seeming secrecy the bold hypothesis has been built that Jesus in reality never made the claim to Messiahship, and that the passages which imply the contrary in Mark (the original Gospel) are unhistorical (Wrede; compare on this and other theories, Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, English translation; Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research). So extreme an opinion is rejected by most; but modern critics vie with each other in the freedom with which they treat the testimony of the evangelists on this subject. Baldensperger, e.g., supposes that Jesus did not attain full certainty on His Messiahship till near the time of Peter's confession, and arbitrarily transposes the earlier sections in which the title "Son of Man" occurs till after that event (Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 2nd edition, 246). Bousset thinks that Jesus adopted the Messianic role as the only one open to Him, but bore it as a "burden" (compare his Jesus). Schweitzer connects it with apocalyptic ideas of a wildly fantastic character (op. cit., chapter xix).
2. A Growing Revelation: There is, however, no need for supposing that Peter's confession marks the first dawn of this knowledge in the minds of the apostles. Rather was it the exalted expression of a faith already present, which had long been maturing. The baptism and temptation, with the use of the title "Son of Man," the tone of authority in His teaching, His miracles, and many special incidents, show, as clearly as do the discourses in John, that Jesus was from the beginning fully conscious of His vocation, and His reserve in the use of the title sprang, not from any doubt in His own mind as to His right to it, but from His desire to avoid false associations till the true nature of His Messiahship should be revealed. The Messiahship was in process of self-revelation throughout to those who had eyes to see it (compare John 6:66-71). What it involved will be seen later.
III. Kingdom and Apocalypse. 1. The Kingdom--Present or Future?: Connected with the Messiahship is the idea of the "Kingdom of God" or "of heaven," which some in modern times would interpret in a purely eschatological sense, in the light of Jewish apocalyptic conceptions (Johannes Weiss, Schweitzer, etc.). The kingdom is not a thing of the present, but wholly a thing of the future, to be introduced by convulsions of Nature and the Parousia of the Son of Man. The language of the Lord's Prayer, "Thy kingdom come," is quoted in support of this contention, but the next petition should guard against so violent an inference. "Thy will be done," Jesus teaches His disciples to pray, "as in heaven, so on earth" (Matthew 6:10). The kingdom is the reign of God in human hearts and lives in this world as well as in the next. It would not be wrong to define it as consisting essentially in the supremacy of God's will in human hearts and human affairs, and in every department of these affairs. As Jesus describes the kingdom, it has, in the plain meaning of His words, a present being on earth, though its perfection is in eternity. The parables in Matthew 13:1-58 and elsewhere exhibit it as founded by the sowing of the word of truth (Sower), as a mingling of good and evil elements (Tares), as growing from small beginnings to large proportions (Mustard Seed), as gradually leavening humanity (Leaven), as of priceless value (Treasure; Pearl; compare Matthew 6:33); as terminating in a judgment (Tares, Dragnet); as perfected in the world to come (Matthew 13:43). It was a kingdom spiritual in nature (Luke 17:20-21), universal in range (Matthew 8:11; 21:43, etc.), developing from a principle of life within (Mark 4:26-29), and issuing in victory over all opposition (Matthew 21:44).
2. Apocalyptic Beliefs: It is difficult to pronounce on the extent to which Jesus was acquainted with current apocalyptic beliefs, or allowed these to color the imagery of parts of His teachings. These beliefs certainly did not furnish the substance of His teaching, and it may be doubted whether they more than superficially affected even its form. Jewish apocalyptic knew nothing of a death and resurrection of the Messiah and of His return in glory to bring in an everlasting kingdom. What Jesus taught on these subjects sprang from His own Messianic consciousness, with the certainty He had of His triumph over death and His exaltation to the right hand of God. It was in Old Testament prophecy, not in late Jewish apocalypse, that His thoughts of the future triumph of His kingdom were grounded, and from the vivid imagery of the prophets He borrowed most of the clothing of these thoughts. Isaiah 53:1-12 e.g., predicts not only the rejection and death of the Servant of Yahweh (Isaiah 53:3, 1-9, 12), but the prolongation of His days and His victorious reign (Isaiah 53:10-12). Dnl, not the Book of En, is the source of the title, "Son of Man," and of the imagery of coming on the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13). The ideas of resurrection, etc., have their ground in the Old Testament (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT). With the extravagant, unspiritual forms into which these conceptions were thrown in the Jewish apocalyptic books His teaching had nothing in common. The new apocalyptic school represented by Schweitzer reduces the history of Jesus to folly, fanaticism and hopeless disillusionment.
IV. The Character and Claims. 1. Denial of Christ's Moral Perfection: Where the Gospels present us in Jesus with the image of a flawless character--in the words of the writer to the Hebrews, "holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26)--modern criticism is driven by an inexorable necessity to deprive Jesus of His sinless perfection, and to impute to Him the error, frailty, and moral infirmity that belong to ordinary mortals. In Schweitzer's portraiture (compare op. cit.), He is an apocalyptic enthusiastic, ruled by illusory ideals, deceiving Himself and others as to who He was, and as to the impending end of the world. Those who show a more adequate appreciation of Christ's spiritual greatness are still prevented by their humanitarian estimate of His person and their denial of the supernatural in history from recognizing the possibility of His sinlessness. It may confidently be said that there is hardly a single writer of the modern school who grants Christ's moral perfection. To do so would be to admit a miracle in humanity, and we have heard that miracle is by the highest rational necessity excluded. This, however, is precisely the point on which the modern so-called "historical-critical" mode of presentation most obviously breaks down. The ideal of perfect holiness in the Gospels which has fascinated the conscience of Christendom for 18 centuries, and attests itself anew to every candid reader, is not thus lightly to be got rid of, or explained away as the invention of a church gathered out (without the help of the ideal) promiscuously from Jews and Gentiles. It was not the church--least of all such a church--that created Christ, but Christ that created the church.
(1) The Sinlessness Assured. The sinlessness of Jesus is a datum in the Gospels. Over against a sinful world He stands as a Saviour who is Himself without sin. His is the one life in humanity in which is presented a perfect knowledge and unbroken fellowship with the Father, undeviating obedience to His will, unswerving devotion under the severest strain of temptation and suffering to the highest ideal of goodness. The ethical ideal was never raised to so absolute a height as it is in the teaching of Jesus, and the miracle is that, high as it is in its unsullied purity, the character of Jesus corresponds with it, and realizes it. Word and life for once in history perfectly agree. Jesus, with the keenest sensitiveness to sin in thought and feeling as in deed, is conscious of no sin in Himself, confesses no sin, disclaims the presence of it, speaks and acts continually on the assumption that He is without it. Those who knew Him best declared Him to be without sin (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; compare 2 Corinthians 5:21). The Gospels must be rent in pieces before this image of a perfect holiness can be effaced from them.
(2) What This Implies. How is this phenomenon of a sinless personality in Jesus to be explained? It is itself a miracle, and can only be made credible by a creative miracle in Christ's origin. It may be argued that a Virgin Birth does not of itself secure sinlessness, but it will hardly be disputed that at least a sinless personality implies miracle in its production. It is precisely because of this that the modern spirit feels bound to reject it. In the Gospels it is not the Virgin Birth by itself which is invoked to explain Christ's sinlessness, but the supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). It is because of this conception that the birth is a virgin one. No explanation of the supernatural element in Christ's Person is more rational or credible (see below on "Nativity").
2. Sinlessness and the Messianic Claim: If Jesus from the first was conscious of Himself as without sin and if, as the converse of this, He knew Himself as standing in an unbroken filial fellowship with the Father, He must early have become conscious of His special vocation, and learnt to distinguish Himself from others as one called to bless and save them. Here is the true germ of His Messianic consciousness, from which everything subsequently is unfolded. He stood in a rapport with the Father which opened His spirit to a full, clear revelation of the Father's will regarding Himself, His mission, the kingdom He came to found, His sufferings as the means of salvation to the world, the glory that awaited Him when His earthly work was done. In the light of this revelation He read the Old Testament Scriptures and saw His course there made plain. When the hour had come He went to John for baptism, and His brief, eventful ministry, which should end in the cross, began. This is the reading of events which introduces consistency and purpose into the life of Jesus, and it is this we mean to follow in the sketch now to be given.
Jesus Christ, 4a
Jesus Christ, 4a - PART III. COURSE OF THE EARTHLY LIFE OF JESUS
1. Divisions of the History: The wonderful story of the life of the world's Redeemer which we are now to endeavor to trace falls naturally into several divisions:
A. From the Nativity to the Baptism and Temptation.
B. The Early Judean Ministry.
C. The Galilean Ministry and Visits to the Feasts.
D. The Last Journey to Jerusalem.
E. The Passion Week--Betrayal, Trial, and Crucifixion.
F. The Resurrection and Ascension.
2. Not a Complete "Life": To avoid misconception, it is important to remember, that, rich as are the narratives of the Gospels, materials do not exist for a complete biography or "Life" of Jesus. There is a gap, broken only by a single incident, from His infancy till His 30th year; there are cycles of events out of myriads left unrecorded (John 21:25); there are sayings, parables, longer discourses, connected with particular occasions; there are general summaries of periods of activity comprised in a few verses. The evangelists, too, present their materials each from his own standpoint--Matthew from theocratic, Mark from that of Christ's practical activity, Luke from the universalistic and human-sympathetic, John from the Divine. In reproducing the history respect must be had to this focusing from distinct points of view.
A. FROM THE NATIVITY TO THE BAPTISM AND TEMPTATION
I. The Nativity. 1. Hidden Piety in Judaism: Old Testament prophecy expired with the promise on its lips, "Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, he cometh, saith Yahweh of hosts" (Malachi 3:1). In the years immediately before Christ's birth the air was tremulous with the sense of impending great events. The fortunes of the Jewish people were at their lowest ebb. Pharisaic formalism, Sadducean unbelief, fanatical Zealotry, Herodian sycophantism, Roman oppression, seemed to have crushed out the last sparks of spiritual religion. Yet in numerous quiet circles in Judea, and even in remote Galilee, little godly bands still nourished their souls on the promises, looking for "the consolation of Israel" and "redemption of Jerusalem" (Luke 2:25, 38). Glimpses of these are vouchsafed in Zacharias and Elisabeth, in Simeon, in Anna, in Joseph and Mary (Luke 1:1-80; Luke 2:1-52; Matthew 1:18 ff). It was in hearts in these circles that the stirrings of the prophetic spirit began to make themselves felt anew, preparing for the Advent (compare Luke 2:27, 36).
2. Birth of the Baptist: (Luke 1:1-80)
In the last days of Herod--perhaps in the year 748 of Rome, or 6 BC--the aged priest Zacharias, of the course of Abijah (1 Chronicles 24:10; compare Schurer, Div. II, Vol. I, 219 ff), was ministering in the temple at the altar of incense at the hour of evening prayer. Scholars have reckoned, if on somewhat precarious grounds, that the ministry of the order to which Zacharias belonged fell in this year in the month of April or in early October (compare Andrews, Life of our Lord). Now a wonderful thing happened. Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth, noted for their blameless piety, were up to this time childless. On this evening an angel, appearing at the side of the altar of incense, announced to Zacharias that a son should be born to them, in whom should be realized the prediction of Malachi of one coming in the spirit and power of Elijah to prepare the way of the Lord (compare Malachi 4:5-6). His name was to be called John. Zacharias hesitated to believe, and was stricken with dumbness till the promise should be fulfilled. It happened as the angel had foretold, and at the circumcision and naming of his son his tongue was again loosed. Zacharias, filled with the Spirit, poured forth his soul in a hymn of praise--the Benedictus (Luke 1:5-25, 57-80; compare JOHN THE BAPTIST).
3. The Annunciation and Its Results: (Luke 1:26-56; Matthew 1:18-25)
Meanwhile yet stranger things were happening in the little village of Nazareth, in Galilee (now enNacirah). There resided a young maiden of purest character, named Mary, betrothed to a carpenter of the village (compare Matthew 13:55), called Joseph, who, although in so humble a station, was of the lineage of David (compare Isaiah 11:1). Mary, most probably, was likewise of Davidic descent (Luke 1:32; on the genealogies, see below). The fables relating to the parentage and youth of Mary in the Apocryphal Gospels may safely be discarded. To this maiden, three months before the birth of the Baptist, the same angelic visitant (Gabriel) appeared, hailing her as "highly favored" of God, and announcing to her that, through the power of the Holy Spirit, she should become the mother of the Saviour. The words "Blessed art thou among women," in the King James Version of Luke 1:28 are omitted by the Revised Version (British and American), though found below (Luke 1:42) in Elisabeth's salutation. They give, in any case, no support to Mariolatry, stating simply the fact that Mary was more honored than any other woman of the race in being chosen to be the mother of the Lord.
(1) The Amazing Message. The announcement itself was of the most amazing import. Mary herself was staggered at the thought that, as a virgin, she should become a mother (Luke 1:34). Still more surprising were the statements made as to the Son she was to bear. Conceived of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:18), He would be great, and would be called "the Son of the Most High" (Luke 1:32)--"the Son of God" (Luke 1:35); there would be given to Him the throne of His father David, and His reign would be eternal (Luke 1:32-33; compare Isaiah 9:6-7); He would be "holy" from the womb (Luke 1:35). His name was to be called Jesus (Luke 1:31; compare Matthew 1:21), denoting Him as Saviour. The holiness of Jesus is here put in connection with His miraculous conception, and surely rightly. In no case in the history of mankind has natural generation issued in a being who is sinless, not to say superhuman. The fact that Jesus, even in His human nature, was supernaturally begotten--was "Son of God"--does not exclude the higher and eternal Sonship according to the Divine nature (John 1:18). The incarnation of such a Divine Being as Paul and John depict, itself implies miracle in human origin. On the whole message being declared to her, Mary accepted what was told her in meek humility (Luke 1:38).
(2) The Visit to Elisabeth. With the announcement to herself there was given to Mary an indication of what had befallen her kinswoman Elisabeth, and Mary's first act, on recovering from her astonishment, was to go in haste to the home of Elisabeth in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39 ff). Very naturally she did not rashly forestall God's action in speaking to Joseph of what had occurred, but waited in quietness and faith till God should reveal in His own way what He had done. The meeting of the two holy women was the occasion of a new outburst of prophetic inspiration. Elisabeth, moved by the Spirit, greeted Mary in exalted language as the mother of the Lord (Luke 1:42-45)--a confirmation to Mary of the message she had received; Mary, on her part, broke forth in rhythmical utterance, "My soul doth magnify the Lord," etc. (Luke 1:46-56). Her hymn--the sublime Magnificat--is to be compared with Hannah's (1 Samuel 2:1-11), which furnishes the model of it. Mary abode with Elisabeth about three months, then returned to her own house.
(3) Joseph's Perplexity. Here a new trial awaited her. Mary's condition of motherhood could not long be concealed, and when Joseph first became aware of it, the shock to a man so just (Matthew 1:19) would be terrible in its severity. The disappearance of Joseph from the later gospel history suggests that he was a good deal older than his betrothed, and it is possible that, while strict, upright and conscientious, his disposition was not as strong on the side of sympathy as so delicate a case required. It is going too far to say with Lange, "He encountered the modest, but unshakably firm Virgin with decided doubt; the first Ebionite"; but so long as he had no support beyond Mary's word, his mind was in a state of agonized perplexity. His first thought was to give Mary a private "bill of divorcement" to avoid scandal (Matthew 1:19). Happily, his doubts were soon set at rest by a Divine intimation, and he hesitated no longer to take Mary to be his wife (Matthew 1:24). Luke's Gospel, which confines itself to the story of Mary, says nothing of this episode; Matthew's narrative, which bears evidence of having come from Joseph himself, supplies the lack by showing how Joseph came to have the confidence in Mary which enabled him to take her to wife, and become sponsor for her child. The trial, doubtless, while it lasted, was not less severe for Mary than for Joseph--a prelude of that sword which was to "pierce through (her) own soul" (Luke 2:35). There is no reason to believe that Joseph and Mary did not subsequently live in the usual relations of wedlock, and that children were not born to them (compare Matthew 13:55-56, etc.).
4. The Birth at Bethlehem: (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:1-7)
Matthew gives no indication of where the events narrated in his first chapter took place, first mentioning Nazareth on the occasion of the return of the holy family from Egypt (2:23). In 2:1 he transports us to Bethlehem as the city of Christ's birth. It is left to Luke to give an account of the circumstances which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem--thus fulfilling prophecy (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:5-6)--at this critical hour, and to record the lowly manner of Christ's birth there.
(1) The Census of Quirinius. The emperor Augustus had given orders for a general enrollment throughout the empire (the fact of periodical enrollments in the empire is well established by Professor W.M. Ramsay in his Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?), and this is stated to have been given effect to in Judea when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-2). The difficulties connected with the enrollment or census here mentioned are discussed in the article QUIRINIUS. It is known that Quirinius did conduct a census in Judea in 6 AD (compare Acts 5:37), but the census at Christ's birth is distinguished from this by Luke as "the first enrollment." The difficulty was largely removed when it was ascertained, as it has been to the satisfaction of most scholars, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria--first, after Herod's death, 4-1 BC, and again in 6-11 AD. The probability is that the census was begun under Varus, the immediate predecessor of Quirinius--or even earlier under Saturninus--but was delayed in its application to Judea, then under Herod's jurisdiction, and was completed by Quirinius, with whose name it is officially connected. That the enrollment was made by each one going to his own city (verse 3) is explained by the fact that the census was not made according to the Roman method, but, as befitted a dependent kingdom, in accordance with Jewish usages (compare Ramsay).
(2) Jesus Born. It must be left undecided whether the journey of Mary to Bethlehem with Joseph was required for any purpose of registration, or sprang simply from her unwillingness to be separated from Joseph in so trying a situation. To Bethlehem, in any case, possibly by Divine monition, she came, and there, in the ancestral city of David, in circumstances the lowliest conceivable, brought forth her marvelous child. In unadorned language--very different from the embellishments of apocryphal story--Luke narrates how, when the travelers arrived, no room was found for them in the "inn"--the ordinary eastern khan or caravanserai, a square enclosure, with an open court for cattle, and a raised recess round the walls for shelter of visitors--and how, when her babe was born, Mary wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger. The wearied pair having, according to Luke, been crowded out of, and not merely within, the inn, there is every probability that the birth took place, not, as some suppose, in the courtyard of the inn, but, as the oldest tradition asserts (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 78), in a cave in the neighborhood, used for similar purposes of lodgment and housing of cattle. High authorities look favorably on the "cave of the nativity" still shown, with its inscription, Hic de virgine Maria Jesus Christus natus est, as marking the sacred spot. In such incredibly mean surroundings was "the only begotten of the Father" ushered into the world He came to redeem. How true the apostle's word that He "emptied" Himself (Philippians 2:7)! A problem lies in the very circumstances of the entrance into time of such a One, which only the thought of a voluntary humiliation for saving ends can solve.
5. The Incidents of the Infancy: (Luke 2:8-39; Matthew 2:1-12)
Born, however, though Jesus was, in a low condition, the Father did not leave Him totally without witness to His Sonship. There were rifts in the clouds through which cidents of the hidden glory streamed. The scenes in the narratives of the Infancy exhibit a strange commingling of the glorious and the lowly.
(1) The Visit of the Shepherds. To shepherds watching their flocks by night in the fields near Bethlehem the first disclosure was made. The season, one would infer, could hardly have been winter, though it is stated that there is frequently an interval of dry weather in Judea between the middle of December and the middle of February, when such a keeping of flocks would be possible (Andrews). The angel world is not far removed from us, and as angels preannounced the birth of Christ, so, when He actually came into the world (compare Hebrews 1:6), angels of God made the night vocal with their songs. First, an angel appearing in the midst of the Divine glory--the "Shekinah"--announced to the sorely alarmed shepherds the birth of a "Saviour who was Christ the Lord" at Bethlehem; then a whole chorus of the heavenly host broke in with the refrain, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men in whom He is well pleased" (literally, "men of good pleasure")--since, the Christmas hymn of the generations (Luke 2:1-14). The shepherds, guided as to how to recognize the babe (Luke 2:12), went at once, and found it to be ever, as they had been told. Thence they hastened to spread abroad the tidings--the first believers, the first worshippers, the first preachers (Luke 2:15-20). Mary cherished the sayings in the stillness of her heart.
(2) The Circumcision and Presentation in the Temple.
Jewish law required that on the 8th day the male child should be circumcised, and on the same day He received His name (compare Luke 1:59-63). Jesus, though entirely pure, underwent the rite which denoted the putting off of fleshly sin (Colossians 2:11), and became bound, as a true Israelite, to render obedience to every Divine commandment. The name "Jesus" was then given Him (Luke 2:21). On the 40th day came the ceremony of presentation in the temple at Jerusalem, when Mary had to offer for her purifying (Leviticus 12:1-8; Mary's was the humbler offering of the poor, "a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons" (Leviticus 12:8; Luke 2:24)), and when the first-born son had to be redeemed with 5 shekels of the sanctuary (Numbers 18:15-16; about Numbers 3:1-51). The observance was an additional token that Christ--personally sinless--did not shrink from full identification with our race in the responsibilities of its sinful condition. Ere it was completed, however, the ceremony was lifted to a Diviner level, and a new attestation was given of the dignity of the child of Mary, by the action and inspired utterances of the holy Simeon and the aged prophetess Anna. To Simeon, a righteous and devout man, "looking for the consolation of Israel," it had been revealed that he should not die till he had seen the Lord's Christ, and, led by the Spirit into the temple at the very time when Jesus was being presented, he recognized in Him the One for whom he had waited, and, taking Him in his arms, gave utterance to the beautiful words of the Nunc Dimittis--"Now lettest thou thy servant depart, Lord," etc. (Luke 2:25-32). He told also how this child was set for the falling and rising of many in Israel, and how, through Him, a sword should pierce through Mary's own soul (Luke 2:34-35). Entering at the same hour, the prophetess Anna--now in extreme old age (over 100; a constant frequenter of the temple, Luke 2:37--confirmed his words, and spoke of Him to all who, like herself, looked "for the redemption of Jerusalem."
(3) Visit of the Magi. It seems to have been after the presentation in the temple that the incident took place recorded by Matthew of the visit of the Magi. The Magi, a learned class belonging originally to Chaldea or Persia (see MAGI), had, in course of time, greatly degenerated (compare Simon Magus, Acts 8:9), but those who now came to seek Christ from the distant East were of a nobler order. They appeared in Jerusalem inquiring, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews?" and declaring that they had seen His star in the East, and had come to worship Him (Matthew 2:2). Observers of the nightly sky, any significant appearance in the heavens would at once attract their attention. Many (Kepler, Ideler, etc.; compare Ramsay, op. cit., 215 ff) are disposed to connect this "star" with a remarkable conjunction--or series of conjunctions--of planets in 7-6 BC, in which case it is possible that two years may have elapsed (compare the inquiry of Herod and his subsequent action, Matthew 2:7, 16) from their observation of the sign. On the other hand, the fact of the star reappearing and seeming to stand over a house in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:9) rather points to a distinct phenomenon (compare BETHLEHEM, STAR OF). The inquiry of the Magi at once awakened Herod's alarm; accordingly, having ascertained from the scribes that the Christ should be born at Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), he summoned the Magi, questioned them as to when exactly the star appeared, then sent them to Bethlehem to search out the young child, hypocritically pretending that he also wished to worship Him (Matthew 2:7-8). Herod had faith enough to believe the Scriptures, yet was foolish enough to think that he could thwart God's purpose. Guided by the star, which anew appeared, the wise men came to Bethlehem, offered their gifts, and afterward, warned by God, returned by another road, without reporting to Herod. It is a striking picture--Herod the king, and Christ the King; Christ a power even in His cradle, inspiring terror, attracting homage! The faith of these sages, unrepelled by the lowly surroundings of the child they had discovered, worshipping, and laying at His feet their gold, frankincense and myrrh, is a splendid anticipation of the victories Christ was yet to win among the wisest as well as the humblest of our race. Herod, finding himself, as he thought, befooled by the Magi, avenged himself by ordering a massacre of all the male children of two years old, and under, in Bethlehem and its neighborhood (Matthew 2:16-19). This slaughter, if not recorded elsewhere (compare however, Macrobius, quoted by Ramsay, op. cit., 219), is entirely in keeping with the cruelty of Herod's disposition. Meanwhile, Joseph and Mary had been withdrawn from the scene of danger (Matthew 2:17 connects the mourning of the Bethlehem mothers with Rachel's weeping, Jeremiah 31:15).
6. Flight to Egypt and Return to Nazareth: (Matthew 2:13-15, 19-23)
The safety of Mary and her threatened child was provided for by a Divine warning to retire for a time to Egypt (mark the recurring expression, "the young child and his mother"--the young child taking the lead, Matthew 2:11, 13-14, 20-21), whither, accordingly, they were conducted by Joseph (Matthew 2:14). The sojourn was not a long one. Herod's death brought permission to return, but as Archelaus, Herod's son (the worst of them), reigned in Judea in his father's stead (not king, but "ethnarch"), Joseph was directed to withdraw to Galilee; hence it came about that he and Mary, with the babe, found themselves again in Nazareth, where Luke anew takes up the story (Matthew 2:23), the thread of which had been broken by the incidents in Matthew. Matthew sees in the return from Egypt a refulfilling of the experiences of Israel (Hosea 11:1), and in the settling in Nazareth a connection with the Old Testament prophecies of Christ's lowly estate (Isaiah 11:1, netser, "branch"; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12, etc.).
7. Questions and Objections: The objections to the credibility of the narratives of the Virgin Birth have already partly been adverted to. (See further the articles on MARY; VIRGIN BIRTH; and the writer's volume, The Virgin Birth of Christ.)
(1) The Virgin Birth. The narratives in Matthew and Luke are attested by all manuscripts and versions genuine parts of their respective Gospels, and as coming to us in their integrity. The narrative of Luke is generally recognized as resting on an Aramaic basis, which, from its diction and the primitive character of its conceptions, belongs to the earliest age. While in Luke's narrative everything is presented from the standpoint of Mary, in Matthew it is Joseph who is in the forefront, suggesting that the virgin mother is the source of information in the one case, and Joseph himself in the other. The narratives are complementary, not contradictory. That Mark and John do not contain narratives of the Virgin Birth cannot be wondered at, when it is remembered that Mark's Gospel begins of purpose with the Baptism of John, and that the Fourth Gospel aims at setting forth the Divine descent, not the circumstances of the earthly nativity. "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14)--everything is already implied in that. Neither can it be objected to that Paul does not in his letters or public preaching base upon so essentially private a fact as the miraculous conception--at a time, too, when Mary probably still lived. With the exception of the narrowest sect of the Jewish Ebionites and some of the Gnostic sects, the Virgin Birth was universally accepted in the early church.
(2) The Genealogies
(Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-28)
Difficulty is felt with the genealogies in Matthew and Luke (one descending, the other ascending), which, while both professing to trace the descent of Jesus from David and Abraham (Luke from Adam), yet go entirely apart in the pedigree after David. See on this the article GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. A favorite view is that Matthew exhibits the legal, Luke the natural descent of Jesus. There is plausibility in the supposition that though, in form, a genealogy of Joseph, Luke's is really the genealogy of Mary. It was not customary, it is true, to make out pedigrees of females, but the case here was clearly exceptional, and the passing of Joseph into the family of his father-in-law Heli would enable the list to be made out in his name. Celsus, in the 2nd century, appears thus to have understood it when he derides the notion that through so lowly a woman as the carpenter's wife, Jesus should trace His lineage up to the first man (Origen, Contra Celsus, ii.32; Origen's reply proceeds on the same assumption. Compare article on" Genealogies" in Kitto,II ).
II. The Years of Silence--the Twelfth Year. 1. The Human Development: (Luke 2:40, 52)
With the exception of one fragment of incident--that of the visit to Jerusalem and the Temple in His 12th year--the Canonical Gospels are silent as to the history of Jesus from the return to Nazareth till His baptism by John. This long period, which the Apocryphal Gospels crowd with silly fables (see APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS), the inspired records leave to be regarded as being what it was--a period of quiet development of mind and body, of outward uneventfulness, of silent garnering of experience in the midst of the Nazareth surroundings. Jesus "grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him .... advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men" (Luke 2:40, 52). The incarnation was a true acceptance of humanity, with all its sinless limitations of growth and development. Not a hint is offered of that omniscience or omnipotence which theology has not infrequently imputed to Jesus even as child and boy. His schooling was probably that of the ordinary village child (He could read, Luke 4:17 ff, and write, John 8:6-8); He wrought at the carpenter's bench (compare Mark 6:3; Justin Martyr, following tradition, speaks of Him as making "plows and yokes," Dial., 88). His gentleness and grace of character endeared Him to all who knew Him (Luke 2:52). No stain of sin clouded His vision of Divine things. His after-history shows that His mind was nourished on the Scriptures; nor, as He pondered psalms and prophets, could His soul remain unvisited by presentiments, growing to convictions, that He was the One in whom their predictions were destined to be realized.
2. Jesus in the Temple: (Luke 2:41-50)
Every year, as was the custom of the Jews, Joseph and Mary went, with their friends and neighbors, in companies, to Jerusalem to the Passover. When Jesus was 12 years old, it would seem that, for the first time, He was permitted to accompany them. It would be to Him a strange and thrilling experience. Everything He saw--the hallowed sites, the motley crowd, the service of the temple, the very shocks His moral consciousness would receive from contact with abounding scandals--would intensify His feeling of His own unique relation to the Father. Every relationship was for the time suspended and merged to His thought in this higher one. It was His Father's city whose streets He trod; His Father's house He visited for prayer; His Father's ordinance the crowds were assembled to observe; His Father's name, too, they were dishonoring by their formalism and hypocrisy. It is this exalted mood of the boy Jesus which explains the scene that follows--the only one rescued from oblivion in this interval of growth and preparation. When the time came for the busy caravan to return to Nazareth, Jesus, acting, doubtless, from highest impulse, "tarried behind" (verse 43). In the large company His absence was not at first missed, but when, at the evening halting-place, it became known that He was not with them, His mother and Joseph returned in deep distress to Jerusalem. Three days elapsed before they found Him in the place where naturally they should have looked first--His Father's house. There, in one of the halls or chambers where the rabbis were wont to teach, they discovered Him seated "in the midst," at the feet of the men of learning, hearing them discourse, asking questions, as pupils were permitted to do, and giving answers which awakened astonishment by their penetration and wisdom (Luke 2:46-47). Those who heard Him may well have thought that before them was one of the great rabbis of the future! Mary, much surprised, asked in remonstrance, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us?" evoking from Jesus the memorable reply, "How is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that I must be in my Father's house?" or "about my Father's business?" the King James Version (Luke 2:48-49). Here was the revelation of a selfconsciousness that Mary might have been prepared for in Jesus, but perhaps, in the common intercourse of life, was tending to lose sight of. The lesson was not unneeded. Yet, once it had been given, Jesus went back with Joseph and Mary to Nazareth, and "was subject unto them"; and Mary did not forget the teaching of the incident (Luke 2:51).
III. The Forerunner and the Baptism. 1. The Preaching of John: (Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18)
Time passed, and when Jesus was nearing His 30th year, Judea was agitated by the message of a stern preacher of righteousness who had appeared in the wilderness by the Jordan, proclaiming the imminent approach of the kingdom of heaven, summoning to repentance, and baptizing those who confessed their sins. Tiberius had succeeded Augustus on the imperial throne; Judea, with Samaria, was now a Roman province, under the procurator Pontius Pilate; the rest of Palestine was divided between the tetrarchs Herod (Galilee) and Philip (the eastern parts). The Baptist thus appeared at the time when the land had lost the last vestige of self-government, was politically divided, and was in great ecclesiastical confusion. Nurtured in the deserts (Luke 1:80), John's very appearance was a protest against the luxury and self-seeking of the age. He had been a Nazarite from his birth; he fed on the simplest products of nature--locusts and wild honey; his coarse garb of camel's hair and leathern girdle was a return to the dress of Elijah (2 Kings 1:8), in whose spirit and power he appeared (Luke 1:17) (see JOHN THE BAPTIST).
The Coming Christ.
John's preaching of the kingdom was unlike that of any of the revolutionaries of his age. It was a kingdom which could be entered only through moral preparation. It availed nothing for the Jew simply that he was a son of Abraham. The Messiah was at hand. He (John) was but a voice in the wilderness sent to prepare the way for that Greater than himself. The work of the Christ would be one of judgment and of mercy. He would lay the axe at the root of the tree--would winnow the chaff from the wheat--yet would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:10-12; Luke 3:15-17). Those who professed acceptance of his message, with its condition of repentance, John baptized with water at the Jordan or in its neighborhood (compare Matthew 3:6; John 1:28; 3:23).
2. Jesus Is Baptized: (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22)
John's startling words made a profound impression. All classes from every part of the land, including Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7), came to his baptism. John was not deceived. He saw how little change of heart underlay it all. The Regenerator had not yet come. But one day there appeared before him One whom he intuitively recognized as different from all the rest--as, indeed, the Christ whose coming it was his to herald. John, up to this time, does not seem to have personally known Jesus (compare John 1:31). He must, however, have heard of Him; he had, besides, received a sign by which the Messiah should be recognized (John 1:33); and now, when Jesus presented Himself, Divinely pure in aspect, asking baptism at his hands, the conviction was instantaneously flashed on his mind, that this was He. But how should he, a sinful man, baptize this Holy One? "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" (Matthew 3:14). The question is one which forces itself upon ourselves--How should Jesus seek or receive a "baptism of repentance"? Jesus Himself puts it on the ground of meetness. "Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). The Head was content to enter by the same gateway as the members to His specific vocation in the service of the kingdom. In submitting to the baptism, He formally identified Himself with the expectation of the kingdom and with its ethical demands; separated Himself from the evil of His nation, doubtless with confession of its sins; and devoted Himself to His life-task in bringing in the Messianic salvation. The significance of the rite as marking His consecration to, and entrance upon, His Messianic career, is seen in what follows. As He ascended from the water, while still "praying" (Luke 3:21), the heavens were opened, the Spirit of God descended like a dove upon Him, and a voice from heaven declared: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16-17). It is needless to inquire whether anyone besides John (compare John 1:33) and Jesus (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10) received this vision or heard these words; it was for them, not for others, the vision was primarily intended. To Christ's consecration of Himself to His calling, there was now added the spiritual equipment necessary for the doing of His work. He went forward with the seal of the Father's acknowledgment upon Him.
IV. The Temptation. 1. Temptation Follows Baptism: (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:13-14; Luke 4:1-13)
On the narrative of the baptism in the first three Gospels there follows at once the account of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. The psychological naturalness of the incident is generally acknowledged. The baptism of Jesus was a crisis in His experience. He had been plenished by the Spirit for His work; the heavens had been opened to Him, and His mind was agitated by new thoughts and emotions; He was conscious of the possession of new powers. There was need for a period of retirement, of still reflection, of coming to a complete understanding with Himself as to the meaning of the task to which He stood committed, the methods He should employ, the attitude He should take up toward popular hopes and expectations. He would wish to be alone. The Spirit of God led Him (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1) whither His own spirit also impelled. It is with a touch of similar motive that Buddhist legend makes Buddha to be tempted by the evil spirit Mara after he has attained enlightenment.
2. Nature of the Temptation: The scene of the temptation was the wilderness of Judea. Jesus was there 40 days, during which, it is told, He neither ate nor drank (compare the fasts of Moses and Elijah, Exodus 24:18; 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:18; 1 Kings 19:8). Mark adds, "He was with the wild beasts" (verse 13). The period was probably one of intense self-concentration. During the whole of it He endured temptations of Satan (Mark 1:13); but the special assaults came at the end (Matthew 4:2 ff; Luke 4:2 ff). We assume here a real tempter and real temptations--the question of diabolic agency being considered after. This, however, does not settle the form of the temptations. The struggle was probably an inward one. It can hardly be supposed that Jesus was literally transported by the devil to a pinnacle of the temple, then to a high mountain, then, presumably, back again to the wilderness. The narrative must have come from Jesus Himself, and embodies an ideal or parabolic element. "The history of the temptation," Lange says, "Jesus afterwards communicated to His disciples in the form of a real narrative, clothed in symbolical language" (Commentary on Matthew, 83, English translation).
3. Stages of the Temptation: The stages of the temptation were three--each in its own way a trial of the spirit of obedience.
(1) The first temptation was to distrust. Jesus, after His long fast, was hungry. He had become conscious also of supernatural powers. The point on which the temptation laid hold was His sense of hunger--the most over-mastering of appetites. "If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." The design was to excite distrustful and rebellious thoughts, and lead Jesus to use the powers entrusted to Him in an unlawful way, for private and selfish ends. The temptation was promptly met by a quotation from Scripture: "Man shall not live by bread alone," etc. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; compare Deuteronomy 8:3). If Jesus was in this position, it was His Father who had brought Him there for purposes of trial. Man has a higher life than can be sustained on bread; a life, found in depending on God's word, and obeying it at whatever cost.
(2) The second temptation (in Luke the third) was to presumption. Jesus is borne in spirit (compare Ezekiel 40:1-2) to a pinnacle of the temple. From this dizzy elevation He is invited to cast Himself down, relying on the Divine promise: "He shall give His angels charge over thee," etc. (compare Psalms 91:11-12). In this way an easy demonstration of His Messiahship would be given to the crowds below. The temptation was to overstep those bounds of humility and dependence which were imposed on Him as Son; to play with signs and wonders in His work as Messiah. But again the tempter is foiled by the word: "Thou shalt not make trial of (try experiments with, propose tests, put to the proof) the Lord thy God" (Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12; compare Deuteronomy 6:16).
(3) The third temptation (Luke's second) was to worldly sovereignty, gained by some small concession to Satan. From some lofty elevation--no place on a geographical map--the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them are flashed before Christ's mind, and all are offered to Him on condition of one little act of homage to the tempter. It was the temptation to choose the easier path by some slight pandering to falsehood, and Jesus definitely repelled it by the saying: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:8). Jesus had chosen His path. The Father's way of the cross would be adhered to.
Its Typical Character.
The stages of the temptation typify the whole round of Satanic assault on man through body, mind, and spirit (Luke 4:13; compare 1 John 2:16), and the whole round of Messianic temptation. Jesus was constantly being tempted (a) to spare Himself; (b) to gratify the Jewish signseekers; (c) to gain power by sacrifice of the right. In principle the victory was gained over all at the commencement. His way was henceforth clear.
Jesus Christ, 4b
Jesus Christ, 4b - B. THE EARLY JUDAEAN MINISTRY
I. The Testimonies of the Baptist. 1. The Synoptics and John: While the Synoptics pass immediately from the temptation of Jesus to the ministry in Galilee the imprisonment of the Baptist (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:14), the Fourth Gospel furnishes the account, full of interest, of the earlier ministry of Jesus in Judea while the Baptist was still at liberty.
2. Threefold Witness of the Baptist: (John 1:19-37)
The Baptist had announced Christ's coming; had baptized Him when He appeared; it was now his privilege to testify to Him as having come, and to introduce to Jesus His first disciples.
a) First Testimony--Jesus and Popular Messianic Expectation:
John's work had assumed proportions which made it impossible for the ecclesiastical authorities any longer to ignore it (compare Luke 3:15). A deputation consisting of priests and Levites was accordingly sent to John, where he was baptizing at Bethany beyond Jordan, to put to him categorical questions about his mission. Who was he? And by what authority did--he baptize? Was he the Christ? or Elijah? or the expected prophet? (compare John 6:14; 7:4; Matthew 16:14). To these questions John gave distinct and straightforward replies. He was not the Christ, not Elijah, not the prophet. His answers grow briefer every time, "I am not the Christ"; "I am not"; "No." Who was he then? The answer was emphatic. He was but a "voice" (compare Isaiah 40:3)--a preparer of the way of the Lord. In their midst already stood One--not necessarily in the crowd at that moment--with whose greatness his was not to be compared (John 1:26-27). John utterly effaces himself before Christ.
b) Second Testimony--Christ and the Sin of the World:
The day after the interview with the Jerusalem deputies, John saw Jesus coming to him--probably fresh from the temptation--and bore a second and wonderful testimony to His Messiahship. Identifying Jesus with the subject of his former testimonies, and stating the ground of his knowledge in the sign God had given him (1:30-34), he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world" (1:29). The words are rich in suggestion regarding the character of Jesus, and the nature, universality and efficacy of His work (compare 1 John 3:5). The "Lamb" may point specifically to the description of the vicariously Suffering Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 53:11.
c) Third Testimony--Christ and the Duty of the Disciple:
The third testimony was borne "again on the morrow," when John was standing with two of his disciples (one Andrew, 1:40, the other doubtless the evangelist himself). Pointing to Jesus, the Baptist repeated his former words, "Behold, the Lamb of God." While the words are the same, the design was different. In the first "behold" the idea is the recognition of Christ; in the second there is a call to duty--a hint to follow Jesus. On this hint the disciples immediately acted (1:37). It is next to be seen how this earliest "following" of Jesus grew.
II. The First Disciples. 1. Spiritual Accretion: (John 1:37-51)
John's narrative shows that Jesus gathered His disciples, less by a series of distinct calls, than by a process of spiritual accretion. Men were led to Him, then accepted by Him. This process of selection left Jesus at the close of the second day with five real and true followers. The history confutes the idea that it was first toward the close of His ministry that Jesus became known to His disciples as the Messiah. In all the Gospels it was as the Christ that the Baptist introduced Jesus; it was as the Christ that the first disciples accepted and confessed Him (John 1:41, 45, 49).
a) Andrew and John--Discipleship as the Fruit of Spiritual Converse:
The first of the group were Andrew and John--the unnamed disciple of John 1:40. These followed Jesus in consequence of their Master's testimony. It was, however, the few hours' converse they had with Jesus in His own abode that actually decided them. To Christ's question, "What seek ye?" their answer was practically "Thyself." "The mention of the time--the 10th hour, i.e. 10 AM--is one of the small traits that mark John. He is here looking back on the date of his own spiritual birth" (Westcott).
b) Simon Peter--Discipleship a Result of Personal Testimony:
John and Andrew had no sooner found Christ for themselves ("We have found the Messiah," John 1:41) than they hastened to tell others of their discovery. Andrew at once sought out Simon, his brother, and brought him to Jesus; so, later, Philip sought Nathanael (John 1:45). Christ's unerring eye read at once the quality of the man whom Andrew introduced to Him. "Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas"--"Rock" or "Stone" (John 1:42). Matthew 16:18, therefore, is not the original bestowal of this name, but the confirmation of it. The name is the equivalent of "Peter" (Petros), and was given to Simon, not with any official connotation, but because of the strength and clearness of his convictions. His general steadfastness is not disproved by His one unhappy failure. (Was it thus the apostle acquired the name "Peter"?)
c) Philip--the Result of Scriptural Evidence:
The fourth disciple, Philip, was called by Jesus Himself, when about to depart for Galilee (John 1:43). Friendship may have had its influence on Philip (like the foregoing, he also was from Bethsaida of Galilee, John 1:44), but that which chiefly decided him was the correspondence of what he found in Jesus with the prophetic testimonies (John 1:45).
d) Nathanael--Discipleship an Effect of Heart-Searching Power:
Philip sought Nathanael (of Cana of Galilee, John 21:2)--the same probably as Bartholomew the Apostle--and told him he had found Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets had written (John 1:45). Nathanael doubted, on the ground that the Messiah was not likely to have His origin in an obscure place like Nazareth (John 1:46; compare John 7:52). Philip's wise answer was, "Come and see"; and when Nathanael came, the Lord met him with a word which speedily rid him of his hesitations. First, Jesus attested His seeker's sincerity ("Behold, an Israelite indeed," etc., John 1:47); then, on Nathanael expressing surprise, revealed to him His knowledge of a recent secret act of meditation or devotion ("when thou wast under the fig tree," etc., John 1:48). The sign was sufficient to convince Nathanael that he was in the presence of a superhuman, nay a Divine, Being, therefore, the Christ--"Son of God .... King of Israel" (John 1:49). Jesus met his faith with further self-disclosure. Nathanael had believed on comparatively slight evidence; he would see greater things: heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (John 1:51). The allusion is to Jacob's vision (Genesis 28:10-22)--a Scripture which had possibly been theme of Philip's meditation in his privacy. Jesus puts Himself in place of that mystic ladder as the medium of reopened communication between heaven and earth.
2. "Son of Man" and "Son of God": The name "Son of Man"--a favorite designation of Jesus for Himself--appears here for the first time in the Gospels. It is disputed whether it was a current Messianic title (see SON OF MAN), but at least it had this force on the lips of Jesus Himself, denoting Him as the possessor of a true humanity, and as standing in a representative relation to mankind universally. It is probably borrowed from Daniel 7:13 and appears in the Book of Enoch (see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE). The higher title, "Son of God," given to Jesus by Nathanael, could not, of course, as yet carry with it the transcendental associations of John's Prologue (John 1:1, 14, 18), but it evidently conveyed an idea of superhuman dignity and unique relation to God, such as the better class of minds would seem to have attributed to the Messiah (compare John 5:18; 10:33 ff; Matthew 26:63).
III. The First Events. An interval of a few weeks is occupied by a visit of Jesus to Cana of Galilee (John 2:1 ff) and a brief sojourn in Capernaum (John 2:12); after which Jesus returned to Jerusalem to the Passover as the most appropriate place for His public manifestation of Himself as Messiah (John 2:13 ff). The notes of time in John suggest that the Passover (beginning of April, 27 AD) took place about three months after the baptism by John (compare 1:43; 2:1,12).
1. The First Miracle: (John 2:1-11)
Prior to His public manifestation, a more private unfolding of Christ's glory was granted to the disciples at the marriage feast of Cana of Galilee (compare John 2:11). The marriage was doubtless that of some relative of the family, and the presence of Jesus at the feast, with His mother, brethren and disciples (as Joseph no more appears, it may be concluded that he was dead), is significant as showing that His religion is not one of antagonism to natural relations. The marriage festivities lasted seven days, and toward the close the wine provided for the guests gave out. Mary interposed with an indirect suggestion that Jesus might supply the want. Christ's reply, literally, "Woman, what is that to thee and to me?" (John 2:4), is not intended to convey the least tinge of reproof (compare Westcott, in the place cited.), but intimates to Mary that His actions were henceforth to be guided by a rule other than hers (compare Luke 2:51). This, however, as Mary saw (John 2:5), did not preclude an answer to her desire. Six waterpots of stone stood near, and Jesus ordered these to be filled with water (the quantity was large; about 50 gallons); then when the water was drawn off it was found changed into a nobler element--a wine purer and better than could have been obtained from any natural vintage. The ruler of the feast, in ignorance of its origin, expressed surprise at its quality (John 2:10). The miracle was symbolical--a "sign" (John 2:11)--and may be contrasted with the first miracle of Moses--turning the water into blood (Exodus 7:20). It points to the contrast between the old dispensation and the new, and to the work of Christ as a transforming, enriching and glorifying of the natural, through Divine grace and power.
After a brief stay at Capernaum (John 2:12), Jesus went up to Jerusalem to keep the Passover. There it was His design formally to manifest Himself. Other "signs" He wrought at the feast, leading many to believe on Him--not, however, with a deep or enduring faith (John 2:23-25)--but the special act by which He signalized His appearance was His public cleansing of the temple from the irreligious trafficking with which it had come to be associated.
2. The First Passover, and Cleansing of the Temple:
A like incident is related by the Synoptics at the close of Christ's ministry (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46), and it is a question whether the act was actually repeated, or whether the other evangelists, who do not narrate the events of the early ministry, simply record it out of its chronological order. In any case, the act was a fitting inauguration of the Lord's work. A regular market was held in the outer court of the temple. Here the animals needed for sacrifice could be purchased, foreign money exchanged, and the doves, which were the offerings of the poor, be obtained. It was a busy, tumultuous, noisy and unholy scene, and the "zeal" of Jesus burned within Him--had doubtless often done so before--as He witnessed it. Arming Himself with a scourge of cords, less as a weapon of offense, than as a symbol of authority, He descended with resistless energy upon the wrangling throng, drove out the dealers and the cattle, overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and commanded the doves to be taken away. Let them not profane His Father's house (John 2:14-16). No one seems to have opposed. All felt that a prophet was among them, and could not resist the overpowering authority with which He spake and acted. By and by, when their courage revived, they asked Him for a "sign" in evidence of His right to do such things. Jesus gave them no sign such as they demanded, but uttered an enigmatic word, and left them to reflect on it, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). The authenticity of the saying is sufficiently vouched for by the perverted use made of it at Christ's trial (Matthew 26:61 parallel). It is a word based on the foresight which Christ had that the conflict now commencing was to end in His rejection and death. "The true way to destroy the Temple, in the eyes of Jesus, was to slay the Messiah. .... If it is in the person of the Messiah that the Temple is laid in ruins, it is in His person it shall be raised again" (Godet). The disciples, after the resurrection, saw the meaning of the word (John 2:22).
3. The Visit of Nicodemus: (John 3:1-12)
As a sequel to these stirring events Jesus had a nocturnal visitor in the person of Nicodemus--a Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews, a "teacher of Israel" (John 3:10), apparently no longer young (John 3:4). His coming by night argues, besides some fear of man, a constitutional timidity of disposition (compare John 19:39); but the interesting thing is that he did come, showing that he had been really impressed by Christ's words and works. One recognizes in him a man of candor and uprightness of spirit, yet without adequate apprehensions of Christ Himself, and of the nature of Christ's kingdom. Jesus he was prepared to acknowledge as a Divinely-commissioned teacher--one whose mission was accredited by miracle (John 3:2). He was interested in the kingdom, but, as a morally living man, had no doubt of his fitness to enter into it. Jesus had but to teach and he would understand.
(1) The New Birth. Jesus in His reply laid His finger at once on the defective point in His visitor's relation to Himself and to His kingdom: "Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3); "Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Nicodemus was staggered at this demand for a spiritual new birth. There is reason to believe that proselytes were baptized on being received into the Jewish church, and their baptism was called a "new birth." Nicodemus would therefore be familiar with the expression, but could not see that it had any applicability to him. Jesus teaches him, on the other hand, that he also needs a new birth, and this, not through water only, but through the Spirit. The change was mysterious, yet plainly manifest in its effects (John 3:7-8). If Nicodemus did not understand these "earthly things"--the evidence of which lay all around him--how should he understand "heavenly things," the things pertaining to salvation?
(2) "Heavenly Things."
These "heavenly things" Jesus now proceeds to unfold to Nicodemus: "As Moses lifted up the serpent," etc. (John 3:14). The "lifting up" is a prophecy of the cross (compare John 12:32-34). The brazen serpent is the symbol of sin conquered and destroyed by the death of Christ. What follows in John 3:16-21 is probably the evangelist's expansion of this theme--God's love the source of salvation (John 3:16), God's purpose not the world's condemnation, but its salvation (John 3:17-18) the self-judgment of sin (John 3:19 ff).
4. Jesus and John: (John 3:22-36)
Retiring from Jerusalem, Jesus commenced a ministry in Judea (John 3:22). It lasted apparently about 6 months. The earlier Gospels pass over it. This is accounted for by the fact that the ministry in Judea was still preparatory. Jesus had publicly asserted His Messianic authority. A little space is now allowed to test the result. Meanwhile Jesus descends again to the work of prophetic preparation. His ministry at this stage is hardly distinguishable from John's. He summons to the baptism of repentance. His disciples, not Himself, administer the rite (John 3:23; 4:2); hence the sort of rivalry that sprang up between His baptism and that of the forerunner (John 3:22-26). John was baptizing at the time at Aenon, on the western side of the Jordan; Jesus somewhere in the neighborhood. Soon the greater teacher began to eclipse the less. "All men came to Him" (John 3:26). John's reply showed how pure his mind was from the narrow, grudging spirit which characterized his followers. To him it was no grievance, but the fulfillment of his joy, that men should be flocking to Jesus. He was not the Bridegroom, but the friend of the Bridegroom. They themselves had heard him testify, "I am not the Christ." It lay in the nature of things that Jesus must increase; he must decrease (John 3:27-30). Explanatory words follow (John 3:31-36).
IV. Journey to Galilee--the Woman of Samaria. 1. Withdrawal to Galilee: Toward the close of this Judean ministry the Baptist appears to have been cast into prison for his faithfulness in reproving Herod Antipas for taking his brother Philip's wife (compare John 3:24; Matthew 14:3-5 parallel). It seems most natural to connect the departure to Galilee in John 4:3 with that narrated in Matthew 3:13 parallel, though some think the imprisonment of the Baptist did not take place till later. The motive which Jn gives was the hostility of the Pharisees, but it was the imprisonment of the Baptist which led Jesus to commence, at the time He did, an independent ministry. The direct road to Galilee lay through Samaria; hence the memorable encounter with the woman at that place.
2. The Living Water: Jesus, being wearied, paused to rest Himself at Jacob's well, near a town called Sychar, now 'Askar. It was about the sixth hour--or 6 o'clock in the evening. The time of year is determined by John 4:35 to be "four months" before harvest, i.e. December (there is no reason for not taking this literally). It suits the evening hour that the woman of Samaria came out to draw water. (Some, on a different reckoning, take the hour to be noon.) Jesus opened the conversation by asking from the woman a draught from her pitcher. The proverbial hatred between Jews and Samaritans filled the woman with surprise that Jesus should thus address Himself to her. Still greater was her surprise when, as the conversation proceeded, Jesus announced Himself as the giver of a water of which, if a man drank, he should never thirst again (John 4:13-14). Only gradually did His meaning penetrate her mind, "Sir, give me this water," etc. (John 4:15). The request of Jesus that she would call her husband led to the discovery that Jesus knew all the secrets of her life. She was before a prophet (John 4:19). As in the case iof Nathanael, the heart-searching power of Christ's word convinced her of His Divine claim.
3. The True Worship: The conversation next turned upon the right place of worship. The Samaritans had a temple of their own on Mount Gerizim; the Jews, on the other hand, held to the exclusive validity of the temple at Jerusalem. Which was right? Jesus in His reply, while pronouncing for the Jews as the custodians of God's salvation (John 4:22), makes it plain that distinction of places is no longer a matter of any practical importance. A change was imminent which would substitute a universal religion for one of special times and places (John 4:20). He enunciates the great principle of the new dispensation that God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth. Finally, when she spoke of the Messiah, Jesus made Himself definitely known to her as the Christ. To this poor Samaritan woman, with her receptive heart, He unveils Himself more plainly than He had done to priests and rulers (John 4:26).
4. Work at Its Reward: The woman went home and became an evangelist to her people, with notable results (John 4:28, 39). Jesus abode with them two days and confirmed the impression made by her testimony (John 4:40-42). Meanwhile, He impressed on His disciples the need of earnest sowing and reaping in the service of the Kingdom, assuring them of unfailing reward for both sower and reaper (John 4:35-38). He Himself was their Great Example (John 4:34).
Jesus Christ, 4c1
Jesus Christ, 4c1 - C. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY AND VISITS TO THE FEASTS
1. The Scene: Galilee was divided into upper Galilee and lower Galilee. It has already been remarked that upper Galilee was inhabited by a mixed population--hence called "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matthew 4:15). The highroads of commerce ran through it. It was "the way of the sea" (the King James Version)--a scene of constant traffic. The people were rude, ignorant, and superstitious, and were densely crowded together in towns and villages. About 160 BC there were only a few Jews in the midst of a large heathen population; but by the time of Christ the Jewish element had greatly increased. The busiest portion of this busy district was round the Sea of Galilee, at the Northeast corner of which stood Capernaum--wealthy and cosmopolitan. In Nazareth, indeed, Jesus met with a disappointing reception (Luke 4:16-30; Matthew 13:54-57; compare John 4:43-45); yet in Galilee generally He found a freer spirit and greater receptiveness than among the stricter traditionalists of Judea.
2. The Time: It is assumed here that Jesus returned to Galilee in December, 27 AD, and that His ministry there lasted till late in 29 AD (see "Chronology" above). On the two years' scheme of the public ministry, the Passover of John 6:4 has to be taken as the second in Christ's ministry--therefore as occurring at an interval of only 3 or 4 months after the return. This seems impossible in view of the crowding of events it involves in so short a time--opening incidents, stay in Capernaum (Matthew 4:13), three circuits in "all Galilee" (Matthew 4:23-25 parallel; Luke 8:1-4; Matthew 9:35-38; Mark 6:6), lesser journeys and excursions (Sermon on Mount: Gadara); and the dislocations it necessitates, e.g. the plucking of ears of corn (about Passover time) must be placed after the feeding of the 5,000, etc. It is simpler to adhere to the three years' scheme.
A division of the Galilean ministry may then fitly be made into two periods--one preceding, the other succeeding the Mission of the Twelve in Matthew 10:1-42 parallel. One reason for this division is that after the Mission of the Twelve the order of events is the same in the first three evangelists till the final departure from Galilee.
First Period--From the Beginning of the Ministry in Galilee till the Mission of the Twelve
I. Opening Incidents. 1. Healing of Nobleman's Son: (John 4:43-54)
From sympathetic Samaria (John 4:39), Jesus had journeyed to unsympathetic Galilee, and first to Cana, where His first miracle had been wrought. The reports of His miracles in Judea had come before Him (John 4:45), and it was mainly His reputation as a miracle-worker which led a nobleman--a courtier or officer at Herod's court--to seek Him at Cana on behalf of his son, who was near to death. Jesus rebuked the sign-seeking spirit (John 4:48), but, on the fervent appeal being repeated, He bade the nobleman go his way: his son lived. The man's prayer had been, "Come down"; but he had faith to receive the word of Jesus (John 4:50), and on his way home received tidings of his son's recovery. The nobleman, with his whole household, was won for Jesus (John 4:53). This is noted as the second of Christ's Galilean miracles (John 4:54).
2. The Visit to Nazareth: (Matthew 4:13; Luke 4:16-30)
A very different reception awaited Him at Nazareth,"His own country," to which He next came. We can scarcely take the incident recorded in Luke 4:16-30 to be the same as that in Matthew 13:54-58, though Matthew's habit of grouping makes this not impossible. The Sabbath had come, and on His entering the synagogue, as was His wont, the repute He had won led to His being asked to read. The Scripture He selected (or which came in the order of the day) was Isaiah 61:1 ff (the fact that Jesus was able to read from the synagogue-roll is interesting as bearing on His knowledge of Hebrew), and from this He proceeded to amaze His hearers by declaring that this Scripture was now fulfilled in their ears (Luke 4:21). The "words of grace" he uttered are not given, but it can be understood that, following the prophet's guidance, He would hold Himself forth as the predicted "Servant of Yahweh," sent to bring salvation to the poor, the bound, the broken-hearted, and for this purpose endowed with the fullness of the Spirit. The idea of the passage in Isa is that of the year of jubilee, when debts were canceled, inheritances restored, and slaves set free, and Jesus told them He had come to inaugurate that "acceptable year of the Lord." At first He was listened to with admiration, then, as the magnitude of the claims He was making became apparent to His audience, a very different spirit took possession of them. `Who was this that spoke thus?' `Was it not Joseph's son?' (Luke 4:22). They were disappointed, too, that Jesus showed no disposition to gratify them by working before them any of the miracles of which they had heard so much (Luke 4:23). Jesus saw the gathering storm, but met it resolutely. He told His hearers He had not expected any better reception, and in reply to their reproach that He had wrought miracles elsewhere, but had wrought none among them, quoted examples of prophets who had done the same thing (Elijah, Elisha, Luke 4:24-28). This completed the exasperation of the Nazarenes, who, springing forward, dragged Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, and would have thrown Him down, had something in the aspect of Jesus not restrained them. With one of those looks we read of occasionally in the Gospels, He seems to have overawed His townsmen, and, passing in safety through their midst, left the place (Luke 4:28-30).
3. Call of the Four Disciples: (Matthew 4:17-22; Mark 1:16-22; Luke 5:1-11)
After leaving Nazareth Jesus made His way to Capernaum (probably Tell Hum), which thereafter seems to have been His headquarters. He "dwelt" there (Matthew 4:13). It is called in Matthew 9:1, "his own city." Before teaching in Capernaum self, however, He appears to have opened His ministry by evangelizing along the shores of the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16; Luke 5:1), and there, at Bethsaida (on topographical questions, see special articles), He took His first step in gathering His chosen disciples more closely around Him. Hitherto, though attached to His person and cause, the pairs of fisher brothers, Simon and Andrew, James and John--these last the "sons of Zebedee"--had not been in constant attendance upon Him. Since the return from Jerusalem, they had gone back to their ordinary avocations. The four were "partners" (Luke 5:10). They had "hired servants" (Mark 1:20); therefore were moderately well off. The time had now come when they were to leave "all," and follow Jesus entirely.
a) The Draught of Fishes:
Luke alone records the striking miracle which led to the call. Jesus had been teaching the multitude from a boat borrowed from Simon, and now at the close He bade Simon put out into the deep, and let down his nets. Peter told Jesus they had toiled all night in vain, but he would obey His word. The result was an immense draught of fishes, so that the nets were breaking, and the other company had to be called upon for help. Both boats were filled and in danger of sinking. Peter's cry in so wonderful a presence was, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord."
b) "Fishers of Men":
The miracle gave Jesus opportunity for the word He wished to speak. It is here that Mt and Mk take up the story. The boats had been brought to shore when, first to Simon and Andrew, afterward to James and John (engaged in "mending their nets," Matthew 4:21; Mark 1:19), the call was given : "Come ye after me, and I will make you fishers of men." At once all was left--boats, nets, friends--and they followed Him. Their experience taught them to have large expectations from Christ.
4. At Capernaum: (Matthew 4:13; Luke 4:31)
Jesus is now found in Capernaum. An early Sabbath--perhaps the first of His stated residence in the city--was marked by notable events.
The Sabbath found Jesus as usual in the synagogue--now as teacher. The manner of His teaching is specially noticed: "He taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes" (Mark 1:22). The scribes gave forth nothing of their own.
a) Christ's Teaching:
They but repeated the dicta of the great authorities of the past. It was a surprise to the people to find in Jesus One whose wisdom, like waters from a clear fountain, came fresh and sparkling from His own lips. The authority also with which Jesus spoke commanded attention. He sought support in the opinion of no others, but gave forth His statements with firmness, decision, dignity and emphasis.
b) The Demoniac in the Synagogue:
While Jesus was teaching an extraordinary incident occurred. A man in the assembly, described as possessed by "an unclean spirit" (Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33) broke forth in cries, addressing Jesus by name ("Jesus, thou Nazarene"), speaking of Him as "the Holy One of God," and asking "What have we to do with thee? Art thou come to destroy us?" The diseased consciousness of the sufferer bore a truer testimony to Christ's dignity, holiness and power than most of those present could have given, and instinctively, but truly, construed His coming as meaning destruction to the empire of the demons. At Christ's word, after a terrible paroxysm, from which, however, the man escaped unhurt (Luke 4:35), the demon was cast out. More than ever the people were "amazed" at the word which had such power (Mark 1:27).
Demon-Possession: Its Reality.
This is the place to say a word on this terrible form of malady--demon-possession--met with so often in the Gospels. Was it a reality? Or a hallucination? Did Jesus believe in it? It is difficult to read the Gospels, and not answer the last question in the affirmative. Was Jesus, then, mistaken? This also it is hard to believe. If there is one subject on which Jesus might be expected to have clear vision--on which we might trust His insight--it was His relation to the spiritual world with which He stood in so close rapport. Was He likely then to be mistaken when He spoke so earnestly, so profoundly, so frequently, of its hidden forces of evil? There is in itself no improbability--rather analogy suggests the highest probability--of realms of spiritual existence outside our sensible ken. That evil should enter this spiritual world, and that human life should be deeply implicated with that evil--that its forces should have a mind and will organizing and directing them--are not beliefs to be dismissed with scorn. The presence of such beliefs in the time of Christ is commonly attributed to Babylonian, Persian or other foreign influences. It may be questioned, however, whether the main cause was not something far more real--an actual and permitted "hour and the power of darkness" (Luke 22:53) in the kingdom of evil, discovering itself in manifestations in the bodies and souls of men, that could be traced only to a supernatural cause (see DEMONIAC ). (The present writer discusses the subject in an article in the Sunday School Times for June 4, 1910. It would be presumptuous even to say that the instance in the Gospels have no modern parallels. See a striking paper in Good, Words, edited by Dr. Norman MacLeod, for 1867, on "The English Demoniac.") It should be noted that all diseases are not, as is sometimes affirmed, traced to demonic influence. The distinction between other diseases and demonic possession is clearly maintained (compare Matthew 4:24; 10:1; 11:5, etc.). Insanity, epilepsy, blindness, dumbness, etc., were frequent accompaniments of possession, but they are not identified with it.
c) Peter's Wife's Mother:
(Matthew 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39)
Jesus, on leaving the synagogue, entered the house of Peter. In Mark it is called "the house of Simon and Andrew" (1:29). Peter was married (compare 1 Corinthians 9:5), and apparently his mother-in-law and brother lived with him in Capernaum. It was an anxious time in the household, for the mother-in-law lay "sick of a fever"--"a great fever," as Luke the physician calls it. Taking her by the hand, Jesus rebuked the fever, which instantaneously left her. The miracle, indeed, was a double one, for not only was the fever stayed, but strength was at once restored. "She rose up and ministered unto them" (Luke 4:39).
d) The Eventful Evening:
(Matthew 8:16; Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40-41)
The day's labors were not yet done; were, indeed, scarce begun. The news of what had taken place quickly spread, and soon the extraordinary spectacle was presented of `the whole city' gathered at the door of the dwelling, bringing their sick of every kind to be healed. Demoniacs were there, crying and being rebuked, but multitudes of others as well. The Lord's compassion was unbounded. He rejected none. He labored unweariedly till every one was healed. His sympathy was individual: "He laid his hands on every one of them" (Luke 4:40).
II. From First Galilean Circuit till the Choice of the Apostles.
1. The First Circuit: (Mark 1:35-45; Luke 4:42-44; compare Matthew 4:23-25)
The chronological order in this section is to be sought in Mark and Luke; Matthew groups for didactic purposes. The morning after that eventful Sabbath evening in Capernaum, Jesus took steps for a systematic visitation of the towns and villages of Galilee.
The task He set before Himself was prepared for by early, prolonged, solitary prayer (Mark 1:35; many instances show that Christ's life was steeped in prayer). His disciples followed Him, and reported that the multitudes sought Him. Jesus intimated to them His intention of passing to the next towns, and forthwith commenced a tour of preaching and healing "throughout all Galilee."
a) Its Scope:
Even if the expression "all Galilee" is used with some latitude, it indicates a work of very extensive compass. It was a work likewise methodically conducted (compare Mark 6:6: "went round about the villages," literally, "in a circle"). Galilee at this time was extraordinarily populous (compare Josephus, Wars of the Jews,III , iii, 2), and the time occupied by the circuit must have been considerable. Matthew's condensed picture (Matthew 4:23-25) shows that Christ's activity during this period was incredibly great. He stirred the province to its depths. His preaching and miracles drew enormous crowds after Him. This tide of popularity afterward turned, but much of the seed sown may have produced fruit at a later day.
b) Cure of the Leper:
(Matthew 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16)
The one incident recorded which seems to have belonged to this tour was a sufficiently typical one. While Jesus was in a certain city a man "full of leprosy" (Luke 5:12) came and threw himself down before Him, seeking to be healed. The man did not even ask Jesus to heal him, but expressed his faith, "If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." The man's apparent want of importunity was the very essence of his importunity. Jesus, moved by his earnestness, touched him, and the man was made whole on the spot. The leper was enjoined to keep silence--Jesus did not wish to pass for a mere miracle-worker--and bade the man show himself to the priests and offer the appointed sacrifices (note Christ's respect for the legal institutions). The leper failed to keep Christ's charge, and published his cure abroad, no doubt much to his own spiritual detriment, and also to the hindrance of Christ's work (Mark 1:45).
2. Capernaum Incidents: His circuit ended, Jesus returned to Capernaum (Mark 2:1; literally, "after days"). Here again His fame at once drew multitudes to see and hear Him. Among them were now persons of more unfriendly spirit. Pharisees and doctors, learning of the new rabbi, had come out of "every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem" (Luke 5:17), to hear and judge of Him for themselves. The chief incidents of this visit are the two now to be noted.
a) Cure of the Paralytic:
(Matthew 9:2-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26)
In a chamber crowded till there was no standing room, even round the door, Jesus wrought the cure upon the paralytic man. The scene was a dramatic one. From Christ's words "son," literally, "child" (Mark 2:5), we infer that the paralytic was young, but his disablement seems to have been complete. It was no easy matter, with the doorways blocked, to get the man brought to Jesus, but his four bearers (Mark 2:3) were not easily daunted. They climbed the fiat roof, and, removing part of the covering above where Jesus was, let down the man into the midst. Jesus, pleased with the inventiveness and perseverance of their faith, responded to their wish. But, first, that the spiritual and temporal might be set in their right relations, and the attitude of His hearers be tested, He spoke the higher words: "Son, thy sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5). At once the temper of the scribes was revealed. Here was manifest evasion. Anyone could say, "Thy sins are forgiven." Worse, it was blasphemy, for "who can forgive sins but one, even God?" (Mark 2:7). Unconsciously they were conceding to Christ the Divine dignity He claimed. Jesus perceives at once the thoughts of the cavilers, and proceeds to expose their malice. Accepting their own test, He proves His right to say, "Thy sins are forgiven," by now saying to the palsied man, "Take up thy bed and walk" (Mark 2:9, 11). At once the man arose, took his bed, and went forth whole. The multitude were "amazed" and "glorified God" (Mark 2:12).
b) Call and Feast of Matthew:
(Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32)
The call of Matthew apparently took place shortly after the cure of the paralytic man. The feast was possibly later (compare the connection with the appeal of Jairus, Matthew 9:18), but the call and the feast are best taken together, as they are in all the three narratives.
(1) The Call. Matthew is called "Levi" by Luke, and "Levi, the son of Alpheus" by Mark. By occupation he was a "publican" (Luke 5:27), collector of custom-dues in Capernaum, an important center of traffic. There is no reason to suppose that Matthew was not a man of thorough uprightness, though naturally the class to which he belonged was held in great odium by the Jews. Passing the place of toll on His way to or from the lake-side, Jesus called Matthew to follow Him. The publican must by this time have seen and heard much of Jesus, and could not but keenly feel His grace in calling one whom men despised. Without an instant's delay, he left all, and followed Jesus. From publican, Matthew became apostle, then evangelist.
(2) The Feast. Then, or after, in the joy of his heart, Matthew made a feast for Jesus. To this feast he invited many of his own class--"publicans and sinners" (Matthew 9:10). Scribes and Pharisees were loud in their remonstrances to the disciples at what seemed to them an outrage on all propriety. Narrow hearts cannot understand the breadth of grace. Christ's reply was conclusive: "They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick," etc. (Mark 2:17, etc.).
(3) Fasting and Joy. Another line of objection was encountered from disciples of the Baptist. They, like the Pharisees, "fasted oft" (Matthew 9:14), and they took exception to the unconstrained way in which Jesus and His disciples entered into social life. Jesus defends His disciples by adopting a metaphor of John's own (John 3:29), and speaking of Himself as the heavenly bridegroom (Mark 2:19). Joy was natural while the bridegroom was with them; then, with a sad forecast of the end, He alludes to days of mourning when the bridegroom should be taken away (Mark 2:20). A deeper answer follows. The spirit of His gospel is a free, spontaneous, joyful spirit, and cannot be confined within the old forms. To attempt to confine His religion within the outworn forms of Judaism would be like putting a patch of undressed cloth on an old garment, or pouring new wine into old wineskins. The garment would be rent; the wineskins would burst (Mark 2:21-22 parallel). The new spirit must make forms of its own.
3. The Unnamed Jerusalem Feast: (John 5:1-47)
At this point is probably to, be introduced the visit to Jerusalem to attend "a feast," or, according to another reading, "the feast' of the Jews, recorded in John 5:1-47. The feast may, if the article is admitted, have been the Passover (April), though in that case one would expect it to be named; it may have been Purim (March), only this is not a feast Jesus might be thought eager to attend; it may even have been Pentecost (June). In this last case it would succeed the Sabbath controversies to be mentioned later. Fortunately, the determination of the actual feast has little bearing on the teaching of the chapter.
a) The Healing at Bethesda:
Bethesda ("house of mercy") was the name given to a pool, fed by an intermittent spring, possessing healing properties, which was situated by the sheep-gate (not "market," the King James Version), i.e. near the temple, on the East Porches were erected to accommodate the invalids who desired to make trial of the waters (the mention of the angel, John 5:4, with part of John 5:3, is a later gloss, and is justly omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)). On one of these porches lay an impotent man. His infirmity was of long standing--38 years. Hope deferred was making his heart sick, for he had no friend, when the waters were troubled, to put him into the pool. Others invariably got down before him. Jesus took pity on this man. He asked him if he would be made whole; then by a word of power healed him. The cure was instantaneous (John 5:8-9). It was the Sabbath day, and as the man, at Christ's command, took up his bed to go, he was challenged as doing that which was unlawful. The healed man, however, rightly perceived that He who was able to work so great a cure had authority to say what should and should not be done on the Sabbath. Meeting the man after in the temple, Jesus bade him "sin no more"--a hint, perhaps, that his previous infirmity was a result of sinful conduct (John 5:14).
b) Son and Father:
Jesus Himself was now challenged by the authorities for breaking the Sabbath. Their strait, artificial rules would not permit even of acts of mercy on the Sabbath. This led, on the part of Jesus, to a momentous assertion of His Divine dignity. He first justified Himself by the example of His Father, who works continually in the upholding and government of the universe (John 5:17)--the Sabbath is a rest from earthly labors, for Divine, heavenly labor (Westcott)--then, when this increased the offense by its suggestion of "equality" with the Father, so that His life was threatened (John 5:18), He spoke yet more explicitly of His unique relationship to the Father, and of the Divine prerogatives it conferred upon Him. The Jews were right: if Jesus were not a Divine Person, the claims He made would be blasphemous. Not only was He admitted to intimacy with the Divine counsel (John 5:20-21; compare Matthew 11:27), but to Him, He averred, was committed the Divine power of giving life (John 5:21, 26), of judgment (John 5:22, 27), of resurrection--spiritual resurrection now (John 5:24-25), resurrection at the last day (John 5:28-29). It was the Father's will that the Son should be honored even as Himself (John 5:23).
c) The Threefold Witness:
These stupendous claims are not made without adequate attestation. Jesus cites a threefold witness: (1) the witness of the Baptist, whose testimony they had been willing for a time to receive (John 5:33, 15); (2) the witness of the Father, who by Christ's works supported His witness to Himself (John 5:36-38); (3) the witness of the Scriptures, for these, if read with spiritual discernment, would have led to Him (John 5:39, 45-47). Moses, whom they trusted, would condemn them. Their rejection of Jesus was due, not to want of light, but to the state of the heart: "I know you, that ye have not the love of God in yourselves" (John 5:42); "How can ye believe," etc. (John 5:44).
4. Sabbath Controversies: Shortly after His return to Galilee, if the order of events has been rightly apprehended, Jesus became involved in new disputes with the Pharisees about Sabbath-keeping. Possibly we hear in these the echoes of the charges brought against Him at the feast in Judea. Christ's conduct, and the principles involved in His replies, throw valuable light on the Sabbath institution.
a) Plucking of the Ears of Grain:
(Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5)
The first dispute was occasioned by the action of the disciples in plucking ears of grain and rubbing them in their hands as they passed through the grainfields on a Sabbath (the note of time "second-first," in Luke 6:1 the King James Version, is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American). In any case the ripened grain points to a time shortly after the Passover). The law permitted this liberty (Deuteronomy 23:25), but Pharisaic rigor construed it into an offense to do the act on the Sabbath (for specimens of the minute, trivial and vexatious rules by which the Pharisees converted the Sabbath into a day of wretched constraint, see Farrar's Life of Christ, Edersheim's Jesus the Messiah, and similar works). Jesus, in defending His disciples, first quotes Old Testament precedents (David and the showbread, an act done apparently on the Sabbath, 1 Samuel 21:6; the priests' service on the Sabbath--"One greater than the temple" was there, Matthew 12:6), in illustration of the truth that necessity overrides positive enactment; next, falls back on the broad principle of the design of the Sabbath as made for man--for his highest physical, mental, moral and spiritual well-being: "The sabbath was made for man," etc. (Mark 2:27). The claims of mercy are paramount. The end is not to be sacrificed to the means. The Son of Man, therefore, asserts lordship over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28 parallel).
b) The Man with the Withered Hand:
(Matthew 12:10-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11)
The second collision took place on "another sabbath" (Luke 6:6) in the synagogue. There was present a man with a withered hand. The Pharisees themselves, on this occasion, eager to entrap Jesus, seem to have provoked the conflict by a question, "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?" (Matthew 12:10). Jesus met them by an appeal to their own practice in permitting the rescue of a sheep that had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:11-12), then, bidding the man stand forth~, retorted the question on themselves, "Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill?" (Mark 3:4)--an allusion to their murderous intents. On no reply being made, looking on them with holy indignation, Jesus ordered the man to stretch forth his hand, and it was at once perfectly restored. The effect was only to inflame to "madness" (Luke 6:11) the minds of His adversaries, and Pharisees and Herodians (the court-party of Herod) took counsel to destroy Him (Mark 3:6 parallel).
c) Withdrawal to the Sea:
(Matthew 12:15-21; Mark 3:7-9)
Jesus, leaving this scene of unprofitable conflict, quietly withdrew with His disciples to the shore, and there continued His work of teaching and healing. People from all the neighboring districts flocked to His ministry. He taught them from a little boat (Mark 3:9), and healed their sick. Mt sees in this a fulfillment of the oracle which is to be found in Isaiah 42:1-4.
5. The Choosing of the Twelve: (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13)
The work of Jesus was growing on His hands, and friends and enemies were rapidly taking sides. The time accordingly had come for selecting and attaching to His person a definite number of followers--not simply disciples--who might be prepared to carry on His work after His departure. This He did in the choice of twelve apostles. The choice was made in early morning, on the Mount of Beatitudes, after a night spent wholly in prayer (Luke 6:12).
a) The Apostolic Function:
"Apostle" means "one sent." On the special function of the apostle it is sufficient to say here that those thus set apart were chosen for the special end of being Christ's witnesses and accredited ambassadors to the world, able from personal knowledge to bear testimony to what Christ had been, said and done--to the facts of His life, death and resurrection (compare Acts 1:22-23; Acts 2:22-32; 3:15; 10:39; 1 Corinthians 15:3-15, etc.); but, further, as instructed by Him, and endowed with His Spirit (compare Luke 14:35; John 14:16-17, 26, etc.), of being the depositories of His truth, sharers of His authority (compare Matthew 10:1; Mark 3:15), messengers of His gospel (compare 2 Corinthians 5:18-21), and His instruments in laying broad and strong the foundations of His church (compare Ephesians 2:20; 3:5). So responsible a calling was never, before or after, given to mortal men.
b) The Lists:
Four lists of the apostles are given--in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts (1:13, omitting Judas). The names are given alike in all, except that "Judas, the son (or brother) of James" (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) is called by Mt Lebbaeus, "and by Mk Thaddaeus." The latter names are cognate in meaning and all denote the same person. "Bartholomew'" (son of Tolmai) is probably the Nathanael of John 1:47 (compare John 21:2). The epithet "Cananaean" (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18) marks "Simon" as then or previously a member of the party of the Zealots (Luke 6:15). In all the lists Peter, through his gifts of leadership, stands first; Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, stands last. There is a tendency to arrangement in pairs: Peter and Andrew; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew; lastly, James, the son of Alpheus, Judas, son or brother of James, Simonthe Zealot and Judas Iscariot. The list contains two pairs of brothers (three, if "brother" be read with Judas), and at least one pair of friends (Philip and Nathanael).
c) The Men:
All the apostles were men from the humbler ranks, yet not illiterate, and mostly comfortably circumstanced. All were Galileans, except the betrayer, whose name "Iscariot" i.e. "man of Kerioth," marks him as a Judean. Of some of the apostles we know a good deal; of others very little; yet we are warranted in speaking of them all, Judas excepted, as men of honest minds, and sincere piety. The band held within it a number of men of strongly contrasted types of character. Allusion need only be made to the impetuous Peter, the contemplative John, the matter-of-fact Philip, the cautious Thomas, the zealous Simon, the conservative Matthew, the administrative Judas. The last-named--Iscariot--is the dark problem of the apostolate. We have express testimony that Jesus knew him from the beginning (John 6:64). Yet He chose him. The character of Judas, when Jesus received him, was doubtless undeveloped. He could not himself suspect the dark possibilities that slept in it. His association with the apostles, in itself considered, was for his good. His peculiar gift was, for the time, of service. In choosing him, Jesus must be viewed as acting for, and under the direction of, the Father (John 5:19; 17:12). See special articles on the several apostles.
III. From the Sermon on the Mount till the Parables of the Kingdom--a Second Circuit.
1. The Sermon on the Mount: The choice of the apostles inaugurates a new period of Christ's activity. Its first most precious fruit was the delivery to the apostles and the multitudes who thronged Him as He came down from the mountain (Luke 6:17) of that great manifesto of His kingdom popularly known as the Sermon on the Mount. The hill is identified by Stanley (Sinai and Palestine,368) and others with that known as "the Horns of Hattin," where "the level place" at the top, from which Christ would come down from one of the higher horns, exactly suits the conditions of the narrative. The sick being healed, Jesus seated Himself a little higher up, His disciples near Him, and addressed the assembly (compare Matthew 7:28-29). The season of the year is shown by the mention of the "lilies" to be the summer.
Its Scope.
His words were weighty. His aim was at the outset to set forth in terms that were unmistakable the principles, aims and dispositions of His kingdom; to expound its laws; to exhibit its righteousness, both positively, and in contrast with Pharisaic formalism and hypocrisy. Only the leading ideas can be indicated here (see BEATITUDES; SERMON ON THE MOUNT; ETHICS OF JESUS). Matthew, as is his wont, groups material part of which is found in other connections in Luke, but it is well to study the whole in the well-ordered form in which it appears in the First Gospel.
a) The Blessings:
(Matthew 5:1-6; Luke 6:20-26)
In marked contrast with the lawgiving of Sinai, Christ's first words are those of blessing. Passing at once to the dispositions of the heart, He shows on what inner conditions the blessings of the kingdom depend. His beatitudes (poverty of spirit, mourning, meekness, hunger and thirst after righteousness, etc.) reverse all the world's standards of judgment on such matters. In the possession of these graces consists true godliness of character; through them the heirs of the kingdom become the salt of the earth, the light of the world. The obligation rests on them to let their light shine (compare Mark 4:21-23; Luke 8:16; 11:33).
b) True Righteousness--the Old and the New Law:
(Matthew 5:17-48; Luke 6:27-36)
Jesus defines His relation to the old law--not a Destroyer, but a Fulfiller--and proceeds to exhibit the nature of the true righteousness in contrast to Pharisaic literality and formalism. Through adherence to the latter they killed the spirit of the law. With an absolute authority--"But I say unto you"--Jesus leads everything back from the outward letter to the state of the heart. Illustrations are taken from murder, adultery, swearing, retaliation, hatred of enemies, and a spiritual expansion is given to every precept. The sinful thought or desire holds in it the essence of transgression. The world's standards are again reversed in the demands for nonresistance to injuries, love of enemies and requital of good for evil.
c) Religion and Hypocrisy--True and False Motive:
(Matthew 6:1-18; compare Luke 11:1-8)
Pursuing the contrast between the true righteousness and that of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus next draws attention to motive in religion. The Pharisees erred not simply in having regard only to the letter of the Law, but in acting in morals and religion from a false motive. He had furnished the antidote to their literalism; He now assails their ostentation and hypocrisy. Illustrations are taken from almsgiving, prayer and fasting, and in connection with prayer the Lord's Prayer is given as a model (Lk introduces this in another context, 11:1-4).
d) The True Good and Cure for Care:
(Matthew 6:19-34; compare Luke 11:34-36; Luke 12:22-34)
The true motive in religious acts is to please God; the same motive should guide us in the choice of what is to be our supreme good. Earthly treasure is not to be put above heavenly. The kingdom of God and His righteousness are to be first in our desires. The eye is to be single. The true cure for worldly anxiety is then found in trust of the heavenly Father. His children are more to God than fowls and flowers, for whom His care in Nature is so conspicuously manifest. Seeking first the kingdom they have a pledge--no higher conceivable--that all else they need will be granted along with it (this section on trust, again, Luke places differently, 12:22-34).
e) Relation to the World's Evil--the Conclusion:
(Matthew 7:1-29; Luke 6:37-49; compare Luke 11:9-13):
Jesus finally proceeds to speak of the relation of the disciple to the evil of the world. That evil has been considered in its hostile attitude to the disciple (Matthew 5:38 ff); the question is now as to the disciple s free relations toward it. Jesus inculcates the duties of the disciple's bearing himself wisely toward evil--with charity, with caution, with prayer, in the spirit of ever doing as one would be done by--and of being on his guard against it. The temptation is great to follow the worldly crowd, to be misled by false teachers, to put profession for practice. Against these perils the disciple is energetically warned. True religion will ever be known by its fruits. The discourse closes with the powerful similitude of the wise and foolish builders. Again, as on an earlier occasion, Christ's auditors were astonished at His teaching, and at the authority with which He spoke (Matthew 7:28-29).
2. Intervening Incidents: A series of remarkable incidents are next to be noticed.
a) Healing of the Centurion's Servant:
(Matthew 8:1, 5-13; Luke 7:1-10)
(1) The healing of the centurion's servant apparently took place on the same day as the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 7:1-2). It had been a day of manifold and exhausting labors for Jesus. A walk of perhaps 7 miles brought Him back to Capernaum, the crowds accompanying. Yet no sooner, on His return, does He hear a new appeal for help than His love replies,"I will come and heal him." The suppliant was a Roman centurion--one who had endeared himself to the Jews (Luke 7:5)--and the request was for the healing of a favorite servant, paralyzed and tortured with pain. First, a deputation sought Christ's good offices, then, when Jesus was on the way, a second message came, awakening even Christ's astonishment by the magnitude of its faith. The centurion felt he was not worthy that Jesus should come under his roof, but let Jesus speak the word only, and his servant would be healed. "I have not found so great faith," Jesus said, "no, not in Israel." The word was spoken, and, on the return of the messengers, the servant was found healed.
b) The Widow of Nain's Son Raised:
The exciting events of this day gathered so great a crowd round the house where Jesus was as left Him no leisure even to eat, and His friends, made anxious for His health, sought to restrain Him (Mark 3:20-21). It was probably to escape from this local excitement that Jesus, "soon afterwards," is found at the little town of Nain, a few miles Southeast of Nazareth. A great multitude still followed Him. Here, as He entered the city, occurred the most wonderful of the works He had yet wrought. A young man--the only son of a widowed mother--was being carried out for burial. Jesus, in compassion, stopped the mournful procession, and, in the calm certainty of His word being obeyed, bade the young man arise. On the instant life returned, and Jesus gave the son back to his mother. The amazement of the people was tenfold intensified. They felt that the old days had come back: that God had visited His people.
It was apparently during the journey or circuit which embraced this visit to Nain, and as the result of the fame it brought to Jesus (Luke 7:17-18; note the allusion to the dead being raised in Christ's reply to John), that the embassy was sent from the Baptist in prison to ask of Jesus whether He was indeed He who should come, or would they look for another.
c) Embassy of John's Disciples--Christ and His Generation:
(Matthew 11:2-30; Luke 7:18-35)
It was a strange question on the lips of the forerunner, but is probably to be interpreted as the expression of perplexity rather than of actual doubt. There seems no question but that John's mind had been thrown into serious difficulty by the reports which had reached him of the work of Jesus. Things were not turning out as he expected. It was the peaceful, merciful character of Christ's work which stumbled John. The gloom of his prison wrought with his disappointment, and led him to send this message for the satisfaction of himself and his disciples.
(1) Christ's Answer to John. If doubt there was, Jesus treated it tenderly. He did not answer directly, but bade the two disciples who had been sent go back and tell John the things they had seen and heard--the blind receiving their sight, the lame walking, the deaf cured, the dead raised, the Gospel preached. Little doubt the Messiah had come when works like these--the very works predicted by the prophets (Isaiah 35:5-6)--were being done. Blessed were those who did not find occasion of stumbling in Him. Jesus, however, did more. By his embassy John had put himself in a somewhat false position before the multitude. But Jesus would not have His faithful follower misjudged. His was no fickle spirit. Jesus nobly vindicated him as a prophet and more than a prophet; yea, a man than whom a greater had not lived. Yet, even as the new dispensation was higher than the old, one "but little" in the kingdom of heaven--one sharing Christ's humble, loving, self-denying disposition--was greater even than John (Matthew 11:11).
(2) A Perverse People--Christ's Grace. The implied contrast between Himself and John led Jesus further to denounce the perverse spirit of His own generation. The Pharisees and lawyers (Luke 7:30) had rejected John; they were as little pleased with Him. Their behavior was like children objecting to one game because it was merry, and to another because it was sad. The flood of outward popularity did not deceive Jesus. The cities in which His greatest works were wrought--Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum--remained impenitent at heart. The heavier would be their judgment; worse even than that on Tyre and Sidon, or on Sodom itself. Over against their unbelief Jesus reasserts His dignity and declares His grace (Matthew 11:25-30). All authority was His; He alone knew and could reveal the Father (no claims in John are higher). Let the heavy laden come to Him, and He would give them rest (parts of these passages appear in another connection in Luke 10:12-21).
d) The First Anointing--the Woman Who Was a Sinner:
Yet another beautiful incident connected with this journey is preserved by Lk--the anointing of Jesus in Simon's house by a woman who was a sinner. In Nain or some other city visited by Him, Jesus was invited to dine with a Pharisee named Simon. His reception was a cold one (Luke 7:44-46). During the meal, a woman of the city, an outcast from respectable society--one, however, as the story implies, whose heart Jesus had reached, and who, filled with sorrow, love, shame, penitence, had turned from her life of sin, entered the chamber. There, bathing Christ's feet with her tears, wiping them with her tresses, and imprinting on them fervent kisses, she anointed them with a precious ointment she had brought with her. Simon was scandalized. Jesus could not be a right-thinking man, much less a prophet, or He would have rebuked this misbehavior from such a person. Jesus met the thought of Simon's heart by speaking to him the parable of the Two Debtors (Luke 7:41-42). Of two men who had been freely forgiven, one 500, the other 50 shillings, which would love his creditor most? Simon gave the obvious answer, and the contrast between his own reception of Jesus and the woman's passionate love was immediately pointed out. Her greater love was due to the greater forgiveness; though, had Simon only seen it, he perhaps needed forgiveness even more than she.
3. Second Galilean Circuit--Events at Capernaum: (Luke 8:1-4, 19-21; Matthew 12:22-50; Mark 3:22-35 compare Luke 11:14-36)
Her faith saved her and she was dismissed in peace. But again the question arose, "Who is this that even forgiveth sins?" Luke introduces here (Luke 8:1-4) a second Galilean circuit of Jesus, after the return from which a new series of exciting incidents took place at Capernaum.
a) Galilee Revisited:
The circuit was an extensive one--"went about through cities and villages (literally, "according to city and village"), preaching." During this journey Jesus was attended by the Twelve, and by devoted women (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, wife of Herod's steward, Susanna, and others), who ministered to Him of their substance (Luke 8:2-3). At the close of this circuit Jesus returned to Capernaum.
b) Cure of Demoniac--Discourse on Blasphemy:
Jesus, no doubt, wrought numerous miracles on demoniacs (compare Luke 8:1-2; out of Mary Magdalene He is said to have cast 7 demons--perhaps a form of speech to indicate the severity of the possession). The demoniac now brought to Jesus was blind and dumb. Jesus cured him, with the double result that the people were filled with amazement: "Can this be the son of David?" (Matthew 12:23), while the Pharisees blasphemed, alleging that Jesus cast out demons by the help of Beelzebub (Greek, Beelzeboul), the prince of the demons (see under the word). A quite similar incident is narrated in Matthew 9:32-34; and Lk gives the discourse that follows in a later connection (Matthew 11:14 ff). The accusation may well have been repeated more than once. Jesus, in reply, points out, first, the absurdity of supposing Satan to be engaged in warring against his own kingdom (Matthew 18:25 ff parallel; here was plainly a stronger than Satan); then utters the momentous word about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. All other blasphemies--even that against the Son of Man (Matthew 12:32)--may be forgiven, for they may proceed from ignorance and misconception; but deliberate, perverse rejection of the light, and attributing to Satan what was manifestly of God, was a sin which, when matured--and the Pharisees came perilously near committing it--admitted of no forgiveness, either in this world or the next, for the very capacity for truth in the soul was by such sin destroyed. Mk has the strong phrase, "is guilty of an eternal sin" (Matthew 3:17). Pertinent words follow as to the root of good and evil in character (Matthew 12:33-37).
See BLASPHEMY.
The Sign of Jonah.
Out of this discourse arose the usual Jewish demand for a "sign" (Matthew 12:38; compare Luke 11:29-32), which Jesus met by declaring that no sign would be given but the sign of the prophet Jonah--an allusion to His future resurrection. He reiterates His warning to the people of His generation for their rejection of greater light than had been enjoyed by the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba.
Two incidents, not dissimilar in character, interrupted this discourse--one the cry of a woman in the audience (if the time be the same, Luke 11:27-28), "Blessed is the womb that bare thee," etc., to which Jesus replied, "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it"; the other, a message that His mother and brethren (doubtless anxious for His safety) desired to speak with Him.
c) Christ's Mother and Brethen:
To this, stretching out His hand toward His disciples, Jesus answered, "Behold, my mother and my brethren" (Mark 3:34), etc. Kinship in the spiritual kingdom consists in fidelity to the will of God, not in ties of earthly relationship.
4. Teaching in Parables: (Matthew 13:1-52; Mark 4:1-34; Luke 8:4-15; Luke 13:18-21)
On the same day on which the preceding discourses were delivered, Jesus, seeing the multitudes, passed to the shore, and entering a boat, inaugurated a new method in His public. teaching. This was the speaking in parables. Similitude, metaphor, always entered into the teaching of Jesus (compare Matthew 7:24-27), and parable has once been met with (Luke 7:41-42); now parable is systematically employed as a means of imparting and illustrating important truths, while yet veiling them from those whose minds were hostile and unreceptive (Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9-10). The parable thus at once reveals and conceals. The motive of this partially veiled teaching was the growing hostility of the Pharisees. In its nature the parable (from a verb signifying "to place side by side") is a representation in some form of earthly analogy of truths relating to Divine and eternal things (see PARABLE). The parables of the kingdom brought together in Matthew 13:1-58 form an invaluable series, though not all were spoken in public (compare Matthew 13:36-52), and some may belong to a later occasion (compare Luke 13:18-21). Mk adds the parable of the Seed Growing Secretly (Luke 4:26-29). Of three of the parables (the Sower, the Tares, the Dragnet), Jesus Himself gives the interpretation.
Parables of the Kingdom.
In series the parables at once mirror the origin, mixed character and development of the kingdom in its present imperfect earthly condition, and the perfection which awaits it after the crisis at the end. In the parable of the Sower is represented the origin of the kingdom in the good seed of the word, and the varied soils on which that seed falls; in the Seed Growing Secretly, the law of orderly growth in the kingdom; in the parable of the Tares, the mixed character of the subjects of the kingdom; in those of the Mustard Seed and Leaven, the progress of the kingdom--external growth, internal tramsformative effect; in those of the Treasure and Pearl the finding and worth of the kingdom; in that of the Dragnet the consummation of the kingdom. Jesus compares His disciples, if they understand these things, to householders bringing out of their treasure "things new and old" (Matthew 13:52).
IV. From the Crossing to Gadara to the Mission of the Twelve--a Third Circuit.
1. Crossing of the Lake--Stilling of the Storm: (Matthew 8:18-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25; compare Luke 9:57-62)
It was on the evening of the day on which He spoke the parables--though the chronology of the incident seems unknown to Lk (8:22)--that Jesus bade His disciples cross over to the other side of the lake. At this juncture He was accosted by an aspirant for discipleship. Matthew gives two cases of aspirants; Luke (but in a different connection, 9:57-62), three. Luke's connection (departure from Galilee) is perhaps preferable for the second and third; but the three may be considered together.
The three aspirants may be distinguished as, (a) The forward disciple: he who in an atmosphere of enthusiasm offered himself under impulse, without counting the cost. The zeal of this would-be follower Jesus cheeks with the pathetic words, "The foxes have holes," etc. (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58. (b) The procrastinating disciple. The first candidate needed repression; the second needs impulsion.
a) Aspirants for Disciplineship:
He would follow Jesus, but first let him bury his father. There had come a crisis, however, when the Lord's claim was paramount: "Leave the dead to bury their own dead" (Matthew 8:22). There are at times higher claims than mere natural relationships, to which, in themselves, Jesus was the last to be indifferent. (c) The wavering disciple. The third disciple is again one who offers himself, but his heart was too evidently still with the things at home. Jesus, again, lays His finger on the weak spot, "No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back," etc. (Luke 9:62). As mentioned, the latter two cases tally better with a final departure from Galilee than with a temporary crossing of the lake.
b) The Storm Calmed:
The inland lake was exposed to violent and sudden tempests. One of these broke on the disciples' boat as they sailed across. Everyone's life seemed in jeopardy. Jesus, meanwhile, in calmest repose, was asleep on a cushion in the stern (Mark 4:38). The disciples woke Him almost rudely: "Teacher, carest thou not that we perish?" Jesus at once arose, and, reproving their want of faith, rebuked wind and waves ("Peace, be still"). Immediately there was a great calm. It was a new revelation to the disciples of the majesty of their Master. "Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?"
2. The Gadarene (Gerasene) Demoniac: (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39)
The lake being crossed, Jesus and His disciples came into the country of the Gadarenes (Matthew), or Gerasenes (Mark, Luke)--Gadara being the capital of the district (on the topography, compare Stanley, Sinai and Palestine,380-81). From the lake shore rises a mountain in which are ancient tombs. Here Jesus was met by a demoniac (Mt mentions two demoniacs: M. Henry's quaint comment is, "If there were two, there was one." Possibly one was the fiercer of the two, the other figuring only as his companion). The man, as described, was a raving maniac of the worst type (Mark 5:3-5), dwelling in the tombs, wearing no clothes (Luke 8:27), of supernatural strength, wounding himself, shrieking, etc. Really possessed by "an unclean spirit," his consciousness was as if he were indwelt by a "legion" of demons, and from that consciousness he addressed Jesus as the Son of God come for their tormenting. In what follows it is difficult to distinguish what belongs to the broken, incoherent consciousness of the man, and the spirit or spirits who spake through him. In the question, "What is thy name?" (Mark 5:9) Jesus evidently seeks to arouse the victim's shattered soul to some sense of its own individuality. On Jesus commanding the unclean spirit to leave the man, the request was made that the demons might be permitted to enter a herd of swine feeding near. The reason of Christ's permission, with its result in the destruction of the herd ("rushed down the steep into the sea") need not be too closely scrutinized. It may have had an aspect of judgment on the (possibly) Jewish holders of the swine; or it may have had reference to the victim of the possession, as enabling him to realize his deliverance. Whatever the difficulties of the narrative, none of the rationalistic explanations afford any sensible relief from them. The object of the miracle may be to exclude rationalistic explanations, by giving a manifest attestation of the reality of the demon influence. When the people of the city came they found the man fully restored--"clothed and in his right mind." Yet, with fatal shortsightedness, they besought Jesus to depart from their borders. The man was sent home to declare to his friends the great things the Lord had done to him.
3. Jairus' Daughter Raised--Woman with Issue of Blood:
(Matthew 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56)
Repelled by the Gerasenes, Jesus received a warm welcome on His return to Capernaum on the western shore (Mark 5:21). It was probably at this point that Matthew gave the feast formerly referred to.
It was in connection with this feast, Matthew himself informs us (9:18), that Jairus, one of the rulers of the synagogue, made his appeal for help. His little daughter, about 12 years old (Luke 8:42), was at the point of death; indeed, while Jesus was coming, she died. The ruler's faith, though real, was not equal to the centurion's, who believed that Jesus could heal without being present.
a) Jairus' Appeal and Its Result:
Jesus came, and having expelled the professional mourners, in sacred privacy, only the father and mother, with Peter, James and John being permitted to enter the death-chamber, raised the girl to life. It is the second miracle on record of the raising from the dead.
b) The Afflicted Woman Cured:
On the way to the ruler's house occurred another wonder--a miracle within a miracle. A poor woman, whose case was a specially distressing one, alike as regards the nature of her malady, the length of its continuance, and the fruitlessness of her application to the physicians, crept up to Jesus, confident that if she could but touch the border of His garment, she would be healed. The woman was ignorant; her faith was blended with superstition; but Jesus, reading the heart, gave her the benefit she desired. It was His will, however, that, for her own good, the woman thus cured should not obtain the blessing by stealth. He therefore brought her to open confession, and cheered her by His commendatory word.
4. Incidents of Third Circuit: (Matthew 9:27-38; Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6)
At this point begins apparently a new evangelistic tour (Matthew 9:35; Mark 6:6), extending methodically to "all the cities and villages." To it belong in the narratives the healing of two blind men (compare the case of Bartimeus, recorded later); the cure of a demoniac who was dumb--a similar case to that in Matthew 12:22; and a second rejection at Nazareth (Matthew, Mark). The incident is similar to that in Luke 4:16-30, and shows, if the events are different, that the people's hearts were unchanged. Of this circuit Matthew gives an affecting summary (Luke 9:35-38), emphasizing the Lord's compassion, and His yearning for more laborers to reap the abundant harvest.
5. The Twelve Sent Forth--Discourse of Jesus: (Matthew 10:1-42; Mark 6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6; compare Luke 10:2-24; Luke 12:2-12, etc.)
Partly with a view to the needs of the rapidly growing work and the training of the apostles, and partly as a witness to Israel (Matthew 10:6, 23), Jesus deemed it expedient to send the Twelve on an independent mission. The discourse in Mt attached to this event seems, as frequently, to be a compilation. Parts of it are given by Luke in connection with the mission of the Seventy (Luke 10:1 ff; the directions were doubtless similar in both cases); parts on other occasions (Luke 12:2-12; Luke 21:12-17, etc.; compare Mark 13:9-13).
The Twelve were sent out two by two. Their work was to be a copy of the Master's--to preach the gospel and to heal the sick. To this end they were endowed with authority over unclean spirits, and over all manner of sickness. They were to go forth free from all encumbrances--no money, no scrip, no changes of raiment, no staff (save that in their hand, Mark 6:8), sandals only on their feet, etc.
a) The Commission:
They were to rely for support on those to whom they preached. They were for the present to confine their ministry to Israel. The saying in Matthew 10:23, "Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come," apparently has reference to the judgment on the nation, not to the final coming (compare Matthew 16:28).
b) Counsels and Warnings:
The mission of the Twelve was the first step of Christianity as an aggressive force in society. Jesus speaks of it, accordingly, in the light of the whole future that was to come out of it. He warns His apostles faithfully of the dangers that awaited them; exhorts them to prudence and circumspection ("wise as serpents," etc.); holds out to them Divine promises for consolation; directs them when persecuted in one place to flee to another; points out to them from His own case that such persecutions were only to be expected. He assures them of a coming day of revelation; bids them at once fear and trust God; impresses on them the duty of courage in confession; inculcates in them supreme love to Himself. That love would be tested in the dearest relations, In itself peace, the gospel would be the innocent occasion of strife, enmity and division among men. Those who receive Christ's disciples will not fail of their reward.
When Christ had ended His discourse He proceeded with His own evangelistic work, leaving the disciples to inaugurate theirs (Matthew 11:1).
Continued in JESUS CHRIST, 4C2.
Jesus Christ, 4c2
Jesus Christ, 4c2 - Continued from JESUS CHRIST, 4C1.
Second Period--After the Mission of the Twelve till the Departure from Galilee
I. From the Death of the Baptist till the Discourse on Bread of Life.
1. The Murder of the Baptist and Herod's Alarms: (Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9; compare Luke 3:18-20)
Shortly before the events now to be narrated, John the Baptist had been foully murdered in his prison by Herod Antipas at the instigation of Herodias, whose unlawful marriage with Herod John had unsparingly condemned. Josephus gives as the place of the Baptist's imprisonment the fortress of Macherus, near the Dead Sea (Ant., XVIII, v, 2); or John may have been removed to Galilee. Herod would ere this have killed John, but was restrained by fear of the people (Matthew 14:5). The hate of Herodias, however, did not slumber. Her relentless will contrasts with the vacillation of Herod, as Lady Macbeth in Shakspeare contrasts with Macbeth. A birthday feast gave her the opening she sought for. Her daughter Saleme, pleasing Herod by her dancing, obtained from him a promise on oath to give her whatever she asked. Prompted by Herodias, she boldly demanded John the Baptist's head. The weak king was shocked, but, for his oath's sake, granted her what she craved. The story tells how the Baptist's disciples reverently buried the remains of their master, and went and told Jesus. Herod's conscience did not let him rest. When rumors reached him of a wonderful teacher and miracle-worker in Galilee, he leaped at once to the conclusion that it was John risen from the dead. Herod cannot have heard much of Jesus before. An evil conscience makes men cowards.
Another Passover drew near (John 6:4), but Jesus did not on this occasion go up to the feast.
Returning from their mission, the apostles reported to Jesus what they had said and done (Luke 9:10); Jesus had also heard of the Baptist's fate, and of Herod's fears, and now proposed to His disciples a retirement to a desert place across the lake, near Bethsaida (on the topography, compare Stanley, op. cit., 375, 381).
2. The Feeding of the Five Thousand: (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-14)
As it proved, however, the multitudes had observed their departure, and, running round the shore, were at the place before them (Mark 6:33). The purpose of rest was frustrated, but Jesus did not complain. He pitied the shepherdless state of the people, and went out to teach and heal them. The day wore on, and the disciples suggested that the fasting multitude should disperse, and seek victuals in the nearest towns and villages. This Jesus, who had already proved Philip by asking how the people should be fed (John 6:5), would not permit. With the scanty provision at command--5 loaves and 2 fishes--He fed the whole multitude. By His blessing the food was multiplied till all were satisfied, and 12 baskets of fragments, carefully collected, remained over. It was astupendous act of creative power, no rationalizing of which can reduce it to natural dimensions.
3. Walking on the Sea: (Matthew 14:22-33; Mark 6:45-52; John 6:15-21)
The enthusiasm created by this miracle was intense (John 6:14). Matthew and Mark relate (Luke here falls for a time out of the Synopsis) that Jesus hurriedly constrained His disciples to enter into their boat and recross the lake--this though a storm was gathering--while He Himself remained in the mountain alone in prayer. John gives the key to this action in the statement that the people were about to take Him by force and make Him a king (John 6:15). Three hours after midnight found the disciples still in the midst of the lake, "distressed in rowing" (Mark 6:48), deeply anxious because Jesus was not, as on a former occasion, with them. At last, at the darkest hour of their extremity, Jesus was seen approaching in a way unlooked-for--walking on the water. Every new experience of Jesus was a surprise to the disciples. They were at first terrified, thinking they saw a spirit, but straightway the well-known voice was heard, "Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid." In the rebound of his feelings the impulsive Peter asked Jesus to permit him to come to Him on the water (Matthew). Jesus said "Come," and for the first moment or two Peter did walk on the water; then, as he realized his unwonted situation, his faith failed, and he began to sink. Jesus, with gentle chiding, caught him, and assisted him back into the boat. Once again the sea was calmed, and the disciples watch found themselves safely at land. To their adoring minds the miracle of the loaves was eclipsed by this new marvel (Mark 6:52).
4. Gennesaret--Discourse on the Bread of Life: (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-56; John 6:22-71)
On the return to Gennesaret the sick from all quarters were brought to Jesus--the commencement apparently of a new, more general ministry of healing (Mark 6:56). Meanwhile--here we depend on John--the people on the other side of the lake, when they found that Jesus was gone, took boats hastily, and came over to Capernaum. They found Jesus apparently in the synagogue (Mark 6:56). In reply to their query, "Rabbi, when camest thou hither?" Jesus first rebuked the motive which led them to follow Him--not because they had seen in His miracles "signs" of higher blessings, but because they had eaten of the loaves and were filled (Mark 6:26)--then spoke to them His great discourse on the bread from heaven. "Work," He said, "for the food which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you" (Mark 6:27). When asked to authenticate His claims by a sign from heaven like the manna, He replied that the manna also (given not by Moses but by God) was but typical bread, and surprised them by declaring that He Himself was the true bread of life from heaven (Mark 6:35, 51). The bread was Christ's flesh, given for the life of the world; His flesh and blood must be eaten and drunk (a spiritual appropriation through faith, Mark 6:56), if men were to have eternal life. Jesus of set purpose had put His doctrine in a strong, testing manner. The time had come when His hearers must make their choice between a spiritual acceptance of Him and a break with Him altogether. What He had said strongly offended them, both on account of the claims implied (Mark 6:42), and on account of the doctrine taught, which, they were plainly told, they could not receive because of their carnality of heart (Mark 6:43-44, 56). Many, therefore, went back and walked no more with Him (Mark 6:56, 56, 56); but their defection only evoked from the chosen Twelve a yet more confident confession of their faith. "Would ye also go away?"
Peter's First Confession.
Peter, as usual, spoke for the rest: "Lord, to whom shall we go? .... We have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God" (John 6:69). Here, and not first at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:16), is Peter's brave confession of his Master's Messiahship. Twelve thus confessed Him, but even of this select circle Jesus was compelled to say, "One of you (Judas) is a devil" (John 6:70-71).
II. From Disputes with the Pharisees till the Transfiguration.
The discourse in Capernaum seems to mark a turning-point in the Lord's ministry in Galilee. Soon after we find Him ceasing from public teaching, and devoting Himself to the instruction of His apostles (Matthew 15:21; Mark 7:24, etc.).
1. Jesus and Tradition--Outward and Inward Purity:
(Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23)
Meanwhile, that Christ's work in Galilee was attracting the attention of the central authorities, is shown by the fact that scribes and Pharisees came up from Jerusalem to watch Him. They speedily found ground of complaint against Him in His unconventional ways and His total disregard of the traditions of the elders. They specially blamed Him for allowing His disciples to eat bread with "common," i.e. unwashen hands. Here was a point on which the Pharisees laid great stress (Mark 7:3-4). Ceremonial ablutions (washing "diligently," Greek "with the fist"; "baptizings" of person and things) formed a large part of their religion. These washings were part of the "oral tradition" said to have been delivered to Moses, and transmitted by a succession of elders. Jesus set all this ceremonialism aside. It was part of the "hypocrisy" of the Pharisees (Mark 7:6). When questioned regarding it, He drew a sharp distinction between God's commandment in the Scriptures and man's tradition, and accused the Pharisees (instancing "Corban" (which see), in support, Mark 7:10-12) of making "void" the former through the latter. This led to the wider question of wherein real defilement consisted. Christ's rational position here is that it did not consist in anything outward, as in meats, but consisted in what came from within the man: as Jesus explained afterward, in the outcome of his heart or moral life: "Out of the heart of men evil thoughts proceed," etc. (Mark 7:20-23). Christ's saying was in effect the abrogation of the old ceremonial distinctions, as Mark notes: "making all meats clean" (Mark 7:19). The Pharisees, naturally, were deeply offended at His sayings, but Jesus was unmoved. Every plant not of the Father's planting must be rooted up (Mark 7:13).
2. Retirement to Tyre and Sidon--the Syrophoenician Woman:
(Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30)
From this point Jesus appears, in order to escape notice, to have made journeys privately from place to place. His first retreat was to the borders, or neighborhood, of Tyre and Sidon. From Mark 7:31 it is to be inferred that He entered the heathen territory. He could not, however, be hid (Mark 7:24). It was not long ere, in the house into which He had entered, there reached Him the cry of human distress. A woman came to Him, a Greek (or Gentile, Greek-speaking), but Syrophoenician by race. Her "little daughter" was grievously afflicted with an evil spirit. Flinging herself at His feet, and addressing Him as "Son of David," she besought His mercy for her child. At first Jesus seemed--yet only seemed--to repel her, speaking of Himself as sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, and of the unmeetness of giving the children's loaf to the dogs (the Greek softens the expression, "the little dogs"). With a beautiful urgency which won for her the boon she sought, the woman seized on the word as an argument in her favor. "Even the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs." The child at Jesus' word was restored.
3. At Decapolis--New Miracles: (Matthew 15:29-39; Mark 7:31-37; Mark 8:1-10)
Christ's second retreat was to Decapolis--the district of the ten cities--East of the Jordan. Here also He was soon discovered, and followed by the multitude. Sufferers were brought to Him, whom He cured (Matthew 15:30). Later, He fed the crowds.
The miracle of the deaf man is attested only by Mk. The patient was doubly afflicted, being deaf, and having an impediment in his speech. The cure presents several peculiarities--its privacy (Matthew 15:33); the actions of Jesus in putting his fingers into his ears, etc. (a mode of speech by signs to the deaf man); His "sign," accompanied with prayer, doubtless accasioned by something in the man's look; the word Ephphatha (Matthew 15:34)--"Be opened."
a) The Deaf Man:
The charge to those present not to blazon the deed abroad was disregarded. Jesus desired no cheap popularity.
b) Feeding of Four Thousand:
(Matthew 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-9)
The next miracle closely resembles the feeding of the Five Thousand at Bethsaida, but the place and numbers are different; 4,000 instead of 5,000; 7 loaves and a few fishes, instead of 5 loaves and 2 fishes; 7 baskets of fragments instead of 12 (Mark's term denotes a larger basket). There is no reason for doubting the distinction of the incidents (compare Matthew 16:9-10; Mark 8:19-20).
4. Leaven of the Pharisees, etc.--Cure of Blind Man:
(Matthew 16:1-12; Mark 8:11-26)
Returning to the plain of Gennesaret (Magdala, Matthew 15:39 the King James Version; parts of Dalmanutha, Mark 8:10), Jesus soon found Himself assailed by His old adversaries. Pharisees and Sadducees were now united. They came "trying" Jesus, and asking from Him a "sign from heaven"--some signal Divine manifestation. "Sighing deeply" (Mark) at their caviling spirit, Jesus repeated His word about the sign of Jonah. The times in which they lived were full of signs, if they, so proficient in weather signs, could only see them. To be rid of such questioners, Jesus anew took boat to Bethsaida. On the way He warned His disciples against the leaven of the spirit they had just encountered. The disciples misunderstood, thinking that Jesus referred to their forgetfulness in not taking bread (Mark states in his graphic way that they had only one loaf). The leaven Christ referred to, in fact, represented three spirits: (1) the Pharisaic leaven--formalism and hypocrisy; (2) the Sadducean leaven--rationalistic skepticism; (3) the Herodian leaven (Mark 8:15)--political expediency and temporizing. Arrived at Bethsaida, a miracle was wrought on a blind man resembling in some of its features the cure of the deaf man at Decapolis. In both cases Jesus took the patients apart; in both physical means were used--the spittle ("spit on his eyes," Mark 8:23); in both there was strict injunction not to noise the cure abroad. Another peculiarity was the gradualness of the cure. It is probable that the man had not been blind from his birth, else he could hardly have recognized men or trees at the first opening. It needed that Jesus should lay His hands on Him before he saw all things clearly.
5. At Caesarea Philippi--The Great Confession--First Announcement of Passion:
(Matthew 16:13-28; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-27)
The next retirement of Jesus with His disciples was to the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi, near the source of the Jordan. This was the northernmost point of His journeyings. Here, "on the geographical frontier between Judaism and heathenism" (Liddon), our Lord put the momentous question which called forth Peter's historical confession.
(1) The Voices of the Age and the External Truth. The question put to the Twelve in this remote region was: "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" "Son of man," as already said, was the familiar name given by Jesus to Himself, to which a Messianic significance might or might not be attached, according to the prepossessions of His hearers. First the changeful voices of the age were recited to Jesus: "Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah," etc. Next, in answer to the further question: "But who say ye that I am ?" there rang out from Peter, in the name of all, the unchanging truth about Jesus: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." In clearness, boldness, decision, Peter's faith had attained a height not reached before. The confession embodies two truths: (1) the Divinity, (2) the Messiahship, of the Son of man. Jesus did honor to the confession of His apostle. Not flesh and blood, but the Father, had revealed the truth to him. Here at length was "rock" on which He could build a church. Reverting to Peter's original name, Simon Bar-Jonah, Jesus declared, with a play on the name "Peter" (petros, "rock," "piece of rock") He had before given him (John 1:42), that on this "rock" (petra), He would build His church, and the gates of Hades (hostile evil powers) would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). The papacy has reared an unwarrantable structure of pretensions on this passage in supposing the "rock" to be Peter personally and his successors in the see of Rome (none such existed; Peter was not bishop of Rome). It is not Peter the individual, but Peter the confessing apostle--Peter as representative of all--that Christ names "rock"; that which constituted him a foundation was the truth he had confessed (compare Ephesians 2:20). This is the first New Testament mention of a "church" (ekklesia). The Christian church, therefore, is founded (1) on the truth of Christ's Divine Sonship; (2) on the truth of His Messiah-ship, or of His being the anointed prophet, priest and king of the new age. A society of believers confessing these truths is a church; no society which denies these truths deserves the name. To this confessing community Jesus, still addressing Peter as representing the apostolate (compare Matthew 18:18),gives authority to bind and loose--to admit and to exclude. Jesus, it is noted, bade His disciples tell no man of these things (Matthew 16:20; Mark 8:30; Luke 9:21).
(2) The Cross and the Disciple. The confession of Peter prepared the way for an advance in Christ's teaching. From that time, Matthew notes, Jesus began to speak plainly of His approaching sufferings and death (16:21). There are in all three solemn announcements of the Passion (Matthew 16:21-23; Matthew 17:22-23; Matthew 20:17-19 parallel). Jesus foresaw, and clearly foretold, what would befall Him at Jerusalem. He would be killed by the authorities, but on the third day would rise again. On the first announcement, following His confession, Peter took it upon him to expostulate with Jesus: "Be it far from thee, Lord," etc. (Matthew 16:22), an action which brought upon him the stern rebuke of Jesus: "Get thee behind me, Satan," etc. (Matthew 16:23). The Rock-man, in his fall to the maxims of a worldly expediency, is now identified with Satan, the tempter. This principle, that duty is only to be done when personal risk is not entailed, Jesus not only repudiates for Himself, but bids His disciples repudiate it also. The disciple, Jesus says, must be prepared to deny himself, and take up his cross. The cross is the symbol of anything distressing or painful to bear. There is a saving of life which is a losing of it, and what shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world, and forfeit his (true, higher) life? As, however, Jesus had spoken, not only of dying, but of rising again, so now He encourages His disciples by announcing His future coming in glory to render to every man according to His deeds. That final coming might be distant (compare Matthew 24:36); but (so it seems most natural to interpret the saying Matthew 16:28 parallel) there were those living who would see the nearer pledge of that, in Christ's coming in the triumphs and successes of His kingdom (compare Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; Matthew 26:64).
6. The Transfiguration--the Epileptic Boy: (Matthew 17:1-20; Mark 9:2-29; Luke 9:28-43)
About eight days after the announcement of His passion by Jesus, took place the glorious event of the transfiguration. Jesus had spoken of His future glory, and here was pledge of it. In strange contrast with the scene of glory on the summit of the mountain was the painful sight which met Jesus and His three companions when they descended again to to the plain.
a) The Glory of the Only Begotten:
Tradition connects the scene of the transfiguration with Mount Tabor, but it more probably took place on one of the spurs of Mount Hermon. Jesus had ascended the mountain with Peter, James and John, for prayer. It was while He was praying the wonderful change happened. For once the veiled glory of the only begotten from the Father (John 1:14) was permitted to burst forth, suffusing His person and garments, and changing them into a dazzling brightness. His face did shine as the sun; His raiment became white as light ("as snow," the King James Version, Mark). Heavenly visitants, recognized from their converse as Moses and Elijah, appeared with Him and spoke of His decease (Luke). A voice from an enveloping cloud attested: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Little wonder the disciples were afraid, or that Peter in his confusion should stammer out: "It is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, I will make here three tabernacles (booths)." This, however, was not permitted. Earth is not heaven. Glimpses of heavenly glory are given, not to wean from duty on earth, but to prepare for the trials connected therewith.
b) Faith's Entreaty and Its Answer:
The spectacle that met the eyes of Jesus and the chosen three as they descended was distressing in the extreme. A man had brought his epileptic boy--a sore sufferer and dumb--to the disciples to see if they could cast out the evil spirit that possessed him, but they were not able. Their failure, as Jesus showed, was failure of faith; none the less did their discomfiture afford a handle to the gainsayers, who were not slow to take advantage of it (Mark 9:14). The man's appeal was now to Jesus, "If thou canst do anything," etc. (Mark 9:22). The reply of Jesus shifted the "canst" to the right quarter, "If thou canst (believe)" (Mark 9:23). Such little faith as the man had revived under Christ's word: "I believe; help thou mine unbelief." The multitude pressing around, there was no call for further delay. With one energetic word Jesus expelled the unclean spirit (Mark 9:25). The first effect of Christ's approach had been to induce a violent paroxysm (Mark 9:20); now the spirit terribly convulsed the frame it was compelled to relinquish. Jesus, taking the boy's hand, raised him up, and he was found well. The lesson drawn to the disciples was the omnipotence of faith (Matthew 17:19-20) and power of prayer (Mark 9:28-29).
III. From Private Journey through Galilee till Return from the Feast of Tabernacles.
1. Galilee and Capernaum: Soon after the last-mentioned events Jesus passed privately through Galilee (Mark 9:30), returning later to Capernaum. During the Galilean journey Jesus made to His disciples His 2nd announcement of His approaching sufferings and death, accompanied as before by the assurance of His resurrection. The disciples still could not take in the meaning of His words, though what He said made them "exceeding sorry" (Matthew 17:23).
a) Second Announcement of Passion:
(Matthew 17:22-23; Mark 9:30-33; Luke 9:44-45)
The return to Capernaum was marked by an incident which raised the question of Christ's relation to temple institutions. The collectors of tribute for the temple inquired of Peter: "Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel?" (Greek didrachma, or double drachm, worth about 32 cents or is. 4d.).
b) The Temple Tax:
The origin of this tax was in the half-shekel of atonement-money of Exodus 30:11-16, which, though a special contribution, was made the basis of later assessment (2 Chronicles 24:4-10; in Nehemiah's time the amount was one-third of a shekel, Nehemiah 10:32), and its object was the upkeep of the temple worship (Schurer). The usual time of payment was March, but Jesus had probably been absent and the inquiry was not made for some months later. Peter, hasty as usual, probably reasoning from Christ's ordinary respect for temple ordinances, answered at once that He did pay the tax. It had not occurred to him that Jesus might have something to say on it, if formally challenged. Occasion therefore was taken by Jesus gently to reprove Peter. Peter had but recently acknowledged Jesus to be the Son of God. Do kings of the earth take tribute of their own sons? The half-shekel was suitable to the subject-relation, but not to the relation of a son. Nevertheless, lest occasion of stumbling be given, Jesus could well waive this right, as, in His humbled condition, He had waived so many more. Peter was ordered to cast his hook into the sea, and Jesus foretold that the fish he would bring up would have in its mouth the necessary coin (Greek, stater, about 64 cents or 2s. 8d.). The tax was paid, yet in such a way as to show that the payment of it was an act of condescension of the king's Son.
c) Discourse on Greatness and Forgiveness:
(Matthew 18:1-35; Mark 9:33-50; Luke 9:46-50)
On the way to Capernaum a dispute had arisen among the disciples as to who should be greatest in the Messianic kingdom about to be set up. The fact of such disputing showed how largely even their minds were yet dominated by worldly, sensuous ideas of the kingdom. Now, in the house (Mark 9:33), Jesus takes occasion to check their spirit of ambitious rivalry, and to inculcate much-needed lessons on greatness and kindred matters.
(1) Greatness in Humility. First, by the example of a little child, Jesus teaches that humility is the root-disposition of His kingdom. It alone admits to the kingdom, and conducts to honor in it. He is greatest who humbles himself most (Matthew 18:4), and is the servant of all (Mark 9:35). He warns against slighting the "little ones," or causing them to stumble, and uses language of terrible severity against those guilty of this sin.
(2) Tolerance. The mention of receiving little ones in Christ's name led John to remark that he had seen one casting out demons in Christ's name, and had forbidden him, because he was not of their company. "Forbid him not," Jesus said, "for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:39-40).
(3) The Erring Brother. The subject of offenses leads to the question of sins committed by one Christian brother against another. Here Christ inculcates kindness and forbearance; only if private representations and the good offices of brethren fail, is the matter to be brought before the church; if the brother repents he is to be unstintedly forgiven ("seventy times seven," Matthew 18:22). If the church is compelled to interpose, its decisions are valid (under condition, however, of prayer and Christ's presence, Matthew 18:18-20).
(4) Parable of the Unmerciful Servant. To enforce the lesson of forgiveness Jesus speaks the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:23-35). Himself forgiven much, this servant refuses to forgive his fellow a much smaller debt. His lord visits him with severest punishment. Only as we forgive others can we look for forgiveness.
2. The Feast of Tabernacles--Discourses, etc.: (John 7:1-53 through John 10:21)
The Gospel of John leaves a blank of many months between chapters 6 and 7, covered only by the statement, "After these things, Jesus walked in Galilee" (7:1). In this year of His ministry Jesus had gone neither to the feast of the Passover nor to Pentecost. The Feast of Tabernacles was now at hand (October). To this Jesus went up, and Jn preserves for us a full record of His appearance, discourses and doings there.
a) The Private Journey--Divided Opinions:
The brethren of Jesus, still unpersuaded of His claims (John 7:5), had urged Jesus to go up with them to the feast. "Go up," in their sense, included a public manifestation of Himself as the Messiah. Jesus replied that His time for this had not yet come. Afterward He went up quietly, and in the midst of the feast appeared in the temple as a teacher. The comments made about Jesus at the feast before His arrival vividly reflect the divided state of opinion regarding Him. "He is a good man," thought some. "Not so," said others, "but He leadeth the multitude astray." His teaching evoked yet keener division. While some said, "Thou hast a demon" (John 7:20), others argued, "When the Christ shall come, will he do more signs?" etc. (John 7:31). Some declared, "This is of a truth the prophet," or "This is the Christ"; others objected that the Christ was to come out of Bethlehem, not Galilee (John 7:40-42). Yet no one dared to take the step of molesting Him.
b) Christ's Self-Witness:
Christ's wisdom and use of the Scriptures excited surprise. Jesus met this surprise by stating that His knowledge was from the Father, and with reference to the division of opinion about Him laid down the principle that knowledge of the truth was the result of the obedient will: "If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God" (John 7:17). It was objected that they knew who Jesus was, and whence He came. In a sense, Jesus replied, this was true; in a deeper sense, it was not. He came from the Father, whom they knew not (John 7:28-29). The last and great day of the feast--the eighth (Numbers 29:35)--brought with it a new self-attestation. Jesus stood and cried, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me .... from within him shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:37-38). The words are understood to have reference to the ceremony of pouring out a libation of water at this feast--the libation, in turn, commemorating the gift of water at the striking of the rock. The evangelist interprets the saying of the Spirit which believers should receive. Meanwhile, the chief priests and Pharisees had sent officers to apprehend Jesus (John 7:32), but they returned without Him. "Why did ye not bring him?" The reply was confounding, "Never man so spake" (John 7:45-46). The retort was the poor one, "Are ye also led astray?" In vain did Nicodemus, who was present, try to put in a moderating word (John 7:50-51). It was clear to what issue hate like this was tending.
c) The Woman Taken in Adultery:
The discourses at the feast are at this point interrupted by the episode of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11), which, by general consent, does not belong to the original text of the Gospel. It is probably, however, an authentic incident, and illustrates, on the one hand, the eagerness of the official classes to find an accusation against Jesus, and, on the other, the Saviour's dignity and wisdom in foiling such attempts, His spirit of mercy and the action of conscience in the accusers. In His continued teaching, Jesus put forth even higher claims than in the foregoing discourse. As He had applied to Himself the water from the rock, so now He applied to Himself the symbolic meaning of the two great candelabra, which were lighted in the temple court during the feast and bore reference to the pillar of cloud and fire. "I am the light of the world," said Jesus (John 8:12). Only a Divine being could put forth such a claim as that. The Jews objected that they had only His witness to Himself. Jesus replied that no other could bear adequate witness of Him, for He alone knew whence He came and whither He went (John 8:14). But the Father also had borne witness of Him (John 8:18). This discourse, delivered in the "treasury" of the temple (John 8:20), was soon followed by another, no man yet daring to touch Him. This time Jesus warns the Jews of the fate their unbelief would entail upon them: "Ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24). Addressing Himself next specially to the Jews who believed in Him, He urged them to continuance in His word as the condition of true freedom. Resentment was again aroused at the suggestion that the Jews, Abraham's seed, were not free. Jesus made clear that the real bondage was that of sin; only the Son could make spiritually free (John 8:34-36). Descent from Abraham meant nothing, if the spirit was of the devil (John 8:39-41). A new conflict was provoked by the saying, "If a man keep my word, he shall never see death" (John 8:51). Did Jesus make Himself greater than Abraham? The controversy that ensued resulted in the sublime utterance, "Before Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:58). The Jews would have stoned Him, but Jesus eluded them, and departed.
d) The Cure of the Blind Man:
The Feast of Tabernacles was past, but Jesus was still in Jerusalem. Passing by on a Sabbath (John 9:14), He saw a blind man, a beggar (John 9:8), well known to have been blind from his birth. The narrative of the cure and examination of this blind man is adduced by Paley as bearing in its inimitable circumstantiality every mark of personal knowledge on the part of the historian. The man, cured in strange but symbolic fashion by the anointing of his eyes with clay (thereby apparently sealing them more firmly), then washing in the Pool of Siloam, became an object of immediate interest, and every effort was made by the Pharisees to shake his testimony as to the miracle that had been wrought. The man, however, held to his story, and his parents could only corroborate the fact that their son had been born blind, and now saw. The Pharisees themselves were divided, some reasoning that Jesus could not be of God because He had broken the Sabbath--the old charge; others, Nicodemus-like, standing on the fact that a man who was a sinner could not do such signs (John 9:15-16). The healed man applied the logic of common-sense: "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing" (John 9:33). The Pharisees, impotent to deny the wonder, could only cast him out of the synagogue. Jesus found him, and brought him to full confession of faith in Himself (John 9:35-38).
e) The Good Shepherd:
Yet another address of Jesus is on record arising out of this incident. In continuation of His reply to the question of the Pharisees in John (9:40), "Are we also blind?" Jesus spoke to them His discourse on the Good Shepherd. Flocks in eastern countries are gathered at night into an enclosure surrounded by a wall or palisade. This is the "fold," which is under the care of a "porter," who opens the closely barred door to the shepherds in the morning. As contrasted with the legitimate shepherds, the false shepherds "enter not by the door," but climb over some other way. The allusion is to priests, scribes, Pharisees and generally to all, in any age, who claim an authority within the church unsanctioned by God (Godet). Jesus now gathers up the truth in its relation to Himself as the Supreme Shepherd. From His fundamental relation to the church, He is not only the Shepherd, but the Door (10:7-14). To those who enter by Him there is given security, liberty, provision (10:9). In his capacity as Shepherd Christ is preeminently all that a faithful shepherd ought to be. The highest proof of His love is that, as the Good Shepherd, He lays down His life for the sheep (10:11,15,17). This laying down of His life is not an accident, but is His free, voluntary act (10:17,18). Again there was division among the Jews because of these remarkable sayings (10:19-21).
Chronological Note.
Though John does not mention the fact, there is little doubt that, after this visit to Jerusalem, Jesus returned to Galilee, and at no long interval from His return, took His final departure southward. The chronology of this closing period in Galilee is somewhat uncertain. Some would place the visit to the Feast of Tabernacles before the withdrawal to Caesarea Philippi, or even earlier (compare Andrews, Life of our Lord, etc.); but the order adopted above appears preferable.
Jesus Christ, 4d
Jesus Christ, 4d - D. LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM--JESUS IN PERAEA
Departure from Galilee:
An interval of two months elapses between John 10:21 and 22--from the Feast of Tabernacles (October) till the Feast of the Dedication (December). This period witnessed the final withdrawal of Jesus from Galilee. Probably while yet in Galilee He sent forth the seventy disciples to prepare His way in the cities to which He should come (Luke 10:1). Repulsed on the borders of Samaria (Luke 9:51-53), He passed over into Peraea ("beyond Jordan"), where he exercised a considerable ministry. The record of this period, till the entry into Jerusalem, belongs in great part to Luke, who seems to have had a rich special source relating to it (Luke 9:51 through Luke 19:27). The discourses in Luke embrace many passages and sections found in other connections in Matthew, and it is difficult, often, to determine their proper chronological place, if, as doubtless sometimes happened, portions were not repeated.
I. From Leaving Galilee till the Feast of the Dedication.
1. Rejected by Samaria: (Luke 9:51-55)
Conscious that He went to suffer and die, Jesus steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem. His route was first by Samaria--an opportunity of grace to that people--but here, at a border village, the messengers He sent before Him, probably also He Himself on His arrival, were repulsed, because of His obvious intention to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:53). James and John wished to imitate Elijah in calling down fire from heaven on the rejecters, but Jesus rebuked them for their thought (the Revised Version (British and American) omits the reference to Elijah, and subsequent clauses, Luke 9:55-56).
2. Mission of the Seventy: (Luke 10:1-20)
In the present connection Luke inserts the incidents of the three aspirants formerly considered (9:57-62; compare p. 1645). It was suggested that the second and third cases may belong to this period.
A new and significant step was now taken by Jesus in the sending out of 70 disciples, who should go before Him, two by two, to announce His coming in the cities and villages He was about to visit. The number sent indicates how large a following Jesus had now acquired. (Some see a symbolical meaning in the number 70, but it is difficult to show what it is.) The directions given to the messengers are similar to those formerly given to the Twelve (Luke 9:1-5; compare Matthew 10:1-42); a passage also found in Matthew in a different connection (Matthew 11:21-24) is incorporated in this discourse, or had originally its place in it (Matthew 11:13-15). In this mission Jesus no longer made any secret of His Messianic character. The messengers were to proclaim that the kingdom of God was come nigh to them in connection with His impending visit (Luke 10:9). The mission implies that a definite route was marked out by Jesus for Himself (compare Luke 13:22), but this would be subject to modification according to the reception of His emissaries (Luke 10:10-11, 16). The circuit need not have occupied a long time with so many engaged in it. The results show that it aroused strong interest. Later the disciples returned elated with their success, emphasizing their victory over the demons (Luke 10:17). Jesus bade them rejoice rather that their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20). Again a passage is inserted (Luke 10:21-22) found earlier in Matthew 11:25-27; compare also Luke 10:23-24, with Matthew 13:16-17.
3. The Lawyer's Question--Parable of Good Samaritan:
(Luke 10:25-37)
Jesus had now passed "beyond the Jordan," i.e. into Peraea, and vast crowds waited on His teaching (compare Matthew 19:1 f; Mark 10:1; Luke 12:1). At one place a lawyer put what he meant to be a testing question, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus referred him to the great commandments of love to God and one's neighbor, eliciting the further query, "And who is my neighbor?" In reply Jesus spoke to him the immortal parable of the Good Samaritan, and asked who proved neighbor to him who fell among the robbers. The lawyer could give but one answer, "He that showed mercy on him." "Go," said Jesus, "and do thou likewise."
The incident of Martha and Mary, which Luke inserts here (Luke 10:38-42), comes in better later, when Jesus was nearer Bethany.
4. Discourses, Parables, and Miracles: (Luke 11:1-54 through Luke 14:1-35)
At this place Luke brings together a variety of discourses, warnings and exhortations, great parts of which have already been noticed in earlier contexts. It does not follow that Luke has not, in many cases, preserved the original connection. This is probably the case with the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:1-4), and with portions of what Matthew includes in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g. Luke 11:9-13, 13-36; Luke 12:22-34; compare Luke 13:24-27 with Matthew 7:13-14, 22-23), and in other discourses (e.g. Luke 11:42-52 = Matthew 23:23-36; Luke 12:2-12 = Matthew 10:26-33; Luke 12:42-48 = Matthew 24:45-51; Luke 13:18-21, parables of Mustard Seed and Leaven = Matthew 13:31-32, etc.).
a) Original to Luke:
Of matter original to Luke in these chapters may be noted such passages as that on the Friend at Midnight (11:5-8), the incident of the man who wished Jesus to bid his brother divide his inheritance with him, to whom Jesus spoke the parable of the Rich Fool (12:13-21), the parable of the Barren Fig Tree, called forth by the disposition to regard certain Galileans whom Pilate had slain in a tumult at the temple, and eighteen on whom the tower of Siloam had fallen, as sinners above others (13:1-9: "Nay," said Jesus, "but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish"), and most of the teaching in Luke 14:1-35, referred to below. In 11:37,38, we have the mention of a Pharisee inviting Jesus to dine, and of his astonishment at the Lord's neglect of the customary ablutions before eating. Luke 11:53 gives a glimpse of the fury to which the scribes and Pharisees were aroused by the severity of Christ's denunciations. They "began to press upon him vehemently .... laying wait for him, to catch something out of his mouth." In 13:31 ff it is told how the Pharisees sought to frighten Jesus from the district by telling Him that Herod would fain kill Him. Jesus bade them tell that "fox" that His work would go on uninterruptedly in the brief space that remained ("day" used enigmatically) till He was "perfected" (13:32). The woe on Jerusalem (13:34,35) is given by Matthew in the discourse in chapter 23.
b) The Infirm Woman--the Dropsied Man:
Of the miracles in this section, the casting out of the demon that was mute (Luke 11:14 ff) is evidently the same incident as that already noted in Matthew 12:22 ff. Two other miracles are connected with the old accusation of Sabbath breaking. One was the healing in a synagogue on the Sabbath day of a woman bowed down for 18 years with "a spirit of infirmity" (Luke 13:10-17); the other was the cure on the Sabbath of a man afflicted with dropsy at a feast in the house of a ruler of the Pharisees to which Jesus had been invited (Luke 14:1-6). The motive of the Pharisee's invitation, as in most such cases, was hostile (Luke 14:1). In both instances Jesus met the objection in the same way, by appealing to their own acts of humanity to their animals on the Sabbath (Luke 13:15-16; 14:5).
c) Parable of the Great Supper:
This feast at the Pharisee's house had an interesting sequel in the discourse it led Jesus to utter against vainglory in feasting, and on the spirit of love which would prompt to the table being spread for the helpless and destitute rather than for the selfish enjoyment of the select few, closing, in answer to a pious ejaculation of one of the guests, with the parable of the Great Supper (Luke 14:7-24). The parable, with its climax in the invitation to bring in the poor, and maimed, and blind, and those from the highways and hedges, was a commentary on the counsels He had just been giving, but it had its deeper lesson in picturing the rejection by the Jews of the invitation to the feast God had made for them in His kingdom, and the call that would be given to the Gentiles to take their place.
d) Counting the Cost:
The injunctions to the multitudes as to the sacrifice and cross-bearing involved in discipleship are pointed by the examples of a man building a tower, and a king going to war, who count the cost before entering on their enterprises (Luke 14:25-35).
5. Martha and Mary: At or about this time--perhaps before the incidents in Luke 14:1-35--Jesus paid the visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Dedication described in John 10:22-39. This seems the fitting place for the introduction of the episode of Martha and Mary which Luke narrates a little earlier (John 10:38-42). The "village" into which Jesus entered was no doubt Bethany (John 11:1). The picture given by Luke of the contrasted dispositions of the two sisters--Martha active and "serving" (compare John 12:2), Mary retiring and contemplative--entirely corresponds with that in John. Martha busied herself with preparations for the meal; Mary sat at Jesus' feet, and heard His word. To Martha's complaint, as if her sister were idling, Jesus gave the memorable answer, "One thing is needful: for Mary hath chosen the good part," etc. (Luke 10:42).
6. Feast of the Dedication: (John 10:22-39)
The Feast of the Dedication, held in December, was in commemoration of the cleansing of the temple and restoration of its worship after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes (164 BC). Great excitement was occasioned by the appearance of Jesus at this feast, and some asked, "How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus said He had told them, and His works attested His claim, but they were not of His true flock, and would not believe. To His own sheep He gave eternal life. The Jews anew wished to stone Him for claiming to be God. Jesus replied that even the law called the judges of Israel "gods" (Psalms 82:6, "I said, Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High"): how could it then be blasphemy for Him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world to say of Himself, "I am the Son of God"? The Jews sought to take Him, but He passed from their midst.
II. From the Abode at Bethabara till the Raising of Lazarus.
After leaving Jerusalem Jesus went beyond Jordan again to the place where John at first baptized (John 10:40; compare John 1:28, called in the King James Version "Bethabara," in the Revised Version (British and American) "Bethany," distinct from the Bethany of John 11:1-57). There He "abode," implying a prolonged stay, and many resorted to Him. This spot, sacred to Jesus by His own baptism, may be regarded now as His headquarters from which excursions would be made to places in the neighborhood. Several of the incidents recorded by Luke are probably connected with this sojourn.
1. Parables of Lost Sheep, Lost Piece of Silver, Prodigal Son:
The stronger the opposition of scribes and Pharisees to Jesus became, the more by natural affinity did the classes regarded as outcast feel drawn to Him. He did not repel them, as the Pharisees did, but ate and drank with them. Publicans and sinners gathered to His teaching, and He associated with them. The complaining was great: "This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." The defense of Jesus was in parables, and the Pharisees' reproach may be thanked for three of the most beautiful parables Jesus ever spoke--the Lost Sheep (compare Matthew 18:12-14), the Lost Piece of Silver, and the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:1-32). Why does the shepherd rejoice more over the one lost sheep brought back than over the ninety-nine that have not gone astray? Why does the woman rejoice more over the recovery of her lost drachma than over all the coins safe in her keeping? Why does the father rejoice more over the prodigal son come back in rags and penitence from the far country than over the obedient but austere brother that had never left the home? The stories were gateways into the inmost heart of God. There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than over ninetynine just persons that need no repentance (Luke 15:7).
2. Parables of the Unjust Steward and the Rich Man and Lazarus:
Two other parables, interspersed by discourses (in part again met with in other connections, compare Luke 16:13 with Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:16 with Matthew 11:12; Luke 16:18 with Matthew 5:32; 19:9, etc.), were spoken at this time--that of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-9) and that of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). The dishonest steward, about to be dismissed, utilized his opportunities, still dishonestly, to make friends of his master's creditors; let the "children of light" better his example by righteously using mammon to make friends for themselves, who shall receive them into everlasting habitations. The rich man, pampered in luxury, let the afflicted Lazarus starve at his gate. At death--in Hades--the positions are reversed: the rich man is in torment, stripped of all he had enjoyed; the poor man is at rest in Abraham's bosom, compensated for all he suffered. It is character, not outward estate, that determines destiny. The unmerciful are doomed. Even a messenger from the unseen world will not save men, if they hear not Moses and the prophets (Luke 16:31).
In this connection Luke (17:1-10) places exhortations to the disciples on occasions of stumbling, forgiveness, the power of faith, renunciation of merit ("We are unprofitable servants"), some of which are found elsewhere (compare Matthew 18:6-7, 15, 21, etc.).
3. The Summons to Bethany--Raising of Lazarus: (John 11:1-57)
While Jesus was in the trans-Jordanic Bethabara, or Bethany, or in its neighborhood, a message came to Him from the house of Martha and Mary in the Judean Bethany (on the Mount of Olives, about 2 miles East from Jerusalem), that His friend Lazarus ("he whom thou lovest") was sick. The conduct of Jesus seemed strange, for He abode still two days where He was (John 11:6). As the sequel showed, this was only for the end of a yet more wonderful manifestation of His power and love, to the glory of God (John 11:4). Meanwhile Lazarus died, and was buried. When Jesus announced His intention of going into Judea, the disciples sought hard to dissuade Him (John 11:8); but Jesus was not moved by the fears they suggested. He reached Bethany (a distance of between 20 and 30 miles) on the fourth day after the burial of Lazarus (John 11:17), and was met on the outskirts by Martha, and afterward by Mary, both plunged in deepest sorrow. Both breathed the same plaint: "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died" (John 11:21, 32). To Martha Jesus gave the pledge, "Thy brother shall rise again," strengthening the faith she already had expressed in Him (John 11:22) by announcing Himself as "the resurrection, and the life" (John 11:25-26); at Mary's words He was deeply moved, and asked to be taken to the tomb. Here, it is recorded, "Jesus wept" (John 11:35), the only other instance of His weeping in the Gospels being as He looked on lost Jerusalem (Luke 19:41). The proof of love was manifest, but some, as usual, suggested blame that this miracle-worker had not prevented His friend's death (John 11:37). Arrived at the rock-tomb, Jesus, still groaning in Himself, caused the stone at its mouth to be removed, and, after prayer, spoke with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth" (John 11:43). The spirit returned, and the man who had been dead came forth bound with his grave-clothes. He was released and restored to his sisters.
Even this mighty deed did not alter the mind of the Pharisees, who held a council, and decided, on the advice of Caiaphas (John 11:50), that for the safety of the nation it was "expedient" that this man should die.
The circumstantiality of this beautiful narrative speaks irresistibly for its historical truth, and the objections raised by critical writers center really in their aversion to the miraculous as such.
III. From the Retirement to Ephraim till the Arrival at Bethany.
1. Retreat to Ephraim: (John 11:54-57)
The hostility of the ruling classes was now so pronounced that, in the few weeks that remained till Jesus should go up to the Passover, He deemed it advisable to abide in privacy at a city called Ephraim (situation uncertain). That He was in secrecy during this period is implied in the statement (John 11:57) that if anyone knew where He was, he was to inform the chief priests and Pharisees. The retirement would be for Jesus a period of preparation for the ordeal before Him, as the wilderness had been for the commencement of His ministry.
2. The Journey Resumed: On His leaving this retreat to resume His advance to Jerusalem the narratives again become rich in incident and teaching.
3. Cure of the Lepers: (Luke 17:11-19)
It is not easy to define the route which brought Jesus again to the border line between Samaria and Galilee (Luke 17:11), but, in traversing this region, He was met by ten lepers, who besought Him for a cure. Jesus bade them go and show themselves to the priests, and on the way they were cleansed. Only one of the ten, and he a Samaritan, returned to give thanks and glorify God. Gratitude appeared in the unlikely quarter.
4. Pharisaic Questionings: At some point in this journey the Pharisees sought to entrap Jesus on the question of divorce.
a) Divorce:
(Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:1-12)
Was it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (Matthew 19:3). Jesus in reply admitted the permission to divorce given by Moses (Mark 10:3-5), but declared that this was for the hardness of their hearts, and went back to the original institution of marriage in which the two so joined were declared to be "one flesh." Only one cause is admissible as a ground of separation and remarriage (Matthew 19:9; compare Matthew 5:31-32; Mk has not even the exception, which is probably, however, implied). Comments follow to the disciples in Mt on the subject of continence (Matthew 19:10-12).
See DIVORCE.
b) Coming of the Kingdom:
(Luke 17:20-37)
Another question asked by the Pharisees of Jesus was as to when the kingdom of God should come. The expectation excited by His own ministry and claims was that it was near; when should it appear? Rebuking their worldly ideas, Jesus warned them that the kingdom did not come "with observation"--was not a "Lo, there! Lo, here!"; it was "within" them, or "in their midst," though they did not perceive it. In the last decisive coming of the Son of Man there would be no dubiety as to His presence (Luke 17:24-25). He adds exhortations as to the suddenness of His coming, and the separations that would ensue (Luke 17:26-37), which Mt gives as part of the great discourse on the Last Things in chapter 24.
c) Parable of the Unjust Judge:
In close connection with the foregoing, as furnishing the ground for the certainty that this day of the Son of Man would come, Jesus spoke the parable of the Unjust Judge. This judge, though heedless of the claims of right, yet yielded to the widow's importunity, and granted her justice against her adversary. How much more surely will the righteous, long-suffering God avenge His own elect, who cry unto Him day and night (Luke 18:7-8)! Yet men, in that supreme hour, will almost have lost faith in His coming (Luke 18:8).
A series of sayings and incidents at this time throw light upon the spirit of the kingdom.
5. The Spirit of the Kingdom: The spirit of self-righteousness is rebuked and humble penitence as the condition of acceptance is enforced in the parable of the Pharisee and Publican.
a) Parable of Pharisee and Publican:
The Pharisee posing in his self-complacency at his fastings and tithes, and thanking God for his superiority to others, is set in vivid contrast to the abased publican, standing afar off, and able only to say, "God, be thou merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13). Yet it was he who went down to his house "justified" (Luke 18:14).
b) Blessing of the Babies:
(Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17)
A similar lesson is inculcated in the beautiful incident of the blessing of the babes. The disciples rebuked the mothers for bringing their little ones, but Jesus, "moved with indignation" (Mark), received and blessed the babes, declaring that to such (to them and those of like spirit) belonged the kingdom of heaven. "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me," etc.
c) The Rich Young Ruler:
(Matthew 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30)
A third illustration--this time of the peril of covetousness--is afforded by the incident of the rich young ruler. This amiable, blameless, and evidently sincere young man ("Jesus looking upon him loved him," Mark 10:21) knelt, and addressing Jesus as "Good Teacher," asked what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus first declined the term "good," in the easy, conventional sense in which it was applied, then referred the ruler to the commandments as the standard of doing. All these, however, the young man averred he had observed from his youth up. He did not know himself. Jesus saw the secret hold his riches had upon his soul, and revealed it by the searching word, "If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast," etc. (Matthew 19:21; compare Mk, "One thing thou lackest," etc.). This was enough. The young man could not yield up his "great possessions," and went away sorrowing. Jesus bases on his refusal earnest warnings against the love of riches, and points out, in answer to a question of Peter, that loss for His sake in this life is met with overwhelmingly great compensations in the life to come.
6. Third Announcement of the Passion: (Matthew 20:17-19; Mark 10:32-34; Mark 18:31-33)
Not unconnected with the foregoing teachings is the third solemn announcement to the disciples, so hard to be persuaded that the kingdom was not immediately to be set up in glory, of His approaching sufferings and death, followed by resurrection. The disciples had been "amazed" and "afraid" (Mk) at something strange in the aspect and walk of Jesus as they Lk were on the way, going to Jerusalem (compare Luke 9:51). His words gave the explanation. With them should be taken what is said in a succeeding incident of His baptism of suffering (Mark 10:38-39; compare Luke 12:50).
7. The Rewards of the Kingdom: The spirit of the kingdom and sacrifice for the kingdom have already been associated with the idea of reward, but the principles underlying this reward are now made the subject of special teaching.
First by the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard the lesson is inculcated that reward in the kingdom is not according to any legal rule, but is governed by a Divine equity, in accordance with which the last may often be equal to, or take precedence of, the first.
a) Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard:
The laborers were hired at different hours, yet all at the end received the same wage. The murmuring at the generosity of the householder of those who had worked longest betrayed a defectiveness of spirit which may explain why they were not more highly rewarded. In strictness, the kingdom is a gift of grace, in the sum total of its blessings one and the same to all.
b) The Sons of Zebedee:
(Matthew 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45)
Still there are distinctions of honor in God's kingdom, but these are not arbitrarily made. This is the lesson of the reply of Jesus to the plea of the mother of the sons of Zebedee, James and John, with, apparently, the concurrence of the apostles themselves, that they might sit one on the right hand and the other on the left hand in His kingdom. It was a bold and ambitious request, and naturally moved the indignation of the other apostles. Still it had its ground in a certain nobility of spirit. For when Jesus asked if they were able to drink of His cup and be baptized with His baptism, they answered, "We are able." Jesus told them they should share that lot of suffering, but to sit on His right hand and on His left were not favors that could be arbitrarily bestowed, but would be given to those for whom it had been prepared of His Father--the preparation having regard to character and fitness, of which the Father alone was judge. Jesus went on to rebuke the spirit which led one to seek prominence over another, and laid down the essential law, "Whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister," enforcing it by His own never-to-be-forgotten example, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom, for many" (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45).
8. Jesus at Jericho: Accompanied by a great throng, possibly of pilgrims to the feast, Jesus drew near to the influential city of Jericho, in the Jordan valley, about 17 miles distant from Jerusalem. Here two notable incidents marked His progress.
a) The Cure of Bartimeus:
(Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43)
As they approached the city (Luke) (Matthew and Mark place the incident as they "went out") a blind beggar, Bartimeus, hearing that "Jesus the Nazarene" (Mark) passed by, loudly called on Him as the "Son of David" to have mercy on him. The multitude would have restrained the man, but their rebukes only made him the more urgent in his cries. Jesus stopped in His way, called the blind man to Him, then, when he came, renewing his appeal, healed him. The cry of the beggar shows that the Davidic descent, if not the Messiahship, of Jesus was now known. Matthew varies from the other evangelists in speaking of "two blind men," while Matthew and Mark, as noted, make the cure take place on leaving, not on entering the city. Not improbably there are two healings, one on entering Jericho, the other on going from the city, and Matthew, after his fashion, groups them together (Luke's language is really indefinite; literally, "as they were near to Jericho").
b) Zaccheus the Publican:
The entrance of Jesus into Jericho was signalized by a yet more striking incident. The chief collector of revenue in the city was Zaccheus, rich, but held in opprobrium ("a sinner") because of his occupation. Being little of stature, Zaccheus had climbed into the branches of a sycomore tree to see Jesus as He passed. To his amazement, and that of the crowd, Jesus stopped on His way, and called Zaccheus by name to hasten to come down, for that day He must abide at his house. Zaccheus joyfully received Him, and, moved to a complete change in his views of duty, declared his purpose of giving half his goods to the poor, and of restoring fourfold anything he might have taken by false accusation. It was a revolution in the man's soul, wrought by love. "Today," Jesus testified, "is salvation come to this house ..... For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost."
c) Parable of the Pounds:
(Luke 19:11-27)
The expectations of the multitude that the kingdom of God should immediately appear led Jesus to speak the parable of the Pounds, forewarning them that the consummation they looked for might be longer delayed than they thought, and impressing on them the need of loyalty, faithfulness and diligence, if that day, when it came, was not to prove disastrous to them. The nobleman went into a "far country" to receive a kingdom, and his ten servants were to trade with as many pounds (each = 100 drachmas) in his absence. On his return the faithful servants were rewarded in proportion to their diligence; the faithless one lost what he had; the rebellious citizens were destroyed. Thus Jesus fore-shadowed the doom that would overtake those. who were plotting against Him, and checked hopes that disregarded the moral conditions of honor in His kingdom.
Arrival at Bethany.
From Jericho Jesus moved on to Bethany, the abode of Lazarus and his sisters. To His halt here before His public entrance into Jerusalem the next events belong.
Jesus Christ, 4e1
Jesus Christ, 4e1 - E. THE PASSION WEEK--BETRAYAL, TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION
Importance of the Last Events:
We reach now the closing week and last solemn events of the earthly life of Jesus. The importance attached to this part of their narratives is seen by the space the evangelists devote to it. Of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark fully one-third is devoted to the events of the Passion Week and their sequel in the resurrection; Luke has several chapters; John gives half his Gospel to the same period. It is obvious that in the minds of the evangelists the crucifixion of Jesus is the pivot of their whole narrative--the denouement to which everything tends from the first.
I. The Events Preceding the Last Super. 1. The Chronology: The arrival in Bethany is placed by John "six days before the Passover" (12:1). Assuming that the public entry into Jerusalem took place on the Sunday, and that the 14th of Nisan fell on the following Thursday, this would lead to the arrival being placed on the Friday or Saturday preceding, according to the mode of reckoning. It is in the highest degree unlikely that Jesus would journey from Jericho on the Jewish Sabbath; hence He may be supposed to have arrived on the Friday evening. The supper at which the anointing by Mary took place would be on the Saturday (Sabbath) evening. Matthew and Mark connect it with events two days before the Passover (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1), but parenthetically, in a way which leaves the other order open.
2. The Anointing at Bethany: (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-9)
This beautiful deed occurred at a supper given in honor of Jesus at the house of one Simon, a leper (Matthew and Mark)--probably cured by Jesus--at which Martha, Mary and Lazarus were guests. Martha aided in serving (John 12:2). In the course of the meal, or at its close, Mary brought a costly box of nard (valued by Judas at "300 shillings," about $50, or 10 pounds; compare the American Revised Version margin on John 6:7), and with the perfume anointed the head (Matthew, Mark) and feet (John) of Jesus, wiping His feet with her hair (Matthew and Mark, though not mentioning the "feet," speak of the "body" of Jesus). Indignation, instigated by Judas (John), was at once awakened at what was deemed wanton waste. How much better had the money been given to the poor! Jesus vindicated Mary in her loving act--a prophetic anointing for His burial--and declared that wherever His gospel went, it would be spoken of for a memorial of her. It is the hearts from which such acts come that are the true friends of the poor. The chief priests were only the further exasperated at what was happening, and at the interest shown in Lazarus, and plotted to put Lazarus also to death (John 12:10).
3. The Entry into Jerusalem: (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-44; John 12:12-19)
On the day following--Palm Sunday--Jesus made His public entry as Messiah into Jerusalem. All the evangelists narrate this event. The Mount of Olives had to be crossed from Bethany, and Jesus sent two disciples to an adjacent village--probably Bethphage (this seems to have been also the name of a district)--where an ass and its colt would be found tied. These they were to bring to Him, Jesus assuring them of the permission of the owners. Garments were thrown over the colt, and Jesus seated Himself on it. In this humble fashion (as Mt and Jn note, in fulfillment of prophecy, Zechariah 9:9), He proceeded to Jerusalem, from which a multitude, bearing palm branches, had already come out to meet Him (John). Throngs accompanied Him, going before and after; these, spreading their garments, and strewing branches in the way, hailed Him with hosannas as the Son of David, the King of Israel, who came in the name of the Lord. Very different were the feelings in the breasts of the Pharisees. "Behold," they said, "how ye prevail nothing; lo, the world is gone after him" (John 12:19). They bade Jesus rebuke His disciples, but Jesus replied that if they were silent, the very stones would cry out (Luke 19:40).
Jesus Weeping over Jerusalem--Return to Bethany.
One incident in this progress to Jerusalem is related only by Luke 19:41-44. As at a bend in the road Jerusalem became suddenly visible, Jesus paused and wept over the city, so blind to its day of visitation, and so near to its awful doom. Not His own sufferings, but the thought of Jerusalem's guilt and woes, filled Him with anguish. On reaching the city, Mark's testimony is explicit that He did no more than enter the temple, and `look round on all things' (Mark 11:11). Then eventide having come, He returned to Bethany with the Twelve.
4. Cursing of the Fig Tree--Second Cleansing of Temple:
(Matthew 21:12-22; Mark 11:12-26; Luke 19:45-48)
The morning of Monday found Jesus and His disciples again on their way to the city. Possibly the early hours had been spent by Jesus in solitary prayer, and, as they went, it is recorded that "he hungered." A fig tree from which, from its foliage, fruit might have been expected, stood invitingly by the wayside, but when Jesus approached it, it was found to have nothing but leaves--a striking symbol of the outwardly religious, but spiritually barren Jewish community. And in this sense Jesus used it in pronouncing on it the word of doom, "No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for ever" (Mark). Next morning (Tuesday), as the disciples passed, the tree was found withered from the roots. Matthew combines the events of the cursing and the withering, placing both on the second day, but Mark more accurately distinguishes them. Jesus used the surprise of the disciples as the occasion of a lesson on the omnipotence of faith, with added counsels on prayer.
Were There Two Cleansings?
Pursuing His journey on the first morning, Jesus reached the temple, and there, as His first act, is stated by Mt and Mk to have cleansed the temple of the traders. It is a diffcult question whether this is a second cleansing, or the same act as that recorded by John at the beginning of the ministry (John 2:13-22; see above), and here narrated out of its chronological order. The acts are at least quite similar in character and significance. In favor of a second cleansing is the anger of the priests and scribes (Mark 11:18; Luke 19:47), and their demand next day for His authority. No other incidents are recorded of this visit to the temple, except the healing of certain blind and lame, and the praises of the children, "Hosanna to the son of David"--an echo of the previous day's proceedings (Matthew 21:14-16). In the evening He went back to Bethany.
5. The Eventful Tuesday: Far different is it with the third day of these visits of Jesus to the temple--the Tuesday of the Passion Week. This is crowded with parables, discourses, incidents, so numerous, impressive, tragical, as to oppress the mind in seeking to grasp how one short day could embrace them all. It was the last day of the appearance of Jesus in the temple (John 12:36), and marks His final break with the authorities of the nation, on whom His words of denunciation (Matthew 23:1-39) fell with overwhelming force. The thread of the day's proceedings may thus be briefly traced.
a) The Demand for Authority--Parables:
(Matthew 21:23 through Matthew 22:14; Mark 11:27 through Mark 12:12; Luke 20:1-18)
On His first appearance in the temple on the Tuesday morning, Jesus was met by a demand from the chief priests, scribes and elders (representatives of the Sanhedrin), for the authority by which He acted as He did. Jesus met them by a counterquestion, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?" The dilemma was obvious. If John was Divinely accredited, why did they not accept his testimony to Jesus? Yet they feared to say his mission was of men, for John was universally esteemed a prophet. They could therefore only lamely reply: "We cannot tell" (the King James Version). Matters had now come to an issue, and Jesus, reverting to the method of parable, set forth plainly their sin and its results to themselves and others.
The Two Sons--the Wicked Husbandmen--the Marriage of the King's Son.
The parables spoken on this occasion were: that of the Two Sons, one who said "I go not," but afterward repented and went, the other who said, "I go, sir," but went not--pointing the moral that the publicans and harlots went into the kingdom of God before the self-righteous leaders who rejected the preaching of John (Matthew 21:28-32); that of the Wicked Husbandmen, who slew the servants, and finally the son, sent to them, and were at length themselves destroyed, the vineyard being given to others--a prophecy of the transferring of the kingdom to the Gentiles (Matthew, Mark, Luke); and that of the Marriage of the King's Son (Matthew 22:2-14), akin to that of the Great Supper in Luke 14:16-24 in its gathering in of the outcasts to take the place of those who had been bidden, but distinguished from it by the feature of the wedding garment, the lack of which meant being thrust into the outer darkness. The Pharisees easily perceived that these parables were spoken of them (Matthew 21:45; Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19), and were correspondingly enraged, yet dared not touch Jesus for fear of the people.
b) Ensnaring Questions, etc.:
(Matthew 22:1-46; Mark 12:13-37; Luke 20:19-44)
The attempt was next made on the part of the Pharisees, Herodians and Sadducees--now joined in a common cause--to ensnare Jesus by captious and compromising questions. These attempts He met with a wisdom and dignity which foiled His adversaries, while He showed a ready appreciation of a candid spirit when it presented itself, and turned the point against His opponents by putting a question on the Davidic sonship of the Messiah.
(1) Tribute to Caesar--the Resurrection--the Great Commandment.
First the Pharisees with the Herodians sought to entrap Him by raising the question of the lawfulness of tribute to Caesar. By causing them to produce a denarius bearing Caesar's image and superscription, Jesus obtained from them a recognition of their acceptance of Caesar's authority, and bade them render Caesar's things to Caesar, and God's to God. The Sadducees next tried Him with the puzzle of the wife who had seven husbands, leading up to denial of the resurrection; but Jesus met them by showing that marriage relations have no place in the resurrection life, and by pointing to the implication of a future life in God's word to Moses, "I am the God of Abraham," etc. God "is not the God of the dead, but of the living," a fact which carried with it all the weight of resurrection, as needed for the completion of the personal life. The candid scribe, who came last with His question as to which commandment was first of all, had a different reception. Jesus met Him kindly, satisfied him with His answer, and pronounced him "not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:34).
(2) David's Son and Lord. The adversaries were silenced, but Jesus now put to them His own question. If David in Psalms 110:1-7 could say "Yahweh saith unto my lord, Sit thou on my right hand," etc., how was this reconcilable with the Christ being David's son? The question was based on the acceptance of the oracle as spoken by David, or one of his house, of the Messiah, and was intended to suggest the higher nature of Christ as one with God in a Divine sovereignty. David's son was also David's Lord.
c) The Great Denunciation:
(Matthew 23:1-39; Mark 12:38-40; Luke 20:45-47; compare Luke 11:39-52)
At this point, in audience of the multitudes and of His disciples in the temple, Jesus delivered that tremendous indictment of the scribes and Pharisees, with denunciations of woes upon them for their hypocrisy and iniquity of conduct, recorded most fully in Matthew 23:1-39. A more tremendous denunciation of a class was never uttered. While conceding to the scribes and Pharisees any authority they lawfully possessed (Matthew 23:2-3), Jesus specially dwelt on their divorce of practice from precept. They said and did not (Matthew 23:3). He denounced their perversion of the right, their tyranny, their ostentation, their keeping back others from the kingdom, their zeal in securing proselytes, only to make them, when gained, worse than themselves, their immoral casuistry, their scruples about trifles, while neglecting essentials, their exaltation of the outward at the expense of the inward, their building the tombs of the prophets, while harboring the spirit of those that killed the prophets. He declared them to be foul and corrupt to the last degree: `sons of Gehenna' (Matthew 23:15, 33). So awful a condition meant ripeness for doom. On them, through that law of retribution which binds generation with generation in guilt and penalty, would come all the righteous blood shed since the days of Abel (the allusion to "Zachariah son of Barachiah," Matthew 23:35, is unmistakably to 2 Chronicles 24:21--this being the last book in the Hebrew Canon--but "Barachiah" seems a confusion with Zechariah 1:1, perhaps through a copyist's gloss or error). At the close indignation melts into tenderness in the affecting plaint over Jerusalem--"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, .... how often would I have gathered thy children together," etc. (Matthew 23:37-39)--words found in Luke in an earlier context (Matthew 13:34-35), but assuredly also appropriate here. For other parts of the discourse found earlier, compare Luke 11:39-52. All seems to have been gathered up afresh in this final accusation. It can be imagined that the anger of the Pharisees was fierce at such words, yet they did not venture openly to touch Him.
d) The Widow's Offering:
(Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4)
Before finally leaving the temple, Jesus seems to have passed from the outer court into the women's court, and there to have sat down near the receptacles provided for the gifts of the worshippers. Many who were wealthy cast of their gold and silver into the treasury, but the eye of Jesus singled out one poor widow who, creeping up, cast in two mites (Greek lepta, the smallest of coins), which made up but a farthing. It was little, but it was her all, and Jesus immortalized her poor offering by declaring that, out of her want, she had given more than the wealthlest there. Gifts were measured in His sight by the willingness that prompted them, and by the sacrifice they entailed.
e) The Visit of the Greeks:
(John 12:20-36)
It is perhaps to this crowded day, though some place it earlier in the week (on Sunday or Monday), that the incident should be referred of the request of certain Greeks to see Jesus, as related in John 12:20 ff. Who these Greeks were, or whence they came, is unknown, but they were evidently proselytes to the Jewish faith, and men of a sincere spirit. Their request was made through Philip of Bethsaida, and Philip and Andrew conveyed it to Jesus. It is not said whether their wish was granted, but we can hardly doubt that it was. Jesus evidently saw in the incident a prelude of that glory that should accrue to Himself through all men being drawn to Him (John 12:23, 32). But He saw as clearly that this "glorifying" could only be through His death (John 12:24, 33), and He universalized it into a law of His Kingdom that, as a grain of wheat must fall into the earth and die if it is to be multiplied, so only through sacrifice can any life be made truly fruitful (John 12:24-25). The thought of death, however, always brought trouble to the soul of Jesus (John 12:27), and a voice from the Father was given to comfort Him. The multitude thought it thundered, and failed to apprehend the meaning of the voice, or His own words about being "lifted up" (John 12:29, 34).
f) Discourse on the Last Things:
(Matthew 24:1-51; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36)
Jesus had now bidden farewell to the temple. As He was going out, His disciples--or one of them (Mark)--called His attention to the magnificence of the buildings of the temple, eliciting from Him the startling reply that not one stone should be left upon another that should not be thrown down. Later in the evening, when seated on the Mount of Olives on their return journey, in view of the temple, Andrew, James and John (Mark) asked Him privately when these things should be, and what would be the signs of their fulfillment. In Matthew the question is put more precisely, "When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming (parousia), and of the end of the world?" (or "consummation of the age"). It is in answer to these complex questions that Jesus spoke His great discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem and His final coming, some of the strands in which it is difficult now to disentangle. In the extended report in Matthew 24:1-51 certain passages appear which are given elsewhere by Luke (compare Luke 17:20-37). It may tend to clearness if a distinction be observed between the nearer event of the destruction of Jerusalem--also in its way a coming of the Son of Man--and the more remote event of the final parousia. The former, to which Matthew 24:15-28 more specially belong, seems referred to by the "these things" in Matthew 24:34, which, it is declared, shall be fulfilled in that generation. Of the final parousia, on the other hand, it is declared in Matthew 24:36 that "of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only" (compare Mark 13:32). The difficulty occasioned by the immediately of Matthew 24:29 is relieved by recalling the absence of perspective and grouping of future events in all apocalyptic prophecy--the consummation ever rising as the background of the immediate experience which is its prelude. The discourse then divides itself into a general part (Matthew 24:4-14), delineating the character of the entire period till the consummation (false Christs and prophets, wars, tribulations, apostasies, preaching of the gospel to all nations, etc.); a special part relating to the impending destruction of the city, with appropriate warnings (Matthew 24:15-28); and a closing part (Matthew 24:32-51) relating mainly to the final parousia, but not without reference to preceding events in the extension of Christ's kingdom, and ingathering of His elect (Matthew 24:30-31). Warning is given of the suddenness of the coming of the Son of Man, and the need of being prepared for it (Matthew 24:37-51). The whole is a massive prophecy, resting on Christ's consciousness that His death would be, not the defeat of His mission, but the opening up of the way to His final glorification and triumph.
g) Parables of Ten Virgins, Talents and Last Judgment:
To this great discourse on the solemnities of the end, Jesus, still addressing His disciples, added three memorable parables of instruction and warning (Matthew 25:1-46)--the first, that of the Ten Virgins, picturing, under the figure of virgins who went to meet the bridegroom with insufficient provision of oil for their lamps, the danger of being taken unawares in waiting for the Son of Man; the second, that of the Talents, akin to the parable in Luke of the Pounds (Matthew 19:11-27), emphasizing the need of diligence in the Lord's absence; the third, that of the Sheep and Goats, or Last Judgment, showing how the last division will be made according as discipleship is evinced by loving deeds done to those in need on earth--such deeds being owned by Christ the King as done to Himself. Love is thus declared to be the ultimate law in Christ's kingdom (compare 1 Corinthians 13:1-13); the loveless spirit is reprobated. "These shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46).
6. A Day of Retirement: (compare John 12:36)
Luke 21:37-38 might suggest that Jesus taught in the temple every day till the Thursday of the Passover; if, however, the denunciation took place, as nearly all agree, on Tuesday, an exception must be made of the Wednesday, which Jesus probably spent in retirement in Bethany in preparation of spirit for His last great conflict (others arrange differently, and put some of the preceding events in this day). The summary in John 12:36-43 connects the blindness of mind of the Pharisees with Isaiah's vision (Isaiah 6:10), and with the prophecy of the rejected Servant (Isaiah 53:1).
7. An Atmosphere of Plotting--Judas and the Priests:
(Matthew 26:1-5, 14-16; Mark 14:1-2, 10-11; Luke 22:1-6)
The plot for the destruction of Jesus was meanwhile maturing. Two days before the Passover (Tuesday evening), Jesus forewarned the disciples of His approaching betrayal and crucifixion (Matthew 26:2); and probably at that very hour a secret meeting of the chief priests and elders was being held in the court of the house of the high priest, Caiaphas (Matthew), to consult as to the means of putting Him to death. Their resolve was that it should not be done on the feast day, lest there should be a tumult; but the appearance of Judas, who since the anointing had seemingly meditated this step, speedily changed their plans. For the paltry sum of 30 pieces of silver (shekels of the sanctuary, less than $20 or 4 pounds; the price of a slave, Exodus 21:32; compare Zechariah 11:12), the recreant disciple, perhaps persuading himself that he was really forcing Jesus to an exercise of His Messianic power, agreed to betray his Lord. The covenant of infamy was made, and the traitor now only waited his opportunity to carry out his project.
Continued in JESUS CHRIST, 4E2.
Jesus Christ, 4e2
Jesus Christ, 4e2 - Continued from JESUS CHRIST, 4E1.
II. From the Last Supper till the Cross. 1. The Chronology: A question of admitted difficulty arises in the comparison of the Synoptics and John as to the dates of the Last Supper and of the crucifixion. The Synoptics seem clearly to place the Last Supper on the evening of the 14th of Nisan (in Jewish reckoning, the beginning of the 15th), and to identify it with the ordinary paschal meal (Matthew 26:17-19). The crucifixion then took place on the 15th. John, on the contrary, seems to place the supper on the day before the Passover (13:1), and the crucifixion on the 14th, when the Passover had not yet been eaten (18:28; 19:14). Many, on this ground, affirm an irreconcilable discrepancy between John and the Synoptics, some (e.g. Meyer, Farrar, less decisively Sanday) preferring Jn; others (Strauss, Baur, Schmiedel, etc.) using the fact to discredit Jn. By those who accept both accounts, various modes of reconciliation are proposed. A favorite opinion (early church writers; many moderns, as Godet, Westcott, Farrar) is that Jesus, in view of His death, anticipated the Passover, and ate His parting meal with His disciples on the evening of the 13th; others (e.g. Tholuck, Luthardt, Edersheim, Andrews, D. Smith), adhering to the Synoptics, take the view, here shared, that the apparent discrepancy is accounted for by a somewhat freer usage of terms in John. Details of the discussion must be sought in the works on the subject. The case for the anticipatory view is well given in Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 339 ff; and in Farrar, Life of Christ, Excur. X; a good statement of that for the Synoptics may be seen in Andrews, Life of our Lord; compare Tholuck, Commentary on John, on 13:1; Luthardt, Commentary on John, on 13:1; 18:28; D. Smith, Days of His Flesh, App. II. The language of the Synoptists ("the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover," Mark 14:12) leaves no doubt that they intended to identify the Last Supper with the regular Passover, and it is hardly conceivable that they could be mistaken on so vital a point of the apostolic tradition. This also was the view of the churches of Asia Minor, where John himself latterly resided. On the other hand, the phrase to "eat the passover" in John 18:28 may very well, in John's usage, refer to participation in the special sacrifices which formed a chief feature of the proceedings on the John 15:11-27th. The allusion in John 13:1 need mean no more than that, the Passover now impending, Jesus, loving His disciples to the end, gave them a special token of that love during the meal that ensued. The "preparation of the passover" in John 19:14, 31 most naturally refers to the preparation for the Sabbath of the Passover week, alluded to also by the Synoptics (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54). The objections based on rabbinical regulations about the Sabbath are convincingly met by Tholuck (see also Andrews). We assume, therefore, that our Lord ate the Passover with His disciples at the usual time--the evening of the 14th of Nisan (i.e. the beginning of the 15th).
2. The Last Supper: (Matthew 26:17-35; Mark 14:12-31; Luke 22:7-38; John 13:1-38; compare 1 Corinthians 11:23-25)
In the scene in the upper chamber, at the observance of the Last Supper, we enter the holy of holies of this part of the Lord's history. It is difficult, in combining the narratives, to be sure of the order of all the particulars, but the main events are clear. They may be exhibited as follows:
a) The Preparation:
On "the first day of unleavened bread"--Thursday, 14th of Nisan--Jesus bade two of His disciples (Luke names Peter and John) make the needful preparations for the observance of the Passover. This included the sacrificing of the lamb at the temple, and the securing of a guest-chamber. Jesus bade the disciples follow a man whom they would meet bearing a pitcher, and at the house where he stopped they would find one willing to receive them. The master of the house, doubtless a disciple, at once gave them "a large upper room furnished and ready" (Mark); there they made ready.
b) Dispute about Precedence--Washing of the Disciples' Feet--Departure of Judas:
Evening being come, Jesus and the Twelve assembled, and took their places for the meal. We gather from John 13:23 that John reclined next to Jesus (on the right), and the sequel shows that Judas and Peter were near on the other side. It was probably this arrangement that gave rise to the unseemly strife for precedence among the disciples narratedin Luke 22:24-30. The spirit thus displayed Jesus rebuked, as He had more than once had occasion to do (compare Mark 9:33-37); then (for here may be inserted the beautiful incident in John 13:1 ff), rising from the table, He gave them an amazing illustration of His own precept, "He that is chief (let him become) as he that doth serve ..... I am in the midst of you as he that serveth" (Luke 22:26-27), in divesting Himself of His garments, girding Himself with a towel, and performing the act of a servant in washing His disciples' feet. Peter's exclamation must have expressed the feelings of all: "Lord, dost thou wash my feet?" The act of the Divine Master was a wonderful lesson in humility, but Jesus used it also as a parable of something higher. "If I wash thee not (i.e. if thou art not cleansed by the receiving of my word and spirit, which this washing symbolizes), thou hast no part with me"; then on Peter's further impulsive protest, "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head," the word: "He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit" (i.e. sanctification of the inner man is once for all, but there is need for cleansing from the sins of the daily walk). Resuming His place at the table, He bade them imitate the example He had just given them.
Is it I?
An ominous word had accompanied the reply to Peter, "Ye are not all clean" (John 13:10-11). As the supper proceeded, the meaning of this was made plain. Judas, who had already sold his Master, was at the table with the rest. He had permitted Jesus to wash his feet, and remained unmoved by that surpassing act of condescending love. Jesus was "troubled in spirit" and now openly declared, "One of you shall betray me" (the Greek word means literally, "deliver up": compare Luke 22:4, 6, and the Revised Version margin throughout). It was an astounding announcement to the disciples, and from one and another came the trembling question, "Lord, is it I?" Jesus answered that it was one of those dipping his hand with Him in the dish (Mark), and spoke of the woe that would overtake the betrayer ("Good were it for that man if he had not been born"). John, at a sign from Peter, asked more definitely, "Who is it?" (John). Jesus said, but to John only, it was he to whom He would give a sop, and the sop was given to Judas. The traitor even yet sought to mask his treachery by the words, "Is it I, Rabbi?" and Jesus replied, though still not aloud, "Thou hast said" (Matthew); then, as Satanic passion stirred the breast of Judas, He added, "What thou doest, do quickly" (John). Judas at once rose and went out--into the night (John 13:30). The disciples, not comprehending his abrupt departure, thought some errand had been given him for the feast or for the poor. Jesus was relieved by his departure and spoke of the glory coming to Himself and to His Father, and of love as the mark of true discipleship (John 13:31-35).
c) The Lord's Supper:
The forms of the observance of the Passover by the Jews are given elsewhere (see PASSOVER). Luke alone of the New Testament writers speaks of 2 cups (22:17,20); in Jewish practice 4 cups were used. The "Western" text, Codex Bezae (D), omits Luke's 2nd cup, from which some (compare Sanday, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes)) infer duplication, but this is not necessary. Luke's 1st cup (Luke 22:17) may be that with which the paschal supper opened; the 2nd cup--that mentioned by all the writers--was probably the 3rd Jewish cup, known as "the cup
of blessing" (compare 1 Corinthians 10:16). Some, however, as Meyer, make it the 4th cup. It is implied in Matthew, Mark, John, that by this time Judas had gone. Left thus with His own, the essentials of the paschal meal being complete, Jesus proceeded, by taking and distributing bread and wine, associating them with His body and blood, soon to be offered in death upon the cross, to institute that sacred rite in which, through all ages since (though its simplicity has often been sadly obscured) His love and sacrifice have been commemorated by His church. There are variations of phrase in the different accounts, but in the essentials of the sacramental institution there is entire agreement. Taking bread, after thanks to God, Jesus broke it, and gave it to the disciples with the words, "This is my body"; the cup, in like manner, after thanksgiving, He gave them with the words, "This is my blood of the covenant (in Luke and Paul, "the new covenant in my blood") which is poured out for many" (Matthew adds, "unto remission of sins"). Luke and Paul add what is implied in the others: "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24). Nothing could more plainly designate the bread and wine as holy symbols of the Lord's body and blood, offered in death for man's redemption, and sealing in His blood a new covenant with God; nor, so long as the rite is observed in its Divine simplicity, as Jesus instituted it, will it be possible to expunge from His death the character of a redeeming sacrifice. In touching words Jesus intimated that He would no more drink of the fruit of the vine till He drank it new with them in their Father's Kingdom (on the doctrinal aspects, see EUCHARIST; SACRAMENTS; LORD'S SUPPER).
d) The Last Discourses--Intercessory Prayer:
The Supper was over, and parting was imminent, but Jesus did not leave the holy chamber till He had poured out His inmost heart in those tender, consolatory, profoundly spiritual addresses which the beloved disciple has preserved for us in John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; and John 16:1-33, followed by the wonderful closing intercessory prayer of John 17:1-26. He was leaving them, but their hearts were not to be disquieted, for they would see Him again (John 14:18; 16:16 ff), and if, ere long, He would part with them again in visible form, it was only outwardly He would be separated from them, for He would send them the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who would take His place, to guide them into all truth, and bring all things to their remembrance that He had said to them (John 14:16-17; 15:26; John 16:7-14). If He went away, it was to prepare a place for them, and He would come again to receive them to Himself in His Father's house (John 14:1-3); let them meanwhile show their love to Him by keeping His commandments (John 14:15, 23, 14). In the Spirit He Himself and the Father would dwell in the souls that loved Him (John 14:21-23). The intimacy of their union with Him would be like that of branches in the vine; only by abiding in Him could they bring forth fruit (John 15:1 ff). They would have tribulations (John 15:18 ff; John 16:1-2), but as His dying bequest He left them His own peace (John 14:27); that would sustain their hearts in all trial (John 16:33). With many such promises did He comfort them in view of the terrible ordeal through which they were soon to pass; then, addressing His Father, He prayed for their holy keeping, and their final admission to His glory (John 17:9-18, 24).
These solemn discourses finished, Jesus and His disciples sang a hymn (the "Hallel") and departed to go to the Mount of Olives. Comparing the evangelists, one would infer that the conversation in which Jesus foretold the denial of Peter at least commenced before they left the chamber (Luke 22:31 ff; John connects it, probably through relation of subject, with the exposure of Judas, Luke 13:35); but it seems to have continued on the way (Matthew, Mark).
e) The Departure and Warning:
Jesus had spoken of their being "offended" in Him that night. In his exaltation of spirit, Peter declared that though all should be offended in Him, he would never be offended. Jesus, who had already warned Peter that Satan sought to have him, that he might sift him as wheat (Luke 22:31; but "I made supplication for thee," etc.), now told him that before the cock should crow, he would thrice deny Him. Peter stoutly maintained that he would die rather than be guilty of so base an act--so little did he or the others (Matthew 26:35; Mark 14:31) know themselves! The enigmatic words in Luke 22:36 about taking scrip and sword point metaphorically to the need, in the times that were coming upon them, of every lawful means of provision and self-defence; the succeeding words show that "sword" is not intended to be taken literally (Luke 22:38).
3. Gethsemane--the Betrayal and Arrest: (Matthew 26:36-56; Mark 14:32-53; Luke 22:39-53; John 18:1-12)
Descending to the valley, Jesus and His disciples, crossing the brook Kidron ("of the cedars"), entered the "garden" (John) known as Gethsemane ("oil-press"), at the foot of the Mount of Olives. Here took place the agony, which is the proper commencement of the Passion, the betrayal by Judas and the arrest of Jesus.
During the evening the thoughts of Jesus had been occupied mainly with His disciples; now that the hour had come when the things predicted concerning Him should have fulfillment (Luke 22:37: "your hour, and the power of darkness," Luke 22:53), it was inevitable that mind and spirit should concentrate on the awful bodily and mental sufferings that lay before Him.
a) Agony in the Garden:
It was not the thought of physical suffering alone--from that also the pure and sensitive humanity of Jesus shrank with natural horror--but death to Him, the Holy One and Prince of Life, had an indescribably hateful character as a hostile power in humanity, due to the judgment of God on sin, and now descending upon Him through the workings of the vilest of human passions in the religious heads of His nation. What anguish to such an One, filled with love and the desire to save, to feel Himself rejected, betrayed, deserted, doomed to a malefactor's cross--alone, yet not alone, for the Father was with Him! (John 16:32). The burden on His spirit when He reached Gethsemane was already, as the language used shows, all but unendurable--"amazed," "sore troubled," "My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death" (Mark). There, bidding the other disciples wait, He took with Him Peter, and James, and John, and withdrew into the recesses of the garden. Leaving these also a little behind, He sank on the ground in solitary "agony" (Luke), and "with strong crying and tears" (Hebrews 5:7), poured out His soul in earnest supplication to His Father. "Let this cup pass away from me"--it could not be, but thus the revulsion of His nature was expressed--"howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt." The passage in Lk (22:44), "His sweat became as it were great drops of blood," etc., though omitted in certain manuscripts, doubtless preserves a genuine trait. Returning to the three, He found them overpowered with sleep: even the support of their wakeful sympathy was denied Him! "Watch and pray," He gently admonished them, "that ye enter not into temptation." A second and third time the same thing happened--wrestling with God on His part, sleep on theirs, till, with Divine strengthening (Luke 22:41), victory was attained, and calm restored. "Sleep on now," He said to His disciples (the crisis is past; your help can avail no more): "Arise, let us be going" (the future has to be faced; the betrayer is at hand. See the remarkable sermon of F.W. Robertson, II, sermon 22).
b) Betrayal by Judas--Jesus Arrested:
The crisis had indeed arrived. Through the darkness, even as Jesus spoke, was seen flashing the light of torches and lanterns, revealing a mingled company of armed men--Roman soldiers, temple officers (John), others--sent by the chief priests, scribes and elders, to apprehend Jesus. Their guide was Judas. It had been found impracticable to lay hands on Jesus in public, but Judas knew this retreat (John 18:2), and had arranged, by an act of dastardly treachery, to enable them to effect the capture in privacy. The sign was to be a kiss. With an affectation of friendship, only possible to one into whose heart the devil had truly entered (Luke 22:3; John 13:27), Judas advanced, and hailing Jesus as "'Master," effusively kissed Him (Matthew 26:49; Mark 14:45 margin). Jesus had asked, "Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" (Luke); now He said, "Friend, do that for which thou art come" (Matthew). The soldiers essayed to take Jesus, but on their first approach, driven back as by a supernatural power, they fell to the ground (Jn). A proof thus given of the voluntariness of His surrender (compare Matthew 26:53: "Thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father," etc.), Jesus, remarking only on the iniquity of secret violence when every day they had opportunity to take Him in the temple, submitted to be seized and bound. At this point Peter, with characteristic impetuosity, remembering, perhaps, his pledge to die, if need be, with Jesus, drew a sword, and cut off the right ear of the high priest's servant, Malchus (Jn gives the names). If he thought his deed justified by what Jesus had earlier said about "swords" (Luke 22:36, 38), he was speedily undeceived by Jesus' rebuke (John 18:11), and by His healing of the ear (Luke; the last miracle of Jesus before His death). How little this flicker of impulsive boldness meant is shown by the general panic that immediately followed. "All the disciples," it is related, "left him, and fled" (Matthew, Mark). Mk tells of a young man who had come upon the scene with only a linen cloth cast about his naked body, and who fled, leaving the cloth behind (John 14:31, 31). Not improbably the young man was Mark himself.
4. Trial before the Sanhedrin: (Matthew 26:57-75; Matthew 27:1-10; Mark 14:53-72; 15:1; Luke 22:54-71; John 18:12-27; compare Acts 1:18-19):
It would be about midnight when Jesus was arrested, and He was at once hurried to the house of Caiaphas, the high priest, where in expectation of the capture, a company of chief priests, scribes and elders--members of the Sanhedrin--were already assembled. Here the first stage in the trial of Jesus took place.
The legal and constitutional questions connected with the trial of Jesus are considered in the article on JESUS CHRIST, THE ARREST AND TRIAL OF; see also Dr. Taylor Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ; on the powers of the Sanhedrin, see SANHEDRIN, and compare Schurer, Jewish People, etc., II, 1, pp. 163 ff. There seems little doubt that, while certain judicial forms were observed, the trial was illegal in nearly every particular. The arrest itself was arbitrary, as not rounded on any formal accusation (the Sanhedrin, however, seems to have arrogated to itself powers of this kind; compare Acts 4:1 ff); but the night session, lack of definite charge, search for testimony, interrogation of accused, haste in condemnation, were unquestionably in flagrant violation of the established rules of Jewish judicial procedure in such cases. It is to be remembered that the death of Jesus had already been decided on by the heads of the Sanhedrin, so that the trial was wholly a means to a foregone conclusion. On the historical side, certain difficulties arise. Jn seems to make the first interrogation of Jesus take place before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas (on Annas, see below; though deposed 15 years before, he retained, in reality, all the dignity and influence of the high-priesthood; compare Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6); after which He is sent to Caiaphas (John 18:13-14, 19-24). The narrative is simplified if either (1) John 18:19-23 are regarded as a preliminary interrogatory by Annas till matters were prepared for the arraignment before Caiaphas; or (2) 18:24 is taken as retrospective (in the sense of "had sent," as in the King James Version), and the interrogation is included in the trial by Caiaphas (compare 18:19: "the high priest"). Annas and Caiaphas may be presumed from the account of Peter's denials to have occupied the same official residence; else Annas was present on this night to be in readiness for the trial. The frequently occurring term "chief priests" denotes the high priests, with those who had formerly held this rank, and members of their families (compare Schurer, op. cit., 203 ff). They formed, with the scribes, the most important element in the Sanhedrin.
a) Before Annas and Caiaphas--the Unjust Judgment:
First Jesus was led before Annas, then by him, after a brief interview, was transferred, still bound, to Caiaphas. Annas had been deposed, as above noticed, much earlier (15 AD), but still retained the name and through his sons and relations, as long as he lived, exercised much of the authority of high priest. Like all those holding this high office, he and Caiaphas were Sadducees. Annas--if he is the questioner in John 18:19-23--asked Jesus concerning His disciples and His teaching. Such interrogation was unlawful, the duty of the accuser, in Jewish law, being to produce witnesses; properly, therefore, Jesus referred him to His public teaching in the temple, and bade him ask those who heard Him there. An officer standing by struck Jesus with his hand for so speaking: an indignity which Jesus endured with meek remonstrance (John 18:22-23).
(1) An Illegal Session. Meanwhile a company of the Sanhedrin had assembled (23 sufficed for a quorum), and Jesus was brought before this tribunal, which was presided over by Caiaphas. A hurried search had been made for witnesses (this, like the night session, was illegal), but even the suborned testimony thus obtained ("false witnesses") was found useless for the purpose of establishing, constructively or directly, a charge of blasphemy against Jesus. At length two witnesses were produced who gave a garbled version of the early saying of Jesus (John 2:19) about destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days. To speak against the temple might be construed as speaking against God (compare Matthew 23:16, 21; Acts 6:13-14), but here too the witnesses broke down through lack of agreement. At all costs, however, must Jesus be condemned: the unprecedented course therefore was taken of seeking a conviction from the mouth of the accused Himself. Rising from his seat, the high priest adjured Jesus by the living God to tell them whether He was the Christ, the Son of God (in Mark, "Son of the Blessed"). In using this title, Caiaphas had evidently in view, as in John 5:18; 10:33, a claim to equality with God. The supreme moment had come, and Jesus did not falter in His reply: "Thou hast said." Then, identifying Himself with the Son of Man in Daniel's vision (Daniel 7:13-14), He solemnly added, "Henceforth (from His resurrection on) ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." It was enough. Without even the pretense of inquiry into the truth or falsehood of the claim, the high priest rent his garments, exclaiming, "He hath spoken blasphemy," and by assent of all Jesus was adjudged worthy of death. Abuse and insult followed. The minions of the Sanhedrin were permitted to spit on the condemned One, smite Him, blindfold and mock Him, saying, "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?" Then, with further blows, He was led away (Matthew 26:68).
(2) A Morning Confirmation. To give color of judicial sanction to these tumultuous and wholly irregular night proceedings, a more formal meeting of the Sanhedrin was convened as soon as day had dawned (Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66-71). Probably the irregularities were held to be excused by the urgency of the occasion and the solemnities of the feast. Jesus was again brought forward; new questions were put which He declined to answer. Possibly a new avowal of His Messiahship was made (more probably Luke includes in this scene, the only one he records, some of the particulars of the earlier proceedings). The judgment of the past night was confirmed.
b) The Threefold Denial:
While this greatest moral tragedy of the trial and condemnation of Jesus was in process, a lesser, but still awful, tragedy in the history of a soul was being enacted in the court of the same building (from this the chamber in which the Sanhedrin sat was visible), in the threefold denial of his Master by the apostle Peter. Peter, who had followed "afar off" (Luke), had gained access to the court through an unnamed disciple, whom it is easy to identify with John (John 18:15). As he stood warming himself at a fire which had been kindled, the maid who had admitted them (John), gazing attentively at Peter, said boldly, "Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean" (Matthew 26:69). Unnerved, and affrighted by his surroundings, Peter took the readiest mode of escape in denial. "I know him not." His heart must have sunk within him as he framed the words, and the crowing of a cock at the moment (Mark--perhaps an hour after midnight), reminding him of his Master's warning, completed his discomfiture. Guiltily he withdrew to the porch, only a little after to be accosted by another (the maid had spoken to her neighbors, Mark), with the same charge. More afraid than ever, he declared again, "I know not this man," and, seeing he was not believed, strengthened the denial with an oath. Yet a third time, an hour later, a bystander (or several, Mark), this time founding on his Galilean speech, pronounced, "Of a truth thou art one of them." Peter, to clear himself, cursed and swore, anew disclaiming knowledge of his Lord. To this depth had the boastful apostle fallen--as low, it might seem, as Judas! But there was a difference. As Peter spoke the cock again crew--the cockcrow which gives its form to three of the narratives (Mark alone mentions the double cockcrowing). At the same instant, either from within, or as He was being led forth, Jesus turned and looked on His erring disciple. That look--so full of pity, sorrow, reproach--could never be forgotten! Its effect was instantaneous: "Peter went out, and wept bitterly."
c) Remorse and Suicide of Judas:
Peter's heartfelt repentance has its counterfoil in the remorse of Judas, which, bitter as it also was, cannot receive the nobler name. First, Judas sought to return the 30 shekels paid him as the price of blood ("I betrayed innocent blood"); then, when callously rebuffed by the priests and elders, he flung down the accursed money in the sanctuary, and went and hanged himself. Matthew and Acts seem to follow slightly divergent traditions as to his end and the purchase of the potter's field. The underlying facts probably are that the priests applied the money, which they could not put into the treasury (Matthew), to the purchase of the field, where, either before or after the purchase, Judas destroyed himself (Acts: falling and bursting asunder), assigning it as a place to bury strangers in. Its connection with Judas is attested by its name, "Akeldama," "the field of blood."
The Jews might condemn, but they had no power to execute sentence of death (John 18:31). This power had been taken from them by the Romans, and was now vested in the Roman governor. The procurator of Judea was Pontius Pilate, a man hated by the Jews for his ruthless tyranny (see PILATE), yet, as the Gospels show him, not without a sense of right, but vacillating and weak-willed in face of mob clamor, and risk to his own interests.
5. Trial before Pilate: (Matthew 27:2, 11-31; Mark 15:1-20; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28-40; John 19:1-16)
His residence in Jerusalem ("Praetorium," the English Revised Version "palace") was probably Herod's former palace (thus Schurer, G.A. Smith, etc.), on the tesselated pavement (John 19:13) in the semicircular front of which was placed the tribunal (bema) from which judgments were delivered. It was to this place Jesus was now brought. The events took place when it was "early" (John 18:28), probably between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. (compare John 19:14, Roman camputation).
a) The Attitude of the Accusers:
Jesus was taken within the Pretorium, but His accusers were too scrupulous about defilement at the Passover festival (John 18:28) to enter the building. Pilate therefore came out to hear their accusation. They would fain have had him endorse their condemnation without further inquiry, but this he would not do. They would not have it that it was a simple question of their law, yet had to justify their demand for a death sentence (John 18:31). They based, therefore, on the alleged revolutionary character of Christ's teaching, His forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar (a false charge), His claim to be a king (Luke 23:2, 5), to all which charges Jesus answered not a word (Mark 15:3, 5). At a later stage, after Pilate, who knew very well that no mere sedition against the Roman power had called forth all this passion (witness the choice of Barabbas), had repeatedly declared that he found no crime in Jesus (Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 18:38; 4, 6), the real spring of their action was laid bare: "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). When it was seen how this declaration made Pilate only the more unwilling to yield to their rage, return was made to the political motive, now in the form of personal threat: "If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend" (John 19:12). This was Pilate's weak point, and the Jews knew it. The clamor grew ever louder, "Crucify him, crucify him." Hate of Jesus and national degradation could go no farther than in the cry, "We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15).
b) The Attitude of Pilate:
Pilate was from the first impressed with the innocence of Jesus, and was sincerely anxious, as his actions showed, to save Him from the terrible and ignominious death His implacable enemies were bent on inflicting upon Him. His crime was that, as Roman judge, he finally, against his own convictions, through fear of a charge of disloyalty to Caesar, yielded up to torture and death One whom he had pronounced guiltless, to gratify the brutal passions of a mob. By Pilate's own admissions, Christ's death was, not a punishment for any crime, but a judicial murder. First, through private examination, Pilate satisfied himself that the kingship Jesus claimed ("Thou sayest") carried with it no danger to the throne of Caesar. Jesus was a king indeed, but His kingdom was not of this world; was not, like earthly kingdoms, supported by violence; was founded on the truth, and gathered its subjects from those that received the truth (John 18:36-37). The indifference to the name of truth which the jaded mind of Pilate confessed ("What is truth?") could not hide from him the nobility of soul of the Holy One who stood before him. He declared publicly, "I find no fault in this man," and thereafter sought means of saving Him, at least of shifting the responsibility of His condemnation from himself to others.
(1) Jesus Sent to Herod. Hearing in the clamor round the judgment seat that Jesus was a Galilean, and remembering that Herod Antipas, who had jurisdiction in that region, was in the city, Pilate's first expedient was to send Jesus to Herod, to be examined by him (Luke 23:6-11). This act of courtesy had the effect of making Herod and Pilate, who had been at enmity, again friends (Luke 23:12); otherwise it failed of its object. Herod was pleased enough to see One he had so often heard about--even thought in his flippancy that a miracle might be done by Him--but when Jesus, in presence of "that fox" (Luke 13:32), refused to open His mouth in answer to the accusations heaped upon Him, Herod, with his soldiers, turned the matter into jest, by clothing Jesus in gorgeous apparel, and sending Him back as a mock-king to Pilate.
(2) "Not This Man, but Barabbas."
Pilate's next thought was to release Jesus in pursuance of a Jewish custom of setting free a prisoner at the feast, and to this end, having again protested that no fault had been found in Him, offered the people the choice between Jesus and a notorious robber and murderer called Barabbas, then in prison. Just then, as he sat on the judgment seat, a message from his wife regarding a dream she had ("Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man," Matthew 27:19) must strongly have influenced his superstitious mind. Pilate could hardly have conceived that the multitude would prefer a murderer to One so good and pure; but, instigated by the priests, they perpetrated even this infamy, shouting for the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus.
(3) "Ecce Homo."
Pilate's weakness now began to reveal itself. He proposed to "chastise" (scourge) Jesus--why "chastise," if He was innocent?--then release Him. But this compromise, as was to be anticipated, only whetted the eagerness for blood, and the cries grew ever louder, "Crucify him." Pilate, however, as if yielding to the storm, did deliver Jesus to be scourged (scourging--a fearful infliction--preceded crucifixion), the cruelty being aggravated by the maltreatment of the soldiers, who, outstripping former mockeries, put on His head a crown of thorns, arrayed Him in a purple robe, and rained blows upon His bleeding face and form. It seems to have been a design of Pilate to awake pity, for once again he brought Jesus forth, and in this affecting guise, with new attestation of His innocence, presented Him to the people in the words, "Behold, the man!" (John 19:5). How hideous the mockery, at once to declare of such an one, "I find no crime in him," and to exhibit Him to the crowd thus shamefully abused! No pity dwelt in these hearts, however, and the shouts became still angrier, "Crucify him."
(4) A Last Appeal--Pilate Yields. The words of the leaders, "He made himself the Son of God," spoken as a reason for putting Jesus to death (John 19:7), struck a new fear into the heart of Pilate. It led him again to enter the Pretorium, and inquire of this strange prisoner, unlike any he had ever seen, "Whence art thou?" Jesus was silent. "Knowest thou not," asked Pilate, "that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee?" Jesus answered only that he, Pilate, had no power over Him at all save what was given him of God; the greater therefore was the crime of those who had subjected Him to this abuse of Divinely given power. Again Pilate went out and sought to release Him, but was met by the fierce cries that foreboded complaint to Caesar (John 19:12). A tumult seemed imminent, and Pilate succumbed. Here probably (though possibly after the choice of Barabbas) is to be placed the washing of his hands by Pilate--a vain disclaiming of his responsibility--recorded in Matthew 27:24, and the awful answer of the people, "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). Pilate now ascends the judgment seat, and, fully conscious of the iniquity of his procedure, pronounces the formal sentence which dooms Jesus to the cross. The trial over, Jesus is led again into the Pretorium, where the cruel mockery of the soldiers is resumed in intensified form. The Holy One, thorn-crowned, clad in purple, a reed thrust into His hand, is placed at the mercy of the whole band, who bow the knee in ridicule before Him ("Hail, King of the Jews"), spit upon Him in contempt, smite Him on the head with the reed (Matthew, Mark). Then, stripped of the robe, His own garments are put on Him, in preparation for the end.
c) The Attitude of Jesus:
In all this hideous scene of cruelty, injustice, and undeserved suffering, the conspicuous feature in the bearing of Jesus is the absolute calmness, dignity and meekness with which He endures the heaviest wrongs and insults put upon Him. The picture in Isaiah 53:7-8 is startling in its fidelity: "When he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is mute, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away," etc. There is no return of the perturbation of Gethsemane. As if the strength won there had raised Him into a peace that nothing could shake, He passed through the frightful physical exhaustion, mental strain, agony of scourging, suffering from wounds and blows, of that terrible night and morning, with unbroken fortitude and unembittered spirit. Not a word of complaint passes His lips; He makes no reply to accusations; when reviled, He reviles not again; He takes all with submission, as part of the cup the Father has given Him to drink. It is a spectacle to move the stoniest heart. Well to remember that it is the world's sin, in which all share, that mingled the bitter draught!
III. The Crucifixion and Burial. 1. The Crucifixion: (Matthew 27:31-56; Mark 15:20-41; Luke 23:26-49; John 19:16-37)
Crucifixion was the form of punishment reserved by the Romans for slaves, foreigners and the vilest criminals, and could not be inflicted on a Roman citizen. With its prolonged and excruciating torture, it was the most agonizing and ignominious death which the cruelty of a cruel age could devise. Jewish law knew nothing of it (the `hanging on a tree' of Deuteronomy 21:22-23, was after death; compare Galatians 3:13), yet to it the Jewish leaders hounded Pilate on to doom their Messiah. The cross was no doubt of the usual Roman shape (see CROSS). The site of Golgotha, "the place of a skull" (in Luke "Calvary," the Latinized form), is quite uncertain. It may have been a slight mound resembling a skull (thus Meyer, Luthardt, Godet, etc.), but this is not known. It is only plain that it was outside the wall, in the immediate vicinity of the city (see note below on sepulcher). The time of the crucifixion was about 9 a.m. (Mark 15:25). The day (Friday) was the "preparation" for the Sabbath of the Passover week (Matthew, Mark, Luke; compare John 19:14, 31).
a) On the Way:
It was part of the torment of the victim of this horrible sentence that he had to bear his own cross (according to some only the patibulum, or transverse beam) to the place of execution. As Jesus, staggering, possibly fainting, under this burden, passed out of the gate, a stranger coming from the country, Simon, a man of Cyrene, was laid hold of, and compelled to carry the cross (such an one would not be punctilious about rabbinical rules of travel, especially as it was not the regular Sabbath). Jesus, however, was not wholly unpitied. In the crowd following Him were some women of Jerusalem, who bewailed and lamented Him. The Lord, turning, bade these weep, not for Him, but for themselves and for their children. "If they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" (Luke 23:27-31).
b) Between the Thieves--the Superscription--the Seamless Robe:
Golgotha being reached, the crucifixion at once took place under the care of a centurion and a quaternion of soldiers. With ruthless blows, hands and feet were nailed to the wood, then the cross was reared (the perpendicular part may, as some think, have first been placed in position). As if to emphasize, from Pilate's point of view, the irony of the proceedings, two robbers were crucified with Jesus, on right and left, an undesigned fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 53:12). It was doubtless when being raised upon the cross that Jesus uttered the touching prayer--His 1st word on the cross (its genuineness need not be questioned, though some ancient manuscripts omit)--"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke). Above His head, according to custom, was placed a tablet with His accusation, written in three languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The chief priests took offense at the form, "This is the King of the Jews," and wished the words changed to, "He said, I am King," etc., but Pilate curtly dismissed their complaint: "What I have written I have written" (John). Whether Jesus still wore the crown of thorns is doubtful. The garments of the Crucified were divided among the soldiers, but for His inner garment, woven without seam, they cast lots (compare Psalms 22:18). A draught of wine mingled with an opiate (gall or myrrh), intended to dull the senses, was offered, but refused.
c) The Mocking--the Penitent Thief--Jesus and His Mother:
The triumph of Christ's enemies now seemed complete, and their glee was correspondingly unrestrained. Their victim's helplessness was to them a disproof of His claims. Railing, and wagging their heads, they taunted Him, "If thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross"; "He saved others; himself he cannot save." At first the robbers who were crucified with Him (possibly only one) joined in this reproach, but ere long there was a change. The breast of one of the malefactors opened to the impression of the holiness and meekness of Jesus, and faith took the place of scorn. He rebuked his neighbor for reviling One who had "done nothing amiss"; then, addressing Jesus, he prayed: "Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom." The reply of Jesus--His 2nd word on the cross--surpassed what even the penitent in these strange circumstances could have anticipated "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise" (Luke). A not less touching incident followed--perhaps preceded--this rescue of a soul in its last extremity. Standing near the cross was a group of holy women, one of them the mother of Jesus Himself (John 19:25: Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas--some identify the two latter--Mary Magdalene). Mary, whose anguish of spirit may be imagined, was supported by the disciple John. Beholding them--His 3rd word from the cross--Jesus tenderly commended His mother to the care of John; to Mary, "Woman, behold, thy son"; to John, "Beho1d, thy mother." From that time Mary dwelt with John.
Three hours passed, and at noon mocking was hushed in presence of a startling natural change. The sun's light failed (Luke), and a deep darkness, lasting for 3 hours, settled over the land. The darkness was preternatural in its time and occasion, whatever natural agencies may have been concerned in it. The earthquake a little later (Matthew) would be due to the same causes. It was as if Nature veiled itself, and shuddered at the enormity of the crime which was being perpetrated.
d) The Great Darkness--the Cry of Desertion:
But the outer gloom was only the symbol of a yet more awful darkness that, toward the close of this period, overspread the soul of Jesus Himself. Who shall fathom the depths of agony that lay in that awful cry--the 4th from the cross--that burst loudly from the lips of Jesus, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"--"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" (or, "Why didst thou forsake me?")--words borrowed from Psalms 22:1! It was before remarked that death was not a natural event to Jesus, but ever had in it to His mind its significance as a judgment of God on sin. Here it was not simply death that He experienced in its most cruel form, but death bereft of the sensible comforts of the Father's presence. What explanation of that mystery can be found which does not take into account with Isaiah 53:1-12 (compare John 1:29) His character as Sin-Bearer, even as the unbroken trust with which in His loneliness He clings to God ("My God") may be felt to have in it the element of atonement? On this, however, the present is not the place to dwell.
e) Last Words and Death of Jesus:
The end was now very near. The victim of crucifixion sometimes lingered on in his agony for days; but the unexampled strain of body and mind which Jesus had undergone since the preceding day brought an earlier termination to His sufferings. Light was returning, and with it peace; and in the consciousness that all things were now finished (John 19:28), Jesus spoke again--the 5th word--"I thirst" (John). A sponge filled with vinegar was raised on a reed to His lips, while some who had heard His earlier words ("Eli, Eli," etc.), and thought He called for Elijah, said, "Let us see whether Elijah cometh to save him" (Matthew). With a last effort, Jesus cried aloud--6th and memorable word--"It is finished," then, in a final utterance--the 7th--commended His spirit to God: "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke). Following on this word, bowing His head, He surrendered Himself to death. It will be seen that of the 7 words spoken from the cross, 3 are preserved by Luke alone (1st, 2nd, 7th), 3 by John alone (3rd, 5th, 6th), while the 4th cry ("Eli, Eli," etc.) occurs only in the first 2 evangelists (Matthew and Mark, however, speak of Jesus "crying with a loud voice" at the close).
f) The Spear Thrust--Earthquake and Rending of the Veil:
Jesus had died; the malefactors still lived. It was now 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and it was desired that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the approaching Sabbath. Permission was therefore obtained from Pilate for the soldiers to break the legs of the crucified (crurifragium), and so hasten death. When it was discovered that Jesus was already dead, a soldier, possibly to make sure, pierced His side with a spear, and John, who was present, notices as a special fact that "there came out blood and water" (19:34). Whether this means, as Stroud and others have contended, that Jesus literally died of rupture of the heart, or what other physiological explanation may be given of the phenomenon, to which the apostle elsewhere attaches a symbolical significance (1 John 5:6), need not be here discussed (see BLOOD AND WATER). This, however, was not the only startling and symbolically significant fact attending the death of Jesus. A great darkness had preluded the death; now, at the hour of His termination, the veil of the temple (i.e. of the inner shrine) was rent from top to bottom--surely a sign that the way into the holiest of all was now opened for mankind (Hebrews 9:8, 12)--and a great earthquake shook the city and rent the rocks. Mt connects with this the statement that from the tombs thus opened "many bodies of the saints .... were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many" (27:52,53). There is nothing in itself improbable, though none of the other evangelists mention it, in such an early demonstration being given of what the Lord's death and resurrection meant for believers. In other ways the power of the cross was revealed. A dying robber had been won to penitence; now the centurion who commanded the soldiers was brought to the avowal, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matthew, Mark; in Luke, "a righteous man"). The mood of the crowd, too, was changed since the morning; they "returned, smiting their breasts" (Luke 23:48). "Afar off," speechless with sorrow, stood the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee, with other friends and disciples. The evangelists name Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Joses, Salome (Mark), and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (Luke).
2. The Burial: (Matthew 27:57-66; compare Matthew 28:11-15; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42)
Jesus had conquered hearts on His cross; now His death reveals friends from the wealthier classes, hitherto kept back by fear (John 19:38-39), who charge themselves with His honorable burial. One was Joseph of Arimathea, a just man, "looking for the kingdom of God," of whom the interesting fact is recorded that, though a member of the Sanhedrin, "he had not consented to their counsel and deed" (Luke); the other was Nicodemus, he who came to Jesus by night (John 3:1-2; 19:39), mentioned again only in John 7:50-52, where, also as a member of the Sanhedrin, he puts in a word for Jesus.
a) The New Tomb:
Joseph of Arimathea takes the lead. "Having dared," as Mk says (15:43, Gr), he begged the body of Jesus from Pilate, and having obtained it, bought linen cloth wherein to wrap it, and reverently buried it in a new rock-tomb of his own (Matthew, Mark), "where never man had yet lain" (Luke). John furnishes the further particulars that the tomb was in a "garden," near where Jesus was crucified (19:41,42). He tells also of the munificence of Nicodemus, who brought as much as 100 pounds (about 75 lbs. avoir.) of spices--"a mixture of myrrh and aloes" (19:39), with which to enwrap the body of Jesus. This is not to be thought of as an "anointing": rather, the spices formed a powder strewn between the folds of the linen bandages (compare Luthardt, Commentary on John 19:40). The body, thus prepared, was then placed in the tomb, and a great stone rolled to tile entrance. The burial was of necessity a very hurried one, which the holy women who witnessed it--Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses are specially mentioned (Matthew, Mark)--purposed to supplement by an anointing when the Sabbath was past (compare Luke 23:56).
b) The Guard of Soldiers:
Though Jesus was dead, the chief priests and Pharisees were far from easy in their minds about Him. Mysterious words of His had been quoted about His building of the temple in three days; possibly Judas had told something. about His sayings regarding His death and rising again on the 3rd day; in any case, His body was in the hands of His disciples, and they might remove it, and create the persuasion that He had risen. With this plea they went to Pilate, and asked from him a watch of soldiers to guard the tomb. To make assurance doubly sure, they sealed the tomb with the official seal. The result of their efforts was only, under Providence, to provide new evidence of the reality of the resurrection!
The uncertainty attaching to the site of Golgotha attaches also to the site of Joseph's rock-tomb. Opinion is about equally divided in favor of, and against, the traditional site, where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands. A principal ground of uncertainty is whether that site originally lay within or without the second wall of the city (compare Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, 457 ff; G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 576; a good conspectus of the different opinions, with the authorities, is given in Andrews, Part VII).
Jesus Christ, 4f
Jesus Christ, 4f - F. THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION
The Resurrection a Fundamental Fact:
The resurrection of Jesus, with its completion in the ascension, setting the seal of the Father's acceptance on His finished work on earth, and marking the decisive change from His state of humiliation to that of exaltation, may be called in a true sense the corner stone of Christianity (compare 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). It was on the preaching of Christ crucified and risen that the Christian church was founded (e.g. Acts 2:32-36; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Professor Harnack would distinguish between "the Easter faith" (that Jesus lives with God) and "the Easter message," but the church never had any Easter faith apart from the Easter message. The subversion of the fact of the resurrection is therefore a first task to which unbelief addresses itself. The modern spirit rules it out a priori as miraculous. The historical fact is denied, and innumerable theories (imposture, theories of swoon, of hallucination, mythical theories, spiritualistic theories, etc.) are invented to explain the belief. None of these theories can stand calm examination (see the writer's work, The Resurrection of Jesus). The objections are but small dust of the balance compared with the strength of the evidence for the fact. From the standpoint of faith, the resurrection of Jesus is the most credible of events. If Jesus was indeed such an One as the gospel history declares Him to be, it was impossible that death should hold Him (Acts 2:24). The resurrection, in turn, confirms His claim to be the Son of God (Romans 1:4).
1. The Resurrection: (Matthew 28:1-20; Mark 16:1-20; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8)
With the narratives of the resurrection are here included as inseparably connected, those of the appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem and Galilee. The accounts will show that, while the body of Jesus was a true body, identical with that which suffered on the cross (it could be seen, touched, handled), it exhibited attributes which showed that Jesus had entered, even bodily, on a new phase of existence, in which some at least of the ordinary limitations of body were transcended. Its condition in the interval between the resurrection and the ascension was an intermediate one--no longer simply natural, yet not fully entered into the state of glorification. "I am not yet ascended .... I ascend" (John 20:17); in these two parts of the one saying the mystery of the resurrection body is comprised.
a) The Easter Morning--the Open Tomb:
The main facts in the resurrection narratives stand out clearly. "According to all the Gospels," the arch-skeptic Strauss concedes, "Jesus, after having been buried on the Friday evening, and lain during the Sabbath in the grave, came out of it restored to life at daybreak on Sunday" (New Life of Jesus, I, 397, English translations). Discrepancies are alleged in detail as to the time, number, and names of the women, number of angels, etc.; but most of these vanish on careful examination. The Synoptics group their material, while Jn gives a more detailed account of particular events.
(1) The Angel and the Keepers. No eye beheld the actual resurrection, which took place in the early morning, while it was still dark. Matthew records that there was "a great earthquake," and tells of the descent of an angel of the Lord, who rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. Before his dazzling aspect the keepers became as dead men, and afterward fled. The chief priests bribed them to conceal the facts, and say the body had been stolen (Matthew 28:2-4, 11-15).
(2) Visit of the Women. The first intimation of the resurrection to the disciples was the discovery of the empty tomb by the women who had come at early dawn (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) with spices, prepared to anoint the body of Jesus (Mark 16:1; compare Luke 23:56). Apparently ignorant of the guard, the women were concerned on their way as to who should roll away the stone from the door of the tomb (Mark 16:3), and were much surprised to find the stone rolled away, and the tomb open. There is no need for supposing that the women mentioned all came together. It is much more probable that they came in different groups or companies--perhaps Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, or these with Salome, first (Matthew, Mark; compare the "we" of John 20:2); then Joanna and other members of the Galilean band (Luke). (On the appearance of Jesus to Mary, see below.)
(3) The Angelic Message. As the women stood, perplexed and affrighted, at the tomb, they received a vision of angels (Matthew and Mark speak only of one angel; Luke and John mention two; all allude to the dazzling brightness), who announced to them that Jesus had risen ("He is not here; for he is risen; .... come, see the place where the Lord lay"), and bade them tell His disciples that He went before them to Galilee, where they should see Him (Matthew, Mark; Luke, who does not record the Galilean appearances, omits this part, and recalls the words spoken by Jesus in Galilee, concerning His death and resurrection; compare Matthew 16:21). The women departed with "trembling and astonishment" (Mark), yet "with great joy" (Matthew). Here the original Mk breaks off (Mark 16:8), the remaining verses being an appendix. But it is granted that Mark must originally have contained an account of the report to the disciples, and of an appearance of Jesus in Galilee.
b) Visit of Peter and John--Appearance to Mary:
(John; compare Mark 16:9-10; Luke 24:12, 24)
The narrative in John enlarges in important respects those of the Synoptics. From it we learn that Mary Magdalene (no companion is named, but one at least is implied in the "we" of 20:2), concluding from the empty tomb that the body of Jesus had been removed, at once ran to carry the news to Peter and John ("They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him"). These apostles lost no time in hastening to the spot. John, who arrived first, stooping down, saw the linen cloths lying, while Peter, entering, beheld also the napkin for the head rolled up in a place by itself. After John likewise had entered ("He saw, and believed"), they returned to their home. Meanwhile Mary had come back disconsolate to the tomb, where, looking in, she, like the other women, had a vision of two angels. It was then that Jesus addressed her, "Why weepest thou?" At first she thought it was the gardener, but on Jesus tenderly naming her, "Mary," she recognized who it was, and, with the exclamation, "Rabboni" ("Teacher"), would have clasped Him, but He forbade: "Touch me not," etc. (John 20:17, margin "Take not hold on me"), i.e. "Do not wait, but hasten to tell my disciples that I am risen, and ascend to my Father" (the ascension-life had already begun, altering earlier relations).
Report to the Disciples--Incredulity.
The appearance of Jesus to the other women (Matthew 28:9-10) is referred to below. It is probable that, on the way back, Mary Magdalene rejoined her sisters, and that the errand to the disciples--or such of them as could be found--was undertaken together. Their report was received with incredulity (Luke 24:11; compare Mark 16:11). The visit of Peter referred to in Luke 24:12 is doubtless that recorded more precisely in John.
c) Other Easter-Day Appearances (Emmaus, Jerusalem):
Ten appearances of Jesus altogether after His resurrection are recorded, or are referred to; of these five were on the day of resurrection. They are the following:
(1) The first is the appearance to Mary Magdalene above described.
(2) The second is an appearance to the women as they returned from the tomb, recorded in Matthew 28:9-10. Jesus met them, saying, "All hail," and as they took hold of His feet and worshipped Him, He renewed the commission they had received for the disciples. Some regard this as only a generalization of the appearance to Mary Magdalene, but it seems distinct.
(3) An appearance to Peter, attested by both Luke 24:34 and Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5). This must have been early in the day, probably soon after Peter's visit to the tomb. No particulars are given of this interview, so marked an act of grace of the risen Lord to His repentant apostle. The news of it occasioned much excitement among the disciples (Luke 24:34).
(4) The fourth was an appearance to two disciples on their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus--a village about two hours distant (Luke 24:12-35; Mark 16:12-13). They were conversing on the sad events of the last few days, and on the strange tidings of the women's vision of angels, when Jesus overtook them, and entered into conversation with them. At first they did not recognize Him--a token, as in Mary's case, of change in His appearance--though their hearts burned within them as He opened to them the Scriptures about Christ's sufferings and glory. As the day was closing, Jesus abode with them to the evening meal; then, as He blessed and brake the bread, "Their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight" (Luke 24:30-31). They hastily rose, and returned to the company of disciples at Jerusalem. According to Mark 16:13, their testimony, like that of the women, was not at first believed.
(5) The fifth appearance was that to "the eleven," with others, in the evening--an appearance recorded by Luke (24:36 ff), and John (20:19-23), and alluded to by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5). The disciples from Emmaus had just come in, and found the company thrilling with excitement at the news that the Lord had appeared to Simon (Luke). The doors were closed for fear of the Jews, when suddenly Jesus appeared in their midst with the salutation, "Peace be unto you" (Luke, John; doubt is unnecessarily cast on Luke 24:36, 40, by their absence from some Western texts). The disciples were affrighted; they thought they had seen a spirit (Luke); "disbelieved for joy" (Luke 24:41). To remove their fears, Jesus showed them His hands and His feet (in Jn, His side), and ate before them (Luke). He then breathed on them, saying, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," and renewed the commission formerly given to remit and retain sins (John; compare Matthew 18:17-18). The breathing was anticipative of the later affusion of the Spirit at Pentecost (compare John 7:39; Acts 2:1-47); the authority delegated depends for its validity on the possession of that Spirit, and its exercise according to the mind of Christ (compare e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:3). The incident strikingly illustrates at once the reality of Christ's risen body, and the changed conditions under which that body now existed.
d) The Second Appearance to the Eleven--the Doubt of Thomas:
Eight days after this first appearance--i.e. the next Sunday evening--a second appearance of Jesus to the apostles took place in the same chamber and under like conditions ("the doors being shut"). The peculiar feature of this second meeting was the removal of the doubt of Thomas who, it is related, had not been present on the former occasion. Thomas, devoted (compare John 11:16), but of naturally questioning temperament (John 14:5), refused to believe on the mere report of others that the Lord had risen, and demanded indubitable sensible evidence for himself. Jesus, at the second appearance, after salutation as before, graciously gave the doubting apostle the evidence he asked: "Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands," etc. (John 20:27), though, as the event proved, the sign was not needed. The faith and love of the erst-while doubter leaped forth at once in adoring confession: "My Lord and my God." It was well; but Jesus reminded him that the highest faith is not that which waits on the evidence of sense ("Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed," John 20:29).
e) The Galilean Appearances:
The scene now shifts for the time to Galilee. Jesus had appointed to meet with His disciples in Galilee (Matthew 26:32; Mark 16:7; compare Mark 14:28). Prior, however, to this meeting--that recorded in Matthew 28:16-20, probably to be identified with the appearance "to above five hundred brethren at once" mentioned by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:6)--there is another appearance of Jesus to seven disciples at the Lake of Galilee, of which the story is preserved in John 21:1-23.
(1) At the Sea of Tiberias--the Draught of Fishes--Peter's Restoration.
The chapter which narrates this appearance of Jesus at the Lake of Galilee ("Sea of Tiberias") is a supplement to the Gospel, but is so evidently Johannine in character that it may safely be accepted as from the pen of the beloved disciple (thus Lightfoot, Meyer, Godet, Alford, etc.). The appearance itself is described as the third to the disciples (John 21:14), i.e. the third to the apostles collectively, and in Jn's record seven disciples are stated to have been present, of whom five are named--Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel (probably to be identified with Bartholomew), and the sons of Zebedee, James and John. The disciples had spent the night in fishing without result. In the morning Jesus--yet unrecognized--appeared on the beach, and bade them cast down their net on the right side of the boat. The draught of fishes which they took revealed to John the presence of the Master. "It is the Lord," he said to Peter, who at once flung himself into the lake to go to Jesus. On landing, the disciples found a fire of coals, with fish placed on it, and bread; and Jesus Himself, after more fish had been brought, distributed the food, and, it seems implied, Himself shared in the meal. Still a certain awe--another indication of a mysterious change in Christ's appearance--restrained the disciples from asking openly, "Who art thou?" (John 21:12). It was not long, however ("when they had broken their fast"), before Jesus sufficiently disclosed Himself in the touching episode of the restoration of Peter (the three-fold question, "Lovest thou me?" answering to the three-fold denial, met by Peter's heartfelt, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee," with the words of reinstatement, "Feed my lambs," "Feed my sheep"). In another way, Jesus foretold that Peter would have the opportunity of taking back his denial in the death by which he should glorify God (John 21:18-19; tradition says he was crucified head-downward). Curious inquiries were set aside, and attention recalled to duty, "Follow thou me" (John 21:22).
(2) On the Mountain--the Great Commission--Baptism.
Though only the eleven apostles are named in Matthew's account (Matthew 28:16), the fact of an `appointment' for a definite time and place ("the mountain"), and the terms in which the message was given to the "disciples," suggests a collective gathering such as is implied in Paul's "above five hundred brethren at once" (1 Corinthians 15:6). The company being assembled, Jesus appeared; still, at first, with that element of mystery in His appearance, which led some to doubt (Matthew 28:17). Such doubt would speedily vanish when the Lord, announcing Himself as clothed with all authority in heaven and earth, gave to the apostles the supreme commission to "make disciples of all the nations" (Matthew 28:18-20; compare Mark 16:15, "Go ye into all tho world" etc.). Discipleship was to be shown by baptism "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (one name, yet threefold), and was to be followed by instruction in Christ's commands. Behind the commission, world-wide in its scope, and binding on every age, stands the word of never-failing encouragement, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Doubts of the genuineness of these august utterances go as a rule with doubt of the resurrection itself.
It will be noticed that the Lord's Supper and Baptism are the only sacraments instituted by Jesus in His church.
f) Appearance to James:
Paul records, as subsequent to the above, an appearance of Jesus to James, known as "the Lord's brother" (1 Corinthians 15:7; compare Galatians 1:19). No particulars are given of this appearance, which may have occurred either in Galilee or Jerusalem. James, so far as known, was not a believer in Jesus before the crucifixion (compare John 7:3); after the ascension he and the other brethren of Jesus are found in the company of the disciples (Acts 1:14), and he became afterward a chief "pillar" of the church at Jerusalem (Galatians 1:19; 2:9). This appearance may have marked the turning-point.
g) The Last Meeting:
The final appearance of Jesus to the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:7) is that which Luke in the closing verses of his Gospel (Luke 24:44-53), and in Acts 1:3-12, brings into direct relation with the ascension. In the Gospel Luke proceeds without a break from the first appearance of Jesus to "the eleven" to His last words about "the promise of my Father"; but Acts 1:1-26 shows that a period of 40 days really elapsed during which Jesus repeatedly "appeared" to those whom He had chosen. This last meeting of Jesus with His apostles was mainly occupied with the Lord's exposition of the prophetic Scriptures (Luke 24:44-46), with renewed commands to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name, "beginning from Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47-48; compare Acts 1:8), and with the injunction to tarry in Jerusalem till the Spirit should be given (Luke 24:49; compare Acts 1:4-5). Then He led them forth to Olivet, "over against Bethany," and, while blessing them, "was carried up into heaven" (Luke 24:50-51; compare Acts 1:10, 12).
2. The Ascension: (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:6-14; compare Mark 16:19)
Jesus had declared, "I ascend unto my Father" (John 20:17), and Luke in Acts 1:1-26 narrates the circumstances of that departure. Jesus might simply have "vanished" from the sight of His disciples, as on previous occasions, but it was His will to leave them in a way which would visibly mark the final close of His association with them. They are found, as in the Gospel, "assembled" with Him at Jerusalem, where His final instructions are given. Then the scene insensibly changes to Olivet, where the ascension is located (Acts 1:12). The disciples inquire regarding the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (even yet their minds are held in these temporal conceptions), but Jesus tells them that it is not for them to know times and seasons, which the Father had set within His own authority (Acts 1:7). Far more important was it for them to know that within the next days they should receive power from the Holy Spirit to be witnesses for Him to the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 1:8). Even as He spake, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight (Acts 1:9). Then, as the apostles stood gazing upward, two heavenly messengers appeared, who comforted them with the assurance that in like manner as they had seen Jesus ascend into heaven, so also would He come again. For that return the church still prays and waits (compare Revelation 22:20).
See, further, ASCENSION.
Retracing their steps to Jerusalem, the apostles joined the larger company of disciples in the "upper room" where their meetings seem to have been habitually held, and there, with one accord, to the number of about 120 (Acts 1:15), they all continued steadfastly in prayer till "the promise of the Father" (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4) was, at Pentecost, bestowed upon them.
Jesus Christ, 5
Jesus Christ, 5 - PART IV. EPILOGUE: THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING
1. After the Ascension: The earthly life of Jesus is finished. With His resurrection and ascension a new age begins. Yet the work of Christ continues. As Luke expressively phrases it in Acts 1:1-2, the Gospels are but the records of "all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up." It is beyond the scope of this article to trace the succeeding developments of Christ's activity through His church and by His Spirit; in order, however, to bring the subject to a proper close, it is necessary to glance, even if briefly, at the light thrown back by the Spirit's teachings, after the ascension, on the significance of the earthly life itself, and at the enlargement of the apostles' conceptions about Christ, consequent on this, as seen in the Epistles and the Apocalypse.
2. Revelation through the Spirit: It was the promise of Jesus that, after His departure, the Spirit would be given to His disciples, to teach them all things, and bring to their remembrance all that He had said to them (John 14:26). It was not a new revelation they were to receive, but illumination and guidance of their minds into the meaning of what they had received already (John 16:13-15). This promise of the Spirit was fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-47). Only a few personal manifestations of Jesus (Acts 7:55-56; Acts 22:17-18; 23:11) are recorded after that event--the two chief being the appearance to Paul on the way to Damascus (1 Corinthians 15:8; compare Acts 9:3 ff, etc.), and the appearance in vision to John in Patmos (Revelation 1:10 ff). The rest was internal revelation (compare Galatians 1:12, 16; Ephesians 1:17; Ephesians 3:3-5). The immense advance in enlargement and clearness of view--aided, no doubt, by Christ's parting instructions (Luke 24:44-48; Acts 1:2)--is already apparent in Peter's discourses at Pentecost; but it is not to be supposed that much room was not left for after-growth in knowledge, and deepened insight into the connection of truths. Peter, e.g., had to be instructed as to the admission of the Gentiles (Acts 10:11); the apostles had much gradually to learn as to the relations of the law (compare Acts 15:1-41; 21:20 ff; Galatians 2:1-21, etc.); Paul received revelations vastly widening the doctrinal horizon; both John and Paul show progressive apprehension in the truth about Christ.
3. Gospels and Epistles: It is therefore a question of much interest how the apostolic conceptions thus gained stand related to the picture of Jesus we have been studying in the Gospels. It is the contention of the so-called "historical" (anti-supernaturalistic) school of the day that the two pictures do not correspond. The transcendental Christ of Paul and John has little in common, it is affirmed, with the Man of Nazareth of the Synoptic Gospels. Theories of the "origins of Christianity" are concocted proceeding on this assumption (compare Pfieiderer, Weizsacker, Bousset, Wernle, etc.). Such speculations ignore the first conditions of the problem in not accepting the self-testimony of Jesus as to who He was, and the ends of His mission into the world. When Jesus is taken at His own valuation, and the great fact of His resurrection is admitted, the alleged contradictions between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith" largely disappear.
4. Fact of Christ's Lordship: It is forgotten how great a change in the center of gravity in the conception of Christ's person and work was necessarily involved in the facts of Christ's death, resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of power. The life is not ignored--far from it. Its influence breathes in every page, e.g. of Paul's epistles. But the weakness, the limitations, the self-suppression--what Paul in Philippians 2:7 calls the "emptying"--of that earthly life have now been left behind; the rejected and crucified One has now been vindicated, exalted, has entered into His glory. This is the burden of Peter's first address at Pentecost: "God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts 2:36). Could anything look quite the same after that? The change is seen in the growing substitution of the name "Christ" for "Jesus" (see at beginning of article), and in the habitual speaking of Jesus as "Lord."
5. Significance of Christ's Person: With belief in the lordship of Jesus went necessarily an enlarged conception of the significance of His person. The elements were all there in what the disciples had seen and known of Jesus while on earth (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1-3), but His exaltation not only threw back light upon His claims while on earth--confirmed, interpreted, completed them--but likewise showed the ultimate ground of these claims in the full Divine dignity of His person. He who was raised to the throne of Divine dominion; who was worshipped with honors due to God only; who was joined, with Father and with Holy Spirit as, coordinately, the source of grace and blessing, must in the fullest sense be Divine. There is not such a thing as honorary Godhead. In this is already contained in substance everything taught about Jesus in the epistles: His preexistence (the Lord's own words had suggested this, John 8:58; 17:5, etc.), His share in Divine attributes (eternity, etc.), in Divine works (creation, etc., 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 1:8; 3:14, etc.), in Divine worship (Philippians 2:9-11; Revelation 5:11-12, etc.), in Divine names and titles (Hebrews 1:8, etc.). It is an extension of the same conception when Jesus is represented as the end of creation--the "Head" in whom all things are finally to be summed up (Ephesians 1:10; compare Hebrews 2:6-9). These high views of the person of Christ in the Epistles are everywhere assumed to be the possession of the readers.
Jesus had furnished His disciples with the means of understanding His death as a necessity of His Messianic vocation, endured for the salvation of the world; but it was the resurrection and exaltation which shed light on the utmost meaning of this also. Jesus died, but it was for sins. He was a propitiation for the sin of the world (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). He was `made sin' for us (2 Corinthians 5:21).
6. Significance of the Cross and Resurrection: The strain of Isaiah 53:1-12 runs through the New Testament teaching on this theme (compare 1 Peter 1:19; 1 Peter 2:22-25, etc.). Jesus' own word "ransom" is reproduced by Paul (1 Timothy 2:6). The song of the redeemed is, "Thou didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe," etc. (Revelation 5:9). Is it wonderful, in view of this, that in the apostolic writings--not in Paul only, but in Pet, in Jn, in He, and Rev, equally--the cross should assume the decisive importance it does? Paul only works out more fully in relation to the law and the sinner's justification a truth shared by all. He himself declares it to be the common doctrine of the churches (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
7. Hope of the Advent: The newer tendency is to read an apocalyptic character into nearly all the teaching of Jesus (compare Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus). This is an exaggeration, but that Jesus taught His disciples to look for His coming again, and connected with that coming the perfection of His kingdom, is plain to every reader of the Gospels. It will not be denied that the apostolic church retained this feature of the teaching of Jesus. In accordance with the promise in Acts 1:11, it looked for the glorious reappearing of its Lord. The Epistles are full of this hope. Even Jn gives it prominence (1 John 2:28; 3:2). In looking for the parousia as something immediately at hand, the early believers went even beyond what had been revealed, and Paul had to rebuke harmful tendencies in this direction (2 Thessalonians 2:1-17). The hope might be cherished that the coming would not long be delayed, but in face of the express declarations of Jesus that no one, not the angels, not even the Son, knew of that day and hour (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32), and that the Father had set these things in His own authority (Acts 1:7; compare also such intimations as in Matthew 13:30; 24:14; 25:19; 28:19; Luke 19:11, etc.), none could affirm this with certainty. Time has proved--proved it even in the apostolic age (2 Peter 3:3-4)--that the Advent was not so near as many thought. In part, perhaps, the church itself may be to blame for the delay. Still to faith the Advent remains the great fixed event of the future, the event which overshadows all others--in that sense is ever near--the polestar of the church's confidence that righteousness shall triumph, the dead shall be raised, sin shall be judged and the kingdom of God shall come.
LITERATURE.
The literature on the life and teaching of Jesus is so voluminous, and represents such diverse standpoints, that it would be unprofitable to furnish an extended catalogue of it. It may be seen prefixed to any of the larger books. On the skeptical and rationalistic side the best account of the literature will be found in Schweitzer's book, From Reimarus to Wrede (English translation, Quest of the Historical Jesus). Of modern believing works may be specially named those of Lange, Weiss, Ellicott Edersheim, Farrar, D. Smith. Dr. Sanday's book, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, surveys a large part of the field, and is preparatory to an extended Life from Dr. Sanday's own pen. His article in HDB has justly attracted much attention. Schurer's Hist of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (ET, 5 volumes; a new German edition has been published) is the best authority on the external conditions. The works on New Testament Biblical theology (Reuss, Weiss, Schmid, Stevens, etc.) deal with the teaching of Jesus; see also Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus (ET ). Works and articles on the Chronology, on Harmony of the Gospels, on geography and topography (compare especially Stanley, G.A. Smith) are legion. A good, comprehensive book on these topics is Andrews, Life of our Lord (revised edition). The present writer has published works on The Virgin Birth of Christ and The Resurrection of Jesus. On the relations of gospel and epistle, see J. Denney, Jesus and the Gospel.
See also the various articles in this Encyclopedia, on GOSPELS; PERSON OF CHRIST; ETHICS OF JESUS; VIRGIN BIRTH; JESUS CHRIST,THE ARREST AND TRIAL OF ; RESURRECTION; ASCENSION; PHARISEES; SADDUCEES; HEROD; JERUSALEM, etc.
James Orr
Jesus Christ, the Arrest and Trial of
Jesus Christ, the Arrest and Trial of - 1. Jewish and Roman Law
2. Difficulties of the Subject
3. Illustrations of Difficulties
I. THE ARREST
1. Preparatory Steps
2. The Arrest in the Garden
3. Taken to the City
II. THE JEWISH TRIAL
1. The Jewish Law
2. The Mishna
3. Criminal Trials
4. The Trial of Jesus
5. The Preliminary Examination
6. The Night Trial
7. False Witnesses
8. A Browbeating Judge
9. The Morning Session
10. Powers of the Sanhedrin
11. Condemnation for Blasphemy
12. Summary
III. THE ROMAN TRIAL
1. Taken before Pilate
2. Roman Law and Procedure
3. Full Trial Not Desired
4. Final Accusation
5. Examination, Defence and Acquittal
6. Fresh Accusations
7. Reference to Herod
8. Jesus or Barabbas
9. Behold the Man!
10. Pilate Succumbs to Threats
11. Pilate Washes His Hands
12. The Sentence
13. Review
This subject is of special interest, not only on account of its inherent importance, but more particularly on account of its immediately preceding, and leading directly up to what is the greatest tragedy in human history, the crucifixion of our Lord. It has also the added interest of being the only proceeding on record in which the two great legal systems of antiquity, the Jewish and the Roman, which have most largely influenced modern legislation and jurisprudence, each played a most important part.
1. Jewish and Roman Law: The coexistence of these two systems in Judea, and their joint action in bringing about the tremendous results in question, were made possible by the generous policy pursued by Rome in allowing conquered nations to retain their ancient laws, institutions and usages, in so far as they were compatible with Roman sovereignty and supremacy. Not only so, but, in a large degree, they permitted these laws to be administered by the officials of the subject peoples. This privilege was not granted absolutely, but was permitted only so long as it was not abused. It might be withdrawn at any time, and the instances in which this was, done were by no means rare.
Of the matters considered in this article, the arrest of Jesus and the proceedings before Annas, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin took place professedly under Jewish law; the proceedings before Pilate and the reference to Herod, under Roman law.
2. Difficulties of the Subject: It is very difficult to construct from the materials in the four Gospels a satisfactory continuous record of the arrest, and of what may be called the twofold trial of Jesus. The Gospels were written from different viewpoints, and for different purposes, each of the writers selecting such particulars as seemed to him to be of special importance for the particular object he had in view. Their reports are all very brief, and the proper chronological order of the various events recorded in different Gospels must, in many eases, be largely a matter of conjecture. The difficulty is increased by the great irregularities and the tumultuous character of the proceedings; by our imperfect knowledge of the topography of Jerusalem at this time (29 AD); also by the fact that the reports are given mainly in popular and not in technical language; and when the latter form is used, the technical terms have had to be translated into Greek, either from the Hebrew or from the Latin.
3. Illustrations of Difficulties: For instance, opinions are divided as to where Pilate resided when in Jerusalem, whether in the magnificent palace built by Herod the Great, or in the castle of Antonia; as to where was the palace occupied by Herod Antipas during the Passover; whether Annas and Caiaphas occupied different portions of the same palace, or whether they lived in adjoining or different residences; whether the preliminary examination of Jesus, recorded by John, was before Annas or Caiaphas, and as to other similar matters. It is very satisfactory, however, to know that, although it is sometimes difficult to decide exactly as to the best way of harmonizing the different accounts, yet there is nothing irreconcilable or contradictory in them, and that there is no material point in the history of the very important proceedings falling within the scope of this article which is seriously affected by any of these debatable matters.
For a clear historical statement of the events of the concluding day in the life of our Lord before His crucifixion, see the article on JESUS CHRIST. The present article will endeavor to consider the matters relating to His arrest and trial from a legal and constitutional point of view.
I. The Arrest. During the last year of the ministry of Jesus, the hostility of the Jews to Him had greatly increased, and some six months before they finally succeeded in accomplishing their purpose, they had definitely resolved to make away with Him. At the Feast of Tabernacles they sent officers (the temple-guards) to take Him while He was teaching in the temple (John 7:32); but these, after listening to His words, returned without having made the attempt, giving as a reason that "never man so spake" (John 7:46).
After His raising of Lazarus, their determination to kill Him was greatly intensified. A special meeting of the council was held to consider the matter. There Caiaphas, the high priest, strongly advocated such a step on national grounds, and on the ground of expediency, quoting in support of his advice, in a cold-blooded and cynical manner, the Jewish adage that it was expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. Their plans to this end were frustrated, for the time being, by Jesus withdrawing Himself to the border of the wilderness, where He remained with His disciples (John 11:47-54).
On His return to Bethany and Jerusalem, six days before the Passover, they were deterred from carrying out their design on account of His manifest popularity with the people, as evidenced by His triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the first day of the Passover week (Palm Sunday), and by the crowds who thronged around Him, and listened to His teachings in the temple, and who enjoyed the discomfiture of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians, as they successively sought to entangle Him in His talk.
Two days before the Passover, at a council meeting held in the palace of Caiaphas, they planned to accomplish their purpose by subtlety, but "not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among the people" (Matthew 26:3-5; Mark 14:1-2). While they were in this state of perplexity, to their great relief Judas came to them and agreed to betray his Master for money (Matthew 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11).
1. Preparatory Steps: This time they determined not to rely solely upon their own temple-guards or officers to execute their warrant or order of arrest, fearing that these officials, being Jews, might again be fascinated by the strange influence which Jesus exercised over His countrymen, or that His followers might offer resistance. They therefore applied to Pilate, the Roman procurator (governor), for the assistance of a band of Roman soldiers. He granted them a cohort (Greek: speira, 400 to 600 men) from the legion then quartered in the castle of Antonia, which adjoined and overlooked the temple-area. The final arrangements as to these would probably be completed while Judas was at the supper room. It has been suggested that the whole cohort would not go, but only a selection from them. However, it is said that Judas "received the band (cohort) of soldiers" (John 18:3), and that they were under the command of a chief captain (Greek: chiliarch, Latin tribune, John 18:12). If there had not been more than 100 soldiers, they would not have been under the command of a captain, but the chief officer would have been a centurion. The amazing popularity of Jesus, as shown by His triumphal entry into the city, may have led the authorities to make such ample provision against any possible attempt at rescue.
The Garden of Gethsemane, in which Judas knew that Jesus would be found that night, was well known to him (John 18:2); and he also knew the time he would be likely to find his Master there. Thither at the proper hour he led the band of soldiers, the temple officers and others, and also some of the chief priests and elders themselves; the whole being described as "a great multitude with swords and staves" (Matthew 26:47). Although the Easter full moon would be shining brightly, they also carried "lanterns and torches" (John 18:3), in order to make certain that Jesus should not escape or fail to be recognized in the deep shade of the olive trees in the garden.
2. The Arrest in the Garden: On their arrival at the garden, Jesus came forward to meet them, and the traitor Judas gave them the appointed signal by kissing Him. As the order or warrant was a Jewish one, the temple officers would probably be in front, the soldiers supporting them as reserves. On Jesus announcing to the leaders that He was the one they sought, what the chief priests had feared actually occurred. There was something in the words or bearing of Jesus which awed the temple officers; they were panic-stricken, went backward, and fell to the ground. On their rallying, the impetuous Peter drew his sword, and cut off the ear of one of them, Malchus, the servant of the high priest (John 18:6-10).
On this evidence of resistance the Roman captain and soldiers came forward, and with the assistance of the Jewish officers bound Jesus. Under the Jewish law this was not lawful before condemnation, save in exceptional cases where resistance was either offered or apprehended.
Even in this trying hour the concern of Jesus was more for others than for Himself, as witness His miracle in healing the ear of Malchus, and His request that His disciples might be allowed their liberty (John 18:8). Notwithstanding His efforts, His followers were panic-stricken, probably on account of the vigorous action of the officers and soldiers after the assault by Peter, "and they all left him and fled" (Mark 14:50).
It is worthy of note that Jesus had no word of blame or censure for the Roman officers or soldiers who were only doing their sworn duty in supporting the civil authorities; but His pungent words of reproach for not having attempted His arrest while He was teaching openly in the temple were reserved for "the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders" (Luke 22:52), who had shown their inordinate zeal and hostility by taking the unusual, and for those who were to sit as judges on the case, the improper and illegal course of accompanying the officers, and themselves taking part in the arrest.
3. Taken to the City: The whole body departed with their prisoner for the city. From the first three Gospels one might infer that they went directly to the palace of Caiaphas, the high priest. In the Fourth Gospel, however, we are told that they took him first to Annas (John 18:13).
Why they did so we are not informed, the only statement made being that he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas (John 18:13). He had been the high priest from 7 AD to 15 AD, when he was deposed by Valerius Gratus, the Roman procurator. He was still the most influential member of the Sanhedrin, and, being of an aggressive disposition, it may be that it was he who had given instructions as to the arrest, and that they thought it their duty to report first to him.
Annas, however, sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas (John 18:24). Having delivered over their prisoner, the Roman soldiers would proceed to their quarters in the castle, the temple officials retaining Jesus in their charge.
Meanwhile, the members of the Sanhedrin were assembling at the palace of the high priest, and the preliminary steps toward the first or Jewish trial were being taken.
II. The Jewish Trial. 1. The Jewish Law: It is the just boast of those countries whose jurisprudence had its origin in the common law of England, that their system of criminal law is rounded upon the humane maxims that everyone is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty, and that no one is bound to criminate himself. But the Jewish law went even farther in the safeguards which it placed around an accused person. In the Pentateuch it is provided that one witness shall not be sufficient to convict any man of even a minor offense. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established" (Deuteronomy 19:15).
2. The Mishna: These principles of the Mosaic law were elaborated and extended in the system which grew up after the return from Babylon. It was begun by the men of the Great Synagogue, and was afterward completed by the Sanhedrin which succeeded them. Up to the time of our Lord, and for the first two centuries of the Christian era, their rules remained largely in an oral or unwritten form, until they were compiled or codified in the Mishna by Rabbi Judah and his associates and successors in the early part of the 3rd century. It is generally conceded by both Jewish and Christian writers that the main provisions, therein found for the protection of accused persons, had been long incorporated in the oral law and were recognized as a part of it in the time of Annas and Caiaphas.
3. Criminal Trials: The provisions relating to criminal trials, and especially to those in which the offense was punishable by death, were very stringent and were all framed in the interest of the accused. Among them were the following: The trial must be begun by day, and if not completed before night it must be adjourned and resumed by day; the quorum of judges in capital cases was 23, that being the quorum of the Grand Council; a verdict of acquittal, which required only a majority of one, might be rendered on the same day as the trial was completed; any other verdict could only be rendered on a subsequent day and required a majority of at least two; no prisoner could be convicted on his own evidence; it was the duty of a judge to see that the interests of the accused were fully protected.
The modern practice of an information or complaint and a preliminary investigation before a magistrate was wholly unknown to the Jewish law and foreign to its genius. The examination of the witnesses in open court was in reality the beginning of a Jewish trial, and the crime for which the accused was tried, and the sole charge he had to meet, was that which was disclosed by the evidence of the witnesses.
4. The Trial of Jesus: Let us see how far the foregoing principles and rules were followed and observed in the proceedings before the high priest in the present instance. The first step taken in the trial was the private examination of Jesus by the high priest, which is recorded only in John 18:19-23. Opinions differ as to whether this examination was conducted by Annas at his residence before he sent Jesus to Caiaphas (John 18:24), or by the latter after Jesus had been delivered up to him.
Caiaphas was actually the high priest at the time, and had been for some years. Annas had been deposed from the office about 14 years previously by the Roman procurator; but he was still accorded the title (Acts 4:6). Many of the Jews did not concede the right of the procurator to depose him, and looked upon him as still the rightful high priest. He is also said to have been at this time the vice-president of the Sanhedrin. The arguments as to which of them is called the high priest by John in this passage are based largely upon two different renderings of John 18:24. In the King James Version the verse reads "Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest," a reading based upon the Textus Receptus of the New Testament which implies that Jesus had been sent to Caiaphas before the examination. On the other hand, the Revised Version (British and American), following the Greek text adopted by Nestle and others, reads, "Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest," implying that Annas sent him to Caiaphas on account of what had taken place in the examination.
However, it is not material which of these two leading members of the Sanhedrin conducted the examination. The same may also be said as to the controversy regarding the residence of Annas at the time, whether it was in some part of the official palace of the high priest or elsewhere. The important matters are the fact, the time, and the manner of the examination by one or other of these leading members of the council, not the precise place where, or the particular person by whom, it was conducted.
5. The Preliminary Examination: The high priest (whether Annas or Caiaphas) proceeded to interrogate Jesus concerning His disciples and His doctrine (John 18:19). Such a proceeding formed no part of a regular Jewish trial, and was, moreover, not taken in good faith; but with a view to entrapping Jesus into admissions that might be used against Him at the approaching trial before the council. It appears to have been in the nature of a private examination, conducted probably while the members of the council were assembling. The dignified and appropriate answer of Jesus pointedly brought before the judge the irregularity he was committing, and was a reminder that His trial should begin with the examination of the witnesses: "'I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said" (John 18:20-21 the King James Version). The reply to this was a blow from one of the officers, an outrageous proceeding which appears to have passed unrebuked by the judge, and it was left to Jesus Himself to make the appropriate protest.
6. The Night Trial: The next proceeding was the trial before the council in the palace of Caiaphas, attended at least by the quorum of 23. This was an illegal meeting, since a capital trial, as we have seen, could not either be begun or proceeded with at night. Some of the chief priests and elders, as previously stated, had been guilty of the highly improper act for judges, of taking part in and directing the arrest of Jesus. Now, "the chief priests and the whole council" spent the time intervening between the arrest and the commencement of the trial in something even worse: they "sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death" (Matthew 26:59). This, no doubt, only means that they then collected their false witnesses and instructed them as to the testimony they should give. For weeks, ever since the raising of Lazarus, they had been preparing for such a trial, as we read: "So from that day forth they took counsel that they might put him to death" (John 11:53).
Caiaphas, as high priest and president of the Sanhedrin, presided at the meeting of the council. The oath administered to witnesses in a Jewish court was an extremely solemn invocation, and it makes one shudder to think of the high priest pronouncing these words to perjured witnesses, known by him to have been procured by the judges before him in the manner stated.
7. False Witnesses: But even this did not avail. Although "many bare false witness against him," yet on account of their having been imperfectly tutored by their instructors, or for other cause, "their witness agreed not together" (Mark 14:56), and even these prejudiced and partial judges could not find the concurring testimony of two witnesses required by their law (Deuteronomy 19:15).
The nearest approach to the necessary concurrence came at last from two witnesses, who gave a distorted report of a figurative and enigmatic statement made by Jesus in the temple during His early ministry: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). The explanation is given: "He spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:21). The testimony of the two witnesses is reported with but slight variations in the two first Gospels as follows: "This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days" (Matthew 26:61); and "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands" (Mark 14:58). Whether these slightly different statements represent the discrepancies in their testimony, or on account of some other variations or contradictions, the judges reluctantly decided that "not even so did their witness agree together" (Mark 14:59).
8. A Browbeating Judge: Caiaphas, having exhausted his list of witnesses, and seeing the prosecution on which he had set his heart in danger of breaking down for the lack of legal evidence, adopted a blustering tone, and said to Jesus, "Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace" (Matthew 26:62-63), relying on the fact that the prosecution had utterly failed on account of the lack of agreement of two witnesses on any of the charges. As a final and desperate resort, Caiaphas had recourse to a bold strategic move to draw from Jesus an admission or confession on which he might base a condemnation, similar to the attempt which failed at the preliminary examination; but this time fortifying his appeal by a solemn adjuration in the name of the Deity. He said to Jesus: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:63-64). Caiaphas, although knowing that under the law Jesus could not be convicted on His own answers or admissions, thereupon in a tragic manner "rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death (Matthew 26:65-66).
The night session then broke up to meet again after daybreak in order to ratify the decision just come to, and to give a semblance of legality to the trial and verdict. The closing scene was one of disorder, in which they spat in their prisoner's face and buffeted him (Matthew 26:67-68; Luke 22:63-65).
9. The Morning Session: The following morning, "as soon as it was day," the council reassembled in the same place, and Jesus was led into their presence (Luke 22:66). There were probably a number of the council present who had not attended the night session. For the benefit of these, and perhaps to give an appearance of legality to the proceeding, the high priest began the trial anew, but not with the examination of witnesses which had proved such a failure at the night session. He proceeded at once to ask substantially the same questions as had finally brought out from Jesus the night before the answer which he had declared to be blasphemy, and upon which the council had "condemned him to be worthy of death" (Mark 14:64). The meeting is mentioned in all the Gospels, the details of the examination are related by Luke alone. When asked whether He was the Christ, He replied, "If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God" (Luke 22:67-69). This answer not being sufficient to found a verdict of blasphemy upon, they all cried out, "Art thou then the Son of God?" To this He gave an affirmative answer, "Ye say that I am. And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth" (Luke 22:70-71).
10. Powers of the Sanhedrin: It will be observed that neither at the night nor at the morning session was there any sentence pronounced upon Jesus by the high priest. There was on each occasion only what would be equivalent to a verdict of guilty found by a jury under our modern criminal practice, but no sentence passed upon the prisoner by the presiding judge. When Judea lost the last vestige of its independence and became a Roman province (6 AD), the Sanhedrin ceased to have the right to inflict Capital punishment or to administer the law of life and death. This jurisdiction was thenceforth transferred to the Roman procurator. The Sanhedrin submitted very reluctantly to this curtailment of its powers. A few years later it exercised it illegally and in a very riotous manner in the case of Stephen (Acts 7:58). Annas, however, of all men, had good reason not to violate this law, as his having done so during the absence of the procurator was the cause of his being deposed from the office of high priest by Valerius Gratus (15 AD).
The proceedings may have been taken before the high priest in the hope that Pilate might be induced to accept the verdict of the Sanhedrin as conclusive that Jesus had been guilty of an offense punishable by death under the Jewish law.
11. Condemnation for Blasphemy: Now what was the precise crime or crimes for which Jesus was tried at these two sittings of the council? The first impression would probably be that there was no connection between the charge of destroying the temple and building another in three days, and His claiming to be the Son of God. And yet they were closely allied in the Jewish mind. The Jewish nation being a pure theocracy, the overthrow of the temple, the abode of the Divine Sovereign, would mean the overthrow of Divine institutions, and be an act of treason against the Deity. The profession of ability to build another temple in three days would be construed as a claim to the possession of supernatural power and, consequently, blasphemy. As to the other claim which He Himself made and confessed to the council, namely, that He was the Christ, the Son of God, none of them would have any hesitation in concurring in the verdict of the high priest that it was rank blasphemy, when made by one whom they regarded simply as a Galilean peasant.
12. Summary: To sum up: The Jewish trial of our Lord was absolutely illegal, the court which condemned Him being without jurisdiction to try a capital offense, which blasphemy was under the Jewish law. Even if there had been jurisdiction, it would have been irregular, as the judges had rendered themselves incompetent to try the case, having been guilty of the violation of the spirit of the law that required judges to be unprejudiced and impartial, and carefully to guard the interests of the accused. Even the letter of the law had been violated in a number of important respects. Among these may be mentioned: (1) some of the judges taking part in and directing the arrest; (2) the examination before the trial and the attempt to obtain admissions; (3) endeavors of the judges to procure the testimony of false witnesses; (4) commencing and continuing the trial at night; (5) examining and adjuring the accused in order to extort admissions from Him; (5) rendering a verdict of guilty at the close of the night session, without allowing a day to intervene; (7) holding the morning session on a feast day, and rendering a verdict at its close; and (8) rendering both verdicts without any legal evidence.
III. The Roman Trial. Early on the morning of Friday of the Passover week, as we have already seen, "the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council" held a consultation (Mark), in the palace of the high priest; and after the examination of Jesus and their verdict that He was guilty of blasphemy, they took counsel against Him "to put him to death" (Mt), this being, in their judgment, the proper punishment for the offense of which they had pronounced Him guilty.
1. Taken before Pilate: For the reasons already mentioned, they came to the conclusion that it would be necessary to invoke the aid of the Roman power in carrying out this sentence. They thereupon bound Jesus, and led Him away and delivered Him up to Pilate, who at this time probably occupied, while in Jerusalem, the magnificent palace built by Herod the Great. Jesus was taken into the judgment hall of the palace or Pretorium; His accusers, unwilling to defile themselves by entering into a heathen house and thereby rendering themselves unfit to eat the Passover, remained outside upon the marble pavement.
2. Roman Law and Procedure: The proceedings thus begun were conducted under a system entirely different from that which we have thus far been considering, both in its nature and its administration. The Jewish law was apart of the religion, and in its growth and development was administered in important cases by a large body of trained men, who were obliged to follow strictly a well-defined procedure. The Roman law, on the other hand, had its origin and growth under the stern and manly virtues and the love of justice which characterized republican Rome, and it still jealously guarded the rights and privileges of Roman citizens, even in a conquered province. Striking illustrations of this truth are found in the life of Paul (see Acts 16:35-39; Acts 22:24-29; Acts 25:10-12). The lives and fortunes of the natives in an imperial province like Judea may be said to have been almost completely at the mercy of the Roman procurator or governor, who was responsible to his imperial master alone, and not even to the Roman senate. Pilate therefore was well within the mark when, at a later stage of the trial, being irritated at Jesus remaining silent when questioned by him, he petulantly exclaimed: "Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee?" (John 19:10). While, however, the procurator was not compelled in such cases to adhere strictly to the prescribed procedure, and had a wide discretion, he was not allowed to violate or depart from the established principles of the law.
On this occasion, Pilate, respecting the scruples of the chief priests about entering the palace, went outside at their request, apparently leaving Jesus in the Pretorium. He asked them the usual formal question, put at the opening of a Roman trial: "What accusation bring ye against this man?
3. Full Trial Not Desired: They answered and said unto him, If he were not an evil-doer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee" (John 18:29 f the King James Version). Pilate could see at once that this was a mere attempt to evade the direct question he had asked, and was not such an accusation as disclosed any offense known to the Roman law. Affecting to treat it with disdain, and as something known only to their own law, he said, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law. The Jews said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" (John 18:31).
4. Final Accusation: Perceiving that Pilate would not gratify their desire to have Jesus condemned on the verdict which they had rendered, or for an offense against their own law only, "they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king" (Luke 23:2). This was an accusation containing three charges, much like a modern indictment containing three counts. Pilate appears to have been satisfied that there was nothing in the first two of these charges; but the third was too serious to be ignored, especially as it was a direct charge of majestas or treason, the greatest crime known to the Roman law, and as to which the reigning emperor, Tiberius, and his then favorite, Sejanus, were particularly sensitive and jealous. The charges in this case were merely oral, but it would appear to have been in the discretion of the procurator to receive them in this form in the case of one who was not a Roman citizen.
5. Examination, Defence and Acquittal: The accusers having been heard, Pilate returned to the Pretorium to examine Jesus regarding the last and serious accusation. The Four Gospels give in the same words the question put to him by Pilate, "Art thou the King of the Jews?" The first three record only the final affirmative answer, "Thou sayest," which if it stood alone might have been taken as a plea of guilty; but John gives the intervening discussion which explains the matter fully. He tells us that Jesus did not answer the question directly, but asked Pilate, "Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me?" (John 18:34) (apparently not having been outside when the charges were made). On being told that it came from the chief priests, He went on to explain that His kingdom was not of this world, but was a spiritual kingdom. Being again asked if He was a king, He replied in effect, that He was a king in that sense, and that His subjects were those who were of the truth and heard His voice (John 18:35-37). Pilate, being satisfied with His explanation, "went out again unto the Jews," and apparently having taken Jesus with him, he mounted his judgment seat or movable tribunal, which had been placed upon the tesselated pavement, and pronounced his verdict, "I find in him no fault at all" (John 18:38 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "I find no crime in him").
6. Fresh Accusations: According to the Roman law, this verdict of acquittal should have ended the trial and at once secured the discharge of Jesus; but instead it brought a volley of fresh accusations to which Jesus made no reply. Pilate hesitated, and hearing a charge that Jesus had begun His treasonable teaching in Galilee, the thought occurred to him that he might escape from his dilemma by sending Jesus for trial to Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, who was then in Jerusalem for the feast, which he accordingly did (Luke 23:7).
7. Reference to Herod: Herod had long been desirous to see Jesus--"hoped to see some miracle done by him," and "questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing." The chief priests and scribes, who had followed him from the Pretorium to the Maccabean palace, which Herod was then occupying, "stood, vehemently accusing" Jesus (Luke 23:8-10). "That fox," however, as Jesus had called him (Luke 13:32), was too astute to intermeddle in a trial for treason, which was a dangerous proceeding, and possibly he was aware that Pilate had already acquitted Him; in which case a retrial by him would be illegal. He and his soldiers, probably irritated at the refusal of Jesus to give him any answer, mocked Him, and arraying Him in a gorgeous robe, no doubt in ridicule of His claim to be a king, sent Him back to Pilate. This reference to Herod in reality formed no effective part of the trial of Jesus, as Herod declined the jurisdiction, although Pilate sought to make use of it in his subsequent discussion with the chief priests. The only result was that Herod was flattered by the courtesy of Pilate, the enmity between them ceased, and they were made friends (Luke 23:11-12, 15).
8. Jesus or Barabbas: On their return, Pilate resumed his place on the judgment seat outside. What followed, however, properly formed no part of the legal trial, as it was a mere travesty upon law as well as upon justice. Pilate resolved to make another attempt to secure the consent of the Jews to the release of Jesus. To this end he summoned not only the chief priests and the rulers, but "the people" as well (Luke 23:13), and after mentioning the failure to prove any of the charges made against Jesus, he reminded them of the custom of releasing at the feast a prisoner selected by them, and offering as a compromise to chastise or scourge Jesus before releasing Him. At this point Pilate's anxiety to release Jesus was still further increased by the message he received from his wife concerning her disturbing dream about Jesus and warning him to "have .... nothing to do with that righteous man" (Matthew 27:19). Meanwhile, the chief priests and elders were busily engaged in canvassing the multitude to ask for the release of Barabbas, the notable robber, and destroy Jesus (Matthew 27:20). When Pilate urged them to release Jesus, they cried out all together, "Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas"; and upon a further appeal on behalf of Jesus they cried, "Crucify, crucify him." A third attempt on his part met with no better result (Luke 23:18-23).
9. Behold the Man!: The Fourth Gospel alone records a final attempt on the part of Pilate to save Jesus. He scourged Him, it has been suggested, with a view to satisfying their desire for His punishment, and afterward appealing to their pity. He allowed his soldiers to repeat what they had seen done at Herod's palace, and place a crown of thorns upon His head, array Him in a purple robe, and render mock homage to Him as king of the Jews. Pilate went out to the Jews with Jesus thus arrayed and bleeding. Again declaring that he found no fault in Him, he presented Him, saying, "Behold, the man!" This was met by the former cry, "Crucify him, crucify him." Pilate replied, "Take him yourselves .... for I find no crime in him." The Jews referred him to their law by which He deserved death because He made Himself the Son of God. This alarmed Pilate's superstitious fears, who by this time appears to have wholly lost control of himself. He took Jesus into the palace and said to Him, "Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer." Irritated at His silence, Pilate reminded Him of his absolute power over Him. The mysterious answer of Jesus as to the source of power still further alarmed him, and he made new efforts to secure His discharge (John 19:1-9).
10. Pilate Succumbs to Threats: The Jews were well aware that Pilate was arbitrary and cruel, but they had also found that he was very sensitive as to anything that might injuriously affect his official position or his standing with his master, the emperor. As a last resort they shouted to him, "If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar" (John 19:12). The prospect of a charge of his aiding and abetting such a crime as treason, in addition to the other charges that a guilty conscience told him might be brought against him, proved too much for the vacillating procurator. He brought Jesus out, and sat down again upon the judgment seat placed upon the pavement. He made one more appeal, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests gave the hypocritical answer, "We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15). Pilate finally succumbed to their threats and clamor; but took his revenge by placing upon the cross the superscription that was so galling to them, "THE KING OF THE JEWS."
11. Pilate Washes His Hands: Then occurred the closing scene of the tragedy, recorded only in the First Gospel, when Pilate washed his hands before the multitude (a Jewish custom), saying to them, "I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man; see ye to it." The reply was that dreadful imprecation, "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:24-25).
12. The Sentence: Pilate resumes his place upon the judgment seat, the fatal sentence at last falls from his lips, and Jesus is delivered up to be crucified.
Now, how far were these proceedings in accordance with the Roman law under which they purported to have been taken and conducted? In the first place, Pilate, as procurator, was the proper officer to try the charges brought against Jesus.
13. Review: In the next place he acted quite properly in declining to entertain a charge which disclosed no offense known to the Roman law, or to pass a sentence based on the verdict of the Sanhedrin for an alleged violation of the Jewish law. He appears to have acted in accordance with the law, and indeed in a judicial and praiseworthy manner in the trial and disposition of the threefold indictment for treason (unless it be a fact that Jesus was not present when these accusations were brought against Him outside the Pretorium, which would be merely an irregularity, as they were made known to him later inside). Pilate's initial mistake, which led to all the others, was in not discharging Jesus at once, when he had pronounced the verdict of acquittal.
All the subsequent proceedings were contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the law. Although Pilate took his place upon the judgment seat, his acts, properly speaking, were not those of a judge, and had no legal force or value; but were rather the futile attempts of a weak and vacillating politician to appease an angry mob thirsting for the blood of an innocent countryman. The carrying out of a sentence imposed in such circumstances, and under such conditions, may not inaptly be described as a judicial murder.
John James Maclaren
Jesus Justus
Jesus Justus - je'-zus jus'-tus Iesous ho legomenos Ioustos, "Jesus that is called Justus," Colossians 4:11):
1. A Jew by Birth: One of three friends of Paul--the others being Aristarchus and Mark--whom he associates with himself in sending salutations from Rome to the church at Colosse. Jesus Justus is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, and there is nothing more known about him than is given in this passage in Colossians, namely, that he was by birth a Jew--"of the circumcision"--that he had been converted to Christ, and that he was one of the inner circle of intimate friends and associates of the apostle during his first Roman captivity.
2. He Remains True to Paul: The words also contain the information that at a stage in Paul's imprisonment, when the welcome extended to him by the Christians in Rome on his arrival there had lost its first warmth, and when in consequence, probably, of their fear of persecution, most of them had proved untrue and were holding aloof from him, J. J. and his two friends remained faithful. It would be pressing this passage unduly to make it mean that out of the large number--hundreds, or perhaps even one or two thousands--who composed the membership of the church in Rome at this time, and who within the next few years proved their loyalty to Christ by their stedfastness unto death in the Neronic persecution, all fell away from their affectionate allegiance to Paul at this difficult time. The words cannot be made to signify more than that it was the Jewish section of the church in Rome which acted in this unworthy manner--only temporarily, it is to be hoped. But among these Jewish Christians, to such dimensions had this defection grown that Aristarchus, Mark and J. J. alone were the apostle's fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God. These three alone, at that particular time--from among the Jewish Christians--were helping him in the work of the gospel in Rome. That this defection refers to the Jewish section of the church and not to the converts from among the Gentiles, is evident from many considerations. It seems to be proved, for example by verse 14 of the same chapter (i.e. Colossians 4:14), as well as by Philemon 1:24, in both of which passages Paul names Demas and Luke as his fellow-laborers; and Luke was not a Jew by birth. But in the general failure of the Christians in Rome in their conduct toward Paul, it is with much affection and pathos that he writes concerning Aristarchus, Mark, and J. J., "These only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, men that have been a comfort unto me."
John Rutherfurd
Jesus, Genealogy of
Jesus, Genealogy of - See GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST.
Jether
Jether - je'-ther (yether, "abundance"):
(1) Exodus 4:18 the Revised Version margin, King James Version, margin.
See JETHRO.
(2) Gideon's eldest son (Judges 8:20), who was called upon by his father to slay Zebah and Zalmunnah, but "feared, because he was yet a youth." The narrative there (Judges 8:4 ff) should be connected with that of Judges 6:34, where Gideon is followed by his clan, and not with that of Judges 7:1-25, where he has 300 picked men. The captives would be taken to Orpah, Gideon's home, and slain there.
(3) Father of Amasa (1 Kings 2:5, 32); he was an Ishmaelite according to 1 Chronicles 2:17 = "Ithra, the Israelite" of 2 Samuel 17:25, where "the Ishmaelite" should be read for "the Israelite."
(4) A Jerahmeelite (1 Chronicles 2:32 twice).
(5) A Judahite (1 Chronicles 4:17).
(6) A man of Asher (1 Chronicles 7:38) = "Ithran" of 1 Chronicles 7:37.
David Francis Roberts
Jetheth
Jetheth - je'-theth (yetheth, meaning unknown): a chief (or clan) of Edom (Genesis 36:40 parallel 1 Chronicles 1:51), but probably a mistake for "Jether" = "Ithran" (Genesis 36:26).
Jethlah
Jethlah - jeth'-la (yithlah).
See ITHLAH.
Jethro
Jethro - jeth'-ro, je'-thro (yithro, "excellence," Exodus 3:1; 4:18 b; Exodus 18:1-12 (in Exodus 4:18 a, probably a textual error, yether, "Iether," the King James Version margin, the Revised Version margin); Septuagint always Iothor): The priest of Midian and father-in-law (chothen) of Moses.
1. His Relation to Reuel and Hobab: It is not easy to determine the relation of Jethro to Reuel and Hobab. If we identify Jethro with Reuel as in Exodus 2:18; 3:1 (and in Ant, III, iii; V, ii, 3), we must connect "Moses' father-in-law" in Numbers 10:29 immediately with "Reuel" (the King James Version "Raguel"), and make Hobab the brother-in-law of Moses. But while it is possible that chothen may be used in the wider sense of a wife's relative, it is nowhere translated "brother-in-law" except in Judges 1:16; 4:11 ("father-in-law," the King James Version, the Revised Version margin). If we insert, as Ewald suggests (HI, II, 25), "Jethro son of" before "Reuel" in Exodus 2:18 (compare the Septuagint, verse 16, where the name "Jethro" is given), we would then identify Jethro with Hobab, the son of Reuel, in Numbers 10:29, taking "Moses' father-in-law" to refer back to Hobab. Against this identification, however, it is stated that Jethro went away into his own country without any effort on the part of Moses to detain him (Exodus 18:27), whereas Hobab, though at first he refused to remain with the Israelites, seems to have yielded to the pleadings of Moses to become their guide to Canaan (Numbers 10:29-32; Judges 1:16, where Kittel reads "Hobab the Kenite"; Judges 4:11). It may be noted that while the father-in-law of Moses is spoken of as a "Midianite" in Exodus, he is called a"Kenite" in Judges 1:16; 4:11. From this Ewald infers that the Midianites were at that time intimately blended with the Amalekites, to which tribe the Kenites belonged (HI, II, 44).
2. His Hearty Reception of Moses: When Moses fled from Egypt he found refuge in Midian, where he received a hearty welcome into the household of Jethro on account of the courtesy and kindness he had shown to the priest's 7 daughters in helping them to water their flock. This friendship resulted in Jethro giving Moses his daughter, Zipporah, to wife (Exodus 2:15-21). After Moses had been for about 40 years in the service of his father-in-law, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in the burning bush as he was keeping the flock at Horeb, commanding him to return to Egypt and deliver his enslaved brethren out of the hands of Pharaoh (Exodus 3:1 ff). With Jethro's consent Moses left Midian to carry out the Divine commission (Exodus 4:18).
3. His Visit to Moses in the Wilderness: When tidings reached Midian of "all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel" in delivering them from Egyptian bondage, Jethro, with a natural pride in the achievements of his relative, set out on a visit to Moses, taking Zipporah and her two sons with him (Exodus 18:1-12). On learning of his father-in-law's arrival at the "mount of God," Moses went out to meet him, and after a cordial exchange of courtesies they retired to Moses' tent, where a pleasant interview took place between them. We are told of the interest Jethro felt in all the particulars of the great deliverance, how he "rejoiced for all the goodness which Yahweh had done to Israel," and how the conviction was wrought within him that Yahweh was "greater than all gods; yea, in the thing wherein they dealt proudly against them" (Exodus 18:11). In this condition so expressed there is evidently a reference to the element by which the Egyptians thought in their high-handed pursuit they would be able to bring back Israel into bondage, but by which they were themselves overthrown.
It is worth noting that in the religious service in which Jethro and Moses afterward engaged, when Jethro, as priest, offered a burnt offering, and Aaron with all the elders of Israel partook of the sacrificial feast, prominence was given to Jethro over Aaron, and thus a priesthood was recognized beyond the limits of Israel.
4. His Wise Counsel: This visit of Jethro to Moses had important consequences for the future government of Israel (Exodus 18:13-27). The priest of Midian became concerned about his son-in-law when he saw him occupied from morning to night in deciding the disputes that had arisen among the people. The labor this entailed, Jethro said, was far too heavy a burden for one man to bear. Moses himself would soon be worn out, and the people, too, would become weary and dissatisfied, owing to the inability of one judge to overtake all the eases that were brought before him. Jethro, therefore, urged Moses to make use of the talents of others and adopt a plan of gradation of judges who would dispose of all eases of minor importance, leaving only the most difficult for him to settle by a direct appeal to the will of God. Moses, recognizing the wisdom of his father-in-law's advice, readily acted upon his suggestion and appointed "able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens." Thereafter, Jethro returned to his own country.
5. His Character and Influence: The story of Jethro reveals him as a man of singular attractiveness and strength, in whom a kind, considerate disposition, a deeply religious spirit, and a wise judgment all met in happy combination. And this ancient priest of Midian made Israel and all nations his debtors when he taught the distinction between the legislative and the judicial function, and the importance of securing that all law be the expression of the Divine will, and that its application be entrusted only to men of ability, piety, integrity and truth (Exodus 18:21).
James Crichton
Jetur
Jetur - je'-tur (yeTur, meaning uncertain): a "son" of Ishmael (Genesis 25:15 parallel 1 Chronicles 1:31); against this clan the two and a half tribes warred (1 Chronicles 5:18 f); they are the Itureans of New Testament times.
See ITURAEA.
Jeuel
Jeuel - je-u'-el ju'-el (ye'-u'-el, meaning unknown):
(1) A man of Judah (1 Chronicles 9:6); the name is not found in the parallel of Nehemiah 11:24.
(2) A Levite, the King James Version "Jeiel" (2 Chronicles 29:13).
(3) A companion of Ezra, the King James Version "Jeiel" (Ezra 8:13).
(4) The name occurs also as Kethibh in 1 Chronicles 9:35; 2 Chronicles 26:11.
See JEIEL, (2), (6).
Jeush
Jeush - je'-ush (ye`ush, probably "he protects," "he comes to help"; see HPN , 109; Kethibh is ye`ish, in Genesis 36:5, 14; 1 Chronicles 7:10):
(1) A "son" of Esau (Genesis 36:5, 14, 18; 1 Chronicles 1:35). "The name is thought by some to be identical with that, of an Arabian lion-god Yagut ...., meaning `helper,' whose antiquity is vouched for by inscriptions of Thamud" (Skinner, Gen, 432).
(2) A Benjamite (1 Chronicles 7:10), but probably a Zebulunite. See Curtis, Chronicles, 145 ff.
(3) A descendant of King Saul, the King James Version "Jehush" (1 Chronicles 8:39).
(4) A Gershonite Levite (1 Chronicles 23:10-11).
(5) A son of King Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:19).
David Francis Roberts
Jeuz
Jeuz - je'-uz ye`-uts "he counsels"): The eponym of a Benjamite family (1 Chronicles 8:10).
Jew, Jewess, Jewish
Jew, Jewess, Jewish - ju, joo, ju'-ish, joo'-ish (yehudhi plural yehudhim; Ioudaioi; feminine adjective yehudhith; Ioudaikos): "Jew" denotes originally an inhabitant of Judah (2 Kings 16:6 applies to the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom), but later the meaning was extended to embrace all descendants of Abraham. In the Old Testament the word occurs a few times in the singular. (Esther 2:5; 3:4, etc.; Jeremiah 34:9; Zechariah 8:23); very frequently in the plural in Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther, and in Jeremiah and Daniel. The adjective in the Old Testament applies only to the "Jews' language" or speech (2 Kings 18:26, 28 parallel Nehemiah 13:24; Isaiah 36:11, 13). "Jews" (always plural) is the familiar term for Israelites in the Gospels (especially in John), Acts, Epistles, etc. "Jewess" occurs in 1 Chronicles 4:18; Acts 16:1; 24:24. In Titus 1:14 a warning is given against "Jewish fables" (in Greek the adjective is found also in Galatians 2:14). The "Jews' religion" (Ioudaismos) is referred to in Galatians 1:13-14. On the "Jews' language,'' see LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; on the "Jews' religion," see ISRAEL,RELIGION OF .
James Orr
Jewel
Jewel - ju'-el, joo'-el: An ornament of gold, silver or of precious stones in the form of armlet, bracelet, anklet, nose-ring, etc. Oriental dress yields itself freely to such adornment, to which there are many allusions in Scripture. a frequent term in Hebrew is keli ("utensil," "vessel"), coupled with mention of "gold" or "silver" or both (Genesis 24:53; Exodus 3:22; 11:2; 12:35; 35:22; 1 Samuel 6:8, 15, etc.; the Revised Version (British and American) in 2 Chronicles 32:27 translations "vessels"). In Song of Solomon 1:10, where the King James Version has "rows (of jewels)," the Revised Version (British and American) has "plaits (of hair)"; in Song of Solomon 7:1, the word is from a root chalah, meaning "to adorn." In 3 instances in the King James Version "jewel" represents the Hebrew nezem (Proverbs 11:22; Isaiah 3:21; Ezekiel 16:12); the American Standard Revised Version changes Proverbs 11:22 to "ring" Septuagint here = "earring"), and both the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version have "ring" in Ezekiel 16:12. The familiar phrase in Malachi 3:17, "in that day when I make up my jewels," becomes in the English Revised Version, "in the day that I do make, even a peculiar treasure" (margin "or, wherein I do make a peculiar treasure"), and in the American Standard Revised Version, "even mine own possession, in the day that I make" (margin "or, do this").
See, further, ORNAMENT; DRESS; STONES, PRECIOUS.
James Orr
Jewry
Jewry - ju'-ri, joo'-ri: In Daniel 5:13 the King James Version, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "Judah"; in the New Testament, in two places in the King James Version, Luke 23:5; John 7:1, where the Revised Version (British and American) has correctly "Judaea" (Ioudaia) (which see).
Jews
Jews - juz, jooz.
See JEW.
Jezaniah
Jezaniah - jez-a-ni'-a (yezanyahu, probably "Yahweh hears"; compare JAAZANIAH): In Jeremiah 40:8, and also Jeremiah 42:1 where Septuagint has "Azariah," as in Jeremiah 43:2 (see Driver, Jer) = JAAZANIAH, (1) (which see).
Jezebel
Jezebel - jez'-e-bel 'izebhel, "unexalted," "unhusbanded" (?); Iezabel; see BDB ; 1 Kings 16:31; 4, 13, 19; 1 Kings 19:1-2; 21:5 ff; 2 Kings 9:7 ff,30 ff; Revelation 2:20): Daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians, i.e. Phoenicians, and queen of Ahab, king of Northern Israel. Ahab (circa 874-853 BC) carried out a policy, which his father had perhaps started, of making alliances with other states. The alliance with the Phoenicians was cemented by his marriage with Jezebel, and he subsequently gave his daughter Athaliah in marriage to Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. His own union with Jezebel is regarded as a sin in 1 Kings 16:31, where the Massoretic Text is difficult, being generally understood as a question. The Septuagint translations: "and it was not enough that he should walk in the sins of Jeroboam ben Nebat, he also took to wife Jezebel," etc. The Hebrew can be pointed to mean, "And it was the lightest thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam ben Nebat, he also took to wife Jezebel, and went and served Baal and worshipped him," i.e. all the other sins were light as compared with the marriage with Jezebel and the serving of Baal (compare Micah 6:16). Is this a justifiable view to take of the marriage? One answer would be that Ahab made a wise alliance; that Baal-worship was not non-Hebrew, that Ahab named his children not alter Baal but after Yahweh (compare Ahaziah, Jehoram, Athaliah), and that he consulted the prophets of Yahweh (compare 1 Kings 22:6); further, that he only did what Solomon had done on a much larger scale; it may be added too that Ahab was in favor of religious toleration, and that Elijah and not the king is the persecutor. What then can be said for the unfavorable Verdict of the Hebrew historians? That verdict is based on the results and effects of the marriage, on the life and character of Jezebel, and in that life two main incidents demand attention.
1. Persecution of Yahweh's Prophets: This is not described; it is only referred to in 1 Kings 18:4, "when Jezebel cut off the prophets of Yahweh"; and this shows the history of the time to be incompletely related. In 1 Kings 18:19 we are further told that "450 prophets of Baal ate at her table" (commentators regard the reference to "400 prophets of the Asherah" as an addition). In 1 Kings 19:1 Ahab tells Jezebel of the slaughter of the prophets of Baal by Elijah, and then Jezebel (19:2) sends a messenger to Elijah to threaten his life. This leads to the prophet's flight, an object which Jezebel had in view, perhaps, for she would hardly dare to murder Elijah himself. 2 Kings 9:7 regards the massacre of Ahab's family as a punishment for the persecution of the prophets by Jezebel
2. Jezebel's Plot Against Naboth (1 Kings 21): Ahab expresses a desire to possess the vineyard neighboring upon his palace in Jezreel, owned by Naboth, who refuses to part with the family inheritance though offered either its money value or a better vineyard in exchange. Ahab is depressed at this, and Jezebel, upon finding the cause of his melancholy feelings, asks him sarcastically if he is not king, suggesting that as king his wishes should be immediately granted by his subjects. She thereupon plots to secure him Naboth's vineyard. Jezebel sends letters sealed in Ahab's name to the elders of Naboth's township, and bids them arrange a public fast and make Naboth "sit at the head of the people" (Revised Version margin), a phrase taken by some to mean that he is to be arraigned, while it is explained by others as meaning that Naboth is to be given the chief place. Two witnesses--a sufficient number for that purpose--are to be brought to accuse Naboth of blasphemy and treason. This is done, and Naboth is found guilty, and stoned to death. The property is confiscated, and falls to the king (1 Kings 21:1-16). Elijah hears of this, and is sent to threaten Ahab with Divine vengeance; dogs shall lick his dead body (1 Kings 21:19). But in 1 Kings 21:20-23 this prophecy is made, not concerning Ahab but against Jezebel, and 1 Kings 21:25 attributes the sins of Ahab to her influence over him.
The prophecy is fulfilled in 2 Kings 9:30-37. Ahaziah and Jehoram had succeeded their father Ahab; the one reigned for 2 years (1 Kings 22:51), the other 12 years (2 Kings 3:1). Jehu heads a revolt against the house of Ahab, and one day comes to Jezreel. Jezebel had "painted her eyes, and attired her head," and sees Jehu coming. She greets him sarcastically as his master's murderer. according to Massoretic Text, Jehu asks, "Who is on my side? who?" but the text is emended by Klostermann, following Septuagint in the main, "Who art thou that thou shouldest find fault with me?" i.e. thou art but a murderess thyself. She is then thrown down and the horses tread upon her (reading "they trod" for "he trod" in 2 Kings 9:33). When search is afterward made for her remains, they are found terribly mutilated. Thus was the prophecy fulfilled. (Some commentaries hold that Naboth's vineyard and Ahab's garden were in Samaria, and Naboth a Jezreelite. The words, "which was in Jezreel," of 1 Kings 21:1 are wanting in Septuagint, which has "And Naboth had a vineyard by the threshing-floor of Ahab king of Samaria." But compare 1 Kings 18:45; 21:23; 2 Kings 8:29; 10, 15 ff,30 ff.)
3. Jezebel's Character: The character of Jezebel is seen revived in that of her daughter, Athaliah of Judah (2 Kings 11:1-21); there is no doubt that Jezebel was a powerful personality. She brought the worship of the Phoenician Baal and Astarte with her into Hebrew life, and indirectly introduced it into Judah as well as into the Northern Kingdom. In judging her connection with this propagation, we should bear in mind that she is not a queen of the 20th century; she must be judged in company with other queens famous in history. Her religious attitude and zeal might profitably be compared with that of Mary, queen of Scots. It must also be remembered that the introduction of any religious change is often resented when it comes from a foreign queen, and is apt to be misunderstood, e.g. the attitude of Greece to the proposal of Queen Olga have an authorized edition of the Bible in modern Greek.
On the other hand, although much may be said that would be favorable to Jezebel from the religious standpoint, the balance is heavy against her when we remember her successful plot against Naboth. It is not perhaps blameworthy in her that she upheld the religion of her native land, although the natural thing would have been to follow that of her adopted land (compare Ruth 1:16 f). The superiority of Yahweh-worship was not as clear then as it is to us today. It may also be held that Baal-worship was not unknown in Hebrew life (compare Judges 6:25 f), that Baal of Canaan had become incorporated with Yahweh of Sinai, and that there were pagan elements in the worship of the latter. But against all this it must be clear that the Baal whom Jezebel attempted to introduce was the Phoenician Baal, pure and simple; he was another god, or rather in him was presented an idea of God very different from Yahweh. And further, "in Phoenicia, where wealth and luxury had been enjoyed on a scale unknown to either Israel or the Canaanites of the interior, there was a refinement, if one may so speak, and at the same time a prodigality of vicious indulgences, connected with the worship of Baal and Astarte to which Israel had hitherto been a stranger ..... It was like a cancer eating into the vitals or a head and heart sickness resulting in total decay (Isaiah 1:6). In Israel, moral deterioration meant political as well as spiritual death. The weal of the nation lay in fidelity to Yahweh alone, and in His pure worship" (HPM, section symbol 213).
The verdict of the Hebrew historian is thus substantiated. Jezebel is an example--an extreme one no doubt--of the bad influence of a highly developed civilization forcing itself with all its sins upon a community less highly civilized, but possessed of nobler moral and religious conceptions. She has parallels both in family and in national life. For a parallel to Elijah's attitude toward Jezebel compare the words of Carlyle about Knox in On Heroes and Hero-Worship,IV , especially the section, "We blame Knox for his intolerance," etc.
In Revelation 2:20, we read of Iezabel, "the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess"; not "thy wife" (i.e. the wife of the bishop) the Revised Version margin, but as Moffat (Expositor's Greek Testament) aptly renders, "that Jezebel of a woman alleging herself a prophetess." Some members of the church at Thyatira "under the sway of an influential woman refused to separate from the local guilds where moral interests, though not ostensibly defied, were often seriously compromised ..... Her lax principles or tendencies made for a connection with foreign and compromising associations which evidently exerted a dangerous influence upon some weaker Christians in the city." Her followers "prided themselves upon their enlightened liberalism (Revelation 2:24)." Moffat rejects both the view of Schurer (Theol. Abhandlungen, 39 f), that she is to be identified with the Chaldean Sibyl at Thyatira, and also that of Selwyn making her the wife of the local asiarch. "It was not the cults but the trade guilds that formed the problem at Thyatira." See also Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, section symbol 73, note 7; AHAB; BAAL; ELIJAH.
David Francis Roberts
Jezelus
Jezelus - je-ze'-lus, jez'-e-lus (Iezelos):
(1) In 1 Esdras 8:32; called "Jahaziel" in Ezra 8:5.
(2) In 1 Esdras 8:35; called "Jehiel" in Ezra 8:9.
Jezer
Jezer - je'-zer (yecher, "form" or "purpose"): A "son" of Naphtali (Genesis 46:24; Numbers 26:49; 1 Chronicles 7:13).
Jezerites, The
Jezerites, The - je'-zer-its, (ha-yitsri (collective with article)): Descendants of "Jezer" (Numbers 26:49).
Jeziah
Jeziah - je-zi'-a.
See IZZIAH.
Jeziel
Jeziel - je'-zi-el, je-zi'-el (Kethibh is yezu'el, or yezo'el; Qere yezi'el = "God gathers," perhaps): One of David's Benjamite recruits at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12:3).
Jezliah
Jezliah - jez-lia.
See IZLIAH.
Jezoar
Jezoar - je-zo'-ar.
See IZHAR.
Jezrahiah
Jezrahiah - jez-ra-hi'-a.
See IZRAHIAH.
Jezreel
Jezreel - jez'-re-el, jez'-rel (yizre`e'l, "God soweth"):
(1) A city on the border of the territory of Issachar (Joshua 19:18).
1. Territory: It is named with Chesulloth and Shunem (modern Iksal and Solam). It remained loyal to the house of Saul, and is mentioned as part of the kingdom over which Abner set Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 2:9). From Jezreel came the tidings of Saul and Jonathan's death on Gilboa, which brought disaster to Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 4:4). The city plays no important part in the history till the time of Ahab. Attracted, doubtless, by the fine position and natural charms of the place, he made it one of his royal residences, building here a palace (1 Kings 21:1). This was evidently on the eastern wall; and the gate by which Jehu entered was over-looked by the quarters of Queen Jezebel (2 Kings 9:30 f). The royal favor naturally enhanced the dignity of the city, and "elders" and "nobles" of Jezreel are mentioned (1 Kings 21:8, etc.). Under the influence of Jezebel, an institution for the worship of Baal was founded here, from which, probably, the men were drawn who figured in the memorable contest with Elijah on Carmel (2 Kings 10:11). "The tower in Jezreel" was part of the defenses of the city. It commanded a view of the approach up the valley from Beth-shean--the way followed by the hordes of the East, who, from time immemorial, came westward for the rich pasture of the plain (2 Kings 9:17). It was necessary also to keep constant watch, as the district East of the Jordan was always more unsettled than that on the West; and danger thence might appear at any moment. The garden of Naboth seems to have lain to the East of the city (2 Kings 9:21 ), near the royal domain, to which Ahab desired to add it as a garden of herbs (1 Kings 21:1 ff). See NABOTH. This was the scene of the tragic meetings between Elijah and Ahab (1 Kings 21:17 ff), and between Jehu and Joram and Ahaziah (2 Kings 9:21). Joram had returned to Jezreel from Ramoth-gilead to be healed of his wounds (2 Kings 9:15). By the gateway the dogs devoured Jezebel's body (2 Kings 9:31 ff). Naboth had been stoned to death outside the city (1 Kings 21:13). Josephus lays the scene by the fountain of Jezreel, and here, he says, the dogs licked the blood washed from the chariot of Ahab (Ant., VIII, xv, 6). This accords with 1 Kings 21:19; but 1 Kings 22:38 points to the pool at Samaria.
2. Identification: The site of Jezreel must be sought in a position where a tower would command a view of the road coming up the valley from Beth-shean. It has long been the custom to identify it with the modern village, Zer`in, on the northwestern spur of Gilboa. This meets the above condition; and it also agrees with the indications in Eusebius, Onomasticon as lying between Legio (Lejjun) and Scythopolis (Beisan). Recently, however, Professor A.R.S. Macalister made a series of excavations here, and failed to find any evidence of ancient Israelite occupation. This casts doubt upon the identification, and further excavation is necessary before any certain conclusion can be reached. For the "fountain which is in Jezreel," see HAROD,WELL OF .
(2) An unidentified town in the uplands of Judah (Joshua 15:56), the home of Ahinoam (1 Samuel 27:3, etc.).
W. Ewing
Jezreel, Vale of
Jezreel, Vale of - See ESDRAELON, PLAIN OF.
Jezreelite
Jezreelite - jez'-re-el-it, jez'-rel-it ha-yizre`e'li): applied to Naboth, a native of Jezreel (1) (1 Kings 21:1, etc.).
Jezreelitess
Jezreelitess - jez'-re-el-it-es, jez'-rel-it-es (yizre`e'lith, "of Jezreel," feminine): Applied to Ahinoam, one of David's first two wives, a native of Jezreel in Judah (1 Samuel 27:3; 30:5; 2 Samuel 2:2; 3:2; 1 Chronicles 3:1).
Jezrielus
Jezrielus - jez-ri-e'-lus (Iezrielos; the King James Version Hierielus; 1 Esdras 9:27): Corresponding to "Jehiel" in Ezra 10:26.
Jibsam
Jibsam - jib'-sam.
See IBSAM.