Even if the doctrine of the miraculous conception were abandoned, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to account for the facts of Christ's life, by any other theory than that of his being the incarnation of God. If you regard him as man, you must explain how he, a plain peasant, trained as a carpenter, brought up in an obscure Oriental town, could live such a life as he undoubtedly lived, and give utterance to truths which have thrilled the world for nineteen hundred years. Besides this he spoke with authority, making claims to a higher nature, which if he did not consciously possess that higher nature, would be false claims. His whole life was consistent with his divinity, and, therefore, even persons who reject his miraculous conception, have good ground for believing him to be divine. It is the only theory that explains such a life. There is no need, however, to reject the doctrine of the miraculous conception. The more you study the life of Jesus, the less you will be surprised to learn that the promise of God through the prophets, of the union of divinity and humanity, was literally fulfilled in him.
As we are told in the Gospels that Herod was living and slaughtered the children after Jesus was born (see Matt 2:16), and as it is claimed by chronologists to be a matter of record that he died in 750 U.C., which corresponds to B.C. 4, it is obvious that Jesus was born before that date. Then, on the other hand, he was born after the decree for the census (Luke 2:1) was issued. From Tertullian we learn that the decree was issued in 748 and the enrollment began in 749 U.C., which corresponds to B.C. 5. Thus the birth is fixed by those two occurrences.
The purpose of publishing the Saviour's genealogy was to show that he had descended from David. If the genealogy of Mary had been given, it would have carried no weight with the Jews, as they would not admit the divine conception, and regarded Joseph as the head of the family. It was necessary, on their account, to show that Joseph had descended from David. It really, however, includes the others, as the descendants of David were so proud of their distinction, and of the Messianic promise involved, that no man of that family would take a wife of any other family. Mary, undoubtedly, therefore, was descended from David. The theory has been propounded and supported by Weiss and other scholars that the genealogy of Luke is that of Mary. Luke says (3:23)! that Joseph was the son of Heli, whereas Matthew says (1:16) that he was the son of Jacob. It is suggested that Luke's statement should read, "who was the son-in-law of Heli," that is, married the daughter of Heli. Luke traces the descent through David's son Nathan, while Matthew traces it through Solomon. Even that explanation, however, has its incongruities, of which there is no clear explanation. The fact that Mary before her marriage went to Bethlehem to be taxed or registered (Luke 2:5), would indicate that she was of David's house. It is noteworthy, too, that Christ's claims to Messiah ship were never challenged on that ground. If there had been any haw in his pedigree, the Jews would have seized upon it without a doubt, because the prophecies clearly stated that Messiah would be descended from David.
The brethren of Jesus are named in the New Testament as James, Joses, Simon and Judas. In Matt 12:46; Matt 13:55; John 2:12, and Acts 1:14 they are generally understood to be proper brothers, all being named together conjointly with the mother of Jesus, and the same is inferred from John 7:5. Some of the early church writers, however, held that they were merely relatives or cousins (sons of Mary the sister of Jesus' mother), it being a common custom to call all immediate relatives, nephews, cousins and half-brothers, by the general designation of "brothers" or "brethren." Further, the early fathers of the church held that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had no other children. The question still remains open whether they were not the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, and therefore half-brothers to Jesus. On the other hand Matt. 1:25 and Luke 2:7 favor the view that they were brothers and that Jesus was the "first-born." Sisters of Jesus are also mentioned in Matt 13:56 and Mark 6:3, but their names are not given. Much has been written on the subject without positive determination, although most modern commentators hold to the opinion that the "brethren" in question were the sons of Joseph and Mary, and that Mary's mother's sister had two sons, named James and Joses.
There was a remarkable conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn about that time, which must have been a very brilliant spectacle, and which would be very impressive to astrologers. It might lead them to the belief that some mighty potentate was born, and probably to make inquiry as to such birth. The fact, that would doubtless be known to all Orientals, that the Jews expected a Messiah, may have led the Magi to Palestine. Their inquiry for "the King of the Jews" seems to imply that it was there they expected to find such a being as the conjunction portended. The difficulty, however, is to explain the star going before them (Matt. 2:9). As they traveled westward, it might have had that appearance, but not so definitely as the account implies. Another explanation is that it was possibly a meteor divinely directed.
According to some, the accounts in Matthew and in Luke do not agree. But there is really no discrep ancy. After the birth of Jesus, the parents remained at Bethlehem until the time arrived for presenting the Babe in the Temple, being the end of the days of purification. After the presentation, Joseph and Mary with the child went to Nazareth, adjusted their affairs and returned to Bethlehem, where they were dwelling --no longer in a stable but in "a house"--when the incident of the Magis' visit occurred. These wise men had first gone to Jerusalem, whence they were directed to Bethlehem. After their visit Joseph was warned by an angelic messenger and the flight into Egypt followed. To get a clear idea of the order of events, the records of the four evangelists must be taken as a whole, as one records incidents which another omits. Thus Mark and John contain nothing relative to the childhood of Jesus, while Matthew and Luke taken together, give a clear outline of these events, though Luke omits all reference to the return to Bethlehem and the journey into Egypt, the latter of which Matthew relates with considerable detail. In no sense did any one of the four evangelists intend to present a complete chronological record of the Saviour's earthly life, but each designed rather to supplement what the others had written.
The statement in Luke 2:52 is explicit and there is no reason for doubting it. Jesus was subject to human conditions and limitations so far as the divine nature could be subjected. We read of His being weary, of his being hungry and thirsty, and we are assured that He was tempted in all points like as we are, which all show that in His physical nature He was human. Doubtless He would be educated like other boys, and probably His consciousness of divinity would be gradual, and possibly not complete until the forty days in the desert. His questioning the doctors in the Temple (Luke 2:46) is supposed by some authorities to have been not catechizing them but to obtain information.
Although one cannot trace with any degree of precision the various stages of development of the consciousness of his mission, it is evident from the Gospel record that it must have begun early and gradually increased to complete appreciation as manhood approached. We are told that even in childhood he "grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom," and the "grace of God was upon him." (Luke 2:40.) In youth we find him questioning and expounding to the rabbis in the temple and "increasing in stature and in wisdom and in favor with God and man." His wonderful knowledge, his amazing questions and his discerning answers to the elders must have become more and more accentuated during the passage of these early years, and we may gather that Mary had already premonitions of the future career of her Divine Son, since she pondered over and "hid all these things in her heart." There are indications that seem to warrant the conclusion that long before the opening of his public ministry, Jesus was absorbed by the thought of the mission to which he was destined. He knew his Father's business and did it, and he frequented his Father's house. His life and surroundings in Nazareth brought him in contact with a simple, earnest people and with sorrow and suffering. These were years of character-building and development They bore fruit when the time was ripe for his public ministry and prepared him for the baptism at John's hands. This was the last act of his private life and the first that marked the beginning of his public mission, when the heavenly voice proclaimed him as the "Beloved Son" and the Baptist bare record that he was the Son of God.
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, whether Paul or some other person, was showing the superiority of Christianity to Judaism. It too had its priest and sacrifice. The Jew might answer that Christ could not be a high priest as he did not come of the tribe of Levi, to which the priesthood was confined. The answer is that there was another order of priesthood-- that of Melchizedek, which Abraham recognized (Gen. 14:20) by paying him tithes. Christ belonged to that order as the Psalmist had predicted (Ps. 110:4), and Levi, through his ancestor, had thus indicated his superiority. It is an argument that would have weight with a Jew. It is a curious fact, that among the recently discovered Tel el-Amarna tablets, are letters from one Ebed-tob, King of Uru Salim (Jerusalem), who describes himself as not having received the crown by inheritance from father or mother, but from the mighty God. We know nothing of Melchizedek beyond the scanty references in Genesis, but this tablet appears to intimate that the ancient Kings of Jerusalem claimed this divine right
In his divinity, no; but in his humanity he could be all of these. Scripture tells us that in his human aspect he was "in all things as we are." What we have in the Gospels is the report by his hearers of what he said. As John tells us (21:25), it is a very imperfect and meager report, but sufficient for the purpose the writers had in view. At the same time, it is doubtful how much of the Godhead Jesus may voluntarily have laid aside when he became man. Paul says (Phil. 2:7, R.V.) that "he emptied himself," from which we infer that in order fully to enter into human feeling he divested himself of such qualities as would have kept him from feeling hunger, etc. It behooved him to be made in all things like unto his brethren, and he could not be that unless he temporarily relinquished some portion of his divinity.
The Saviour evidently ranked baptism as one of the acts inseparable from his Messianic calling (see John 1:31). By being publicly baptized he entered into John's community, which was introductory to his greater Messianic work. Further, it was the means of revealing himself to the Baptist and through him to the people. John was the forerunner of the Messiah, and it was especially fitting that he should personally serve at Jesus' consecration to his Messianic work, and assist at the beginning of his public career.
The fact that the ruler of the feast pronounced the miraculous wine "the best," showed that it was really wine, but we are not justified in concluding that it was alcoholic or intoxicating. There has been endless discussion on this point, but we are satisfied that divine power never gave any gift to man that would degrade or hurt him.
Luke tells us (Luke 2:23) that Jesus was about thirty years of age when he began his ministry. During his sojourn in Galilee (Luk. 4:14) he had already spoken in the synagogues. Mark 1:14,15 mentions these instances, though very briefly, and so also does John 2:11. His first recorded sermon is mentioned in Luke 4:16-28. It was on the Sabbath day, and he took his text from the prophet Esais. He had passed through his forty days' preparatory vigil in the wilderness and was filled with the Spirit, and ready for his work.
While there is no record of such a thing m Scripture, or anywhere else, it does not seem improbable. See the passage in Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26. The closing hymn here referred to was probably the chant called by the Jews "the great Hallel," and which consists of parts of Psalms 115, 116, 117 and 118, these parts being sung at the close of the Passover. "It is hardly conceivable," writes one commentator, "that the eleven disciples should have been singing to cheer their sorrowing hearts and that their Lord should have stood silent beside them."
Unquestionably he submitted to all the liabilities of the human condition; we are told expressly that he "was in all things as we are." The appeal of the tempter was to his ambition, and the purpose, as some commentators conclude, was to excite in his mind the desire for worldly power and dominion. Even his own followers had cherished visions of an earthly kingdom. The question whether he could by any possibility have yielded has often been asked, but it is one that must remain unanswered. To say that it was impossible would imply that he was not wholly subject to human Conditions and temptations; while to admit its possibility would make him less than divine. The incident shows to us that while the vision of sudden power may have been alluring, it could not move him from the fixed and beneficent purpose of his great mission, which was to establish his kingdom in the hearts of men by love and sacrifice, and by the example of his perfect humanity. Contrasted with such a kingdom, all the glory of worldly pomp and power are trivial, transient and unsatisfying.
The Christian Church has always held that Christ was absolutely free from sin. This is in accordance with the explicit teachings of Scripture, which states that he was in all things "as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15.) He is also described as the Holy One, the Just and Righteous (Acts 3:14, 22:14; I Peter 3:18; I John 2:29; 3:7). See also I Peter 2:21,22; I Peter 1:19; II Cor. 5:21 and other passages. One of the earliest of Church councils (A.D. 451) formulated the doctrine of his sinlessness thus: "Truly man, with a rational soul and body, with like essence with us as to his manhood, and in all things like us, with sin excepted," and this has remained unchanged as the accepted Christological doctrine of the Christian Church. Whether he could not sin has been much discussed. Doubtless he could have yielded; but the fact remains that he did not yield to temptation and continued to the end an example of perfect purity and sinlessness--the condition of man before his fall.
No; Satan did not own them. But it is still true that they were in his hands to offer to Christ; he had usurped them. At Creation, Man was placed in the Garden of Eden as lord over all. "Thou hast put all things under his feet," was true of the first Adam (see Ps. 8:4-9), while it will only be carried out permanently under the second Adam. (See I Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 2:6-9.) But when Adam listened to Satan and fell, he transferred his allegiance, and through that Satan became the "prince of this world." (See John 14:30; 16:11; 18:36; Luke 22:53; II Cor. 4:4). The consequence of this has been that the empires of the world have been truly delineated as wild beasts. (Dan. 7:3.) It was universal empire Satan offered to Jesus, but which he refused to take from his hand. When Satan said, "to whomsoever I will I give it" (Luke 4:6), the Lord did not deny it, but was content to go on in the path of obedience until the time should come for the Father to give it to him. (Matt. 11:27.) Then "the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15). The fact that "the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1), does not conflict with this. God did put authority in the hands of Noah, Gen. 9:6, but this has been usurped by Satan, through the willingness of man to be led by him. The fact that the devil has so much to do with the affairs of men in the world is a proof of this. On the other hand, the kingdoms and glory of the world were not his to give. He has no valid claim or right to anything in God's material universe. "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." The temptation of Christ in the wilderness, according to the best critical authorities was of a subjective character. That is to say, it was a mental appeal to do wrong. It was a fantasy, a deception, a sham. This is the way Satan tempts us, and Christ was in all points tempted as we are. Satan does not need to take us up on a high mountain to show us the kingdoms of the world. He can put a mental picture before us. When we are tempted to do as he bids us and think that certain things will come to pass, we soon discover that the devil has deceived us. When he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of lies. His tempting promises of glory, greatness and prosperity are all false. Obedience to him, in the end only pierces the soul with many sor rows. He makes the thief believe that his acts will never be known. But God says, "Be sure your sin will find you out." The sensualist, who gratifies his lust, in the end becomes a moral leper. Lastly, he makes the sinner believe a lie that he may be eternally ruined.
The inference to be drawn from the Gospel narrative (Luke 17:11-19) is that the nine, being healed merely in body, were so elated and overjoyed with their newfound health that they ungratefully forgot the source of their restoration, whereas the one leper who returned, had learned the deeper lesson of Christ's divinity, and had experienced that inner cleansing and clearness of spiritual vision which, after the first exuberant outburst was over, brought him back grateful and loving to the Saviour's feet to pour out his thanks. The nine are not again mentioned.
Probably the spiritual body, to which Paul refers (I Cor. 15:44). It is difficult for us to conceive of such a body because we are so accustomed to recognize the soul only as it manifests itself through the senses. But it would be rash to conclude that the soul is dependent on the physical senses for its powers. It may have, or may acquire after the death of the body, new and perhaps superior means of communicating thought and feeling.
There have been many conflicting interpretations of the Scripture narrative concerning Mary of Bethany and the woman spoken of in Luke 7:37. The majority agree that there were two anointings, one during Jesus' Galilean ministry (Luke 7), the other at Bethany before the last entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 26, Mark 14, John 12). There is not the slightest trace in the Scripture story of any blot on the life of Mary of Bethany. The epithet, Magdalene, seems to have been chosen for the especial purpose of distinguishing the one to whom it was applied from other Marys. Mary or Maryam was a common name, which seems to have led to misunderstanding. Some of the earliest Church writers entirely reject the identification of the two Marys, although it is an error into which not a few have fallen. It is to be noted that Luke 7:37 speaks of a woman "which was a sinner," but gives no name, while Luke 10:38,39 speaks of Mary and Martha as though neither had been named before and without any evidence of previous reference. The whole question is one concerning which no one can speak with final authority although the reasonable inference is, as we have said, that they were different individuals.
The words Jesus employed are not recorded, but the blessing pronounced may have been that which was customarily asked by the head of the household at all Hebrew paschal feasts. It is in these words: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast created the fruit of the vine I (Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast chosen us above all nations, and exalted us above all peoples, and hast sanctified us with thy commandments. Thou hast given us, O Lord our God, appointed seasons for joy, festivals and holy days for rejoicing, such as the feast of unleavened bread, the time of our liberation, for holy convocation, to commemorate our exodus from Egypt." As Jesus gave to the Last Supper a broader spiritual significance than the Passover possessed, it is probable that he gave to the opening words of blessing a character in keeping with his high purpose. The new Passover was not to be for the Jewish nation alone, but for the whole world.
It is doubtful whether Judas was present at the institution of the Lord's Supper. He was present at the foot-washing and at the early part of the feast, but he could not remain after Christ spoke of his imminent betrayal and showed his knowledge of the identity of the guilty man. Then Judas went out, but we do not know whether the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup had already taken place: from Luke's narrative it would appear that they had; Matthew and Mark, however, mention the ceremony after the conversation about the betrayal, which would imply that Judas was not present at the ceremony. The Evangelists were concerned more about the spirit ual significance of the events of that agitating night than about presenting those events in consecutive order.
The pieces of silver were probably shekels. The value of the whole sum in our modern reckoning was about eighteen dollars. Zechariah had predicted the whole transaction (see Zech. 11:12,13): "They weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver and the Lord said cast it unto the potter," etc. It is not likely that Judas acted from avarice only, though he was fond of money. He probably meant to force Christ's hand. He may have thought him backward in claiming the kingdom, and supposed that if he was driven to bay, he would deliver himself by a miracle and declare himself king. That theory is confirmed by his committing suicide when he discovered the consequences of his act
One of the functions of the Holy Spirit was to bring all things to the remembrance or knowledge of the Apostles. Though the Evangelists record most fully the events they witnessed, they record other matters of which they *could have had no knowledge except by revelation. This may have been one of them. But it is not stated that they slept all the time they were with Christ in the Garden. The account rather implies men struggling to keep awake. Christ said of them that their spirit was willing. They may have heard the few words they record, though missing the remainder of what may have been, and probably was, a long prayer.
There has been much speculation as to who this young man was. It has been suggested by some commentators, perhaps rightly, that inasmuch as he is mentioned only by Mark, he was Mark, the evangelist; himself. Mark's family was prominently connected with incidents of the Lord's last days and following the resurrection. Thus the "upper room" where the Last Supper was eaten and which later witnessed the descent of the Holy Spirit was in the ownership of that family and Mark's mother was the sister of Barnabas, a wealthy Levite of Cypress.
Pain is a difficult thing to measure. The sorrow of Jesus will always be one of the awe-inspiring, baffling events of the world story. It is impossible to read the Bible deeply, particularly after one has become personally acquainted with Jesus and observed the amazing power that the facts of his suffering and death possess over human souls, without realizing that there must have been far deeper anguish than can be accounted for by the mere facts of his humiliation, rejection, torture and death. If we consider the merely physical pain we must acknowledge that others have apparently borne as much, though we must also acknowledge that there are almost infinite degrees of susceptibility to pain. A wound which will cause little pain to a man of a certain temperament and organization may be excruciating to one of finer and more acute sensitiveness. But the real agony of Jesus must have been different from either physical or mental. There is a sane note, a moral note in his suffering that puts it altogether beyond our comprehension. Matthew, Mark and Luke all record the fact that as he died he cried out with a loud voice. That seems strange from what we know of the dauntless courage of Jesus. Some immeasurable, inconceivable suffering must lie back of that cry. So also his appeal in the garden for deliverance at the last hour. There must have been an infinite anguish ahead to compel him to ask for another way. We get the clearest hint in the grievous prayer from the cross: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" There must have been some definite, conscious, agonizing break in the eternal love which had bound the Father and the Son together. Perhaps there was deeper truth than the ancient for-mulators of the creed knew in those strange words: "He descended into hell." No--of all the griefs in the world that of Jesus while he was on the cross and while his body lay in the grave, is unique. Its depth, its duration, none can know. They counted the hours he spent on the cross and the hours in the grave. But what eternities of spirit anguish he underwent we may never know. But, praise God! they were enough to shock every penitent soul that hears of it into a new life, a life in which sin is hated and righteousness loved, a life of which the crucified and risen Saviour is the eternal Light and the never-failing hope and joy.
From the fact that the evangelists give as three different forms for the inscription over the cross it has been argued that they were not accurate in their portrayal of things and events. There is, however, nothing here to disturb anyone. Matthew 27:37 has it, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews," using probably the Greek form; St Mark 15:26, "The King of the Jews," and Luke 23:38, "This is the King of the Jews," availed themselves of the Roman form, and John 19:19, "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews," probably employed the Hebrew form. Since the four accounts of the inscription do not differ in import the exact language of the insulting designation is of little or no consequence.
It is uncertain how long Jesus lived after he was nailed to the cross. At the longest it could not have been more than six hours. Mark says (15:25), "It was the third hour (or nine o'clock), and they crucified him"; and again (15:34), "And at the ninth hour (3 p. m.), Jesus cried," etc. John, on the other hand, describing the proceedings before Pilate (19:14), says: "It was about the sixth hour." But John was probably reckoning the hours by the Roman method from midnight, which, allowing for the subsequent judicial farce and the journey to Golgotha, would bring him into accord with Mark. Matthew also (27:46), represents Jesus as being alive at the ninth hour (three o'clock). Matthew, Mark and Luke, referring to the darkness, say that it lasted from the sixth hour (noon), till the ninth hour (3 p. m.), but it does not appear to have begun until Jesus had been some time on the cross. The ancients had not the means that we have of accurately reckoning time; so that we cannot be certain of the hour, and it may have been later than nine when Jesus was nailed to the cross. He evidently did not live long after three, probably not many minutes.
Mark says (15:25) it was about the third hour, or, as we should say, nine o'clock. Again, the sixth hour is referred to by three of the evangelists (Matt 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44), when Jesus had apparently been three hours on the cross. In the next verses, in all three cases, the ninth hour is mentioned as the time of death, which would be three o'clock. The statement of John (19:14) is believed to be due to a copyist's error, or to his using the Roman method of reckoning.
We cannot suppose so, although some have held that, because he was doing the Father's will, therefore he must have been happy even in the midst of suffering. But in the narratives of the evangelists we find only the impression that he was filled with sorrow. From the time of the agony in the garden (see Matt. 26:37) till the last cry on the cross, this cloud was not lifted. On the way to Calvary, together with his sorrow for the people who "knew not what they did" --who were now as ready to mock and revile him as they were only a short time before to joyfully acclaim him--there must have been a deeper burden of sadness for his base betrayal and for his utter desertion by all of his panic-stricken disciples, even by Peter, that weighed down at every step. Yet, wounded, bleeding, and subjected to the worst indignities, he bore it all without a murmur even while his heart was breaking. He was sustained by the sense of his high mission and bore his suffering with such fortitude that even his enemies remarked it (Luke 23:47). Thus, to the last moments of his earthly life, he was "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief."
Both were guilty, although the onus of the malevolent persecution of Christ rests with the Jews. When they brought him before Pilate and that official, although representing the power of Rome, and even admitting that he could "find no fault" in Jesus weakly yielded to the fanatical clamor for the sacrifice, he became a principal with a full share of responsibility for the tragedy that followed. A stronger man, backed by the Roman authority and convinced of the injustice of the mob's demand, would have resolutely refused to permit the innocent to suffer. History is full of passages recording the nobility and justice of men whose firmness checked the commission of crimes in the name of law. Roman justice, even in that day, was proverbial. It was therefore the duty of Pilate to have executed justice as Governor of Judea. When he had examined Christ and declared that he "found no fault in him" (John 19:6), and again when he declined to acknowledge responsibility for the "blood of this just person," he was pledged by his judicial oaths to execute not injustice in obedience to clamor, but justice, even in the face of the whole Jewish nation. Roman laws governed Judea; the native laws, secular and ecclesiastical, could only be recognized and enforced where they did not conflict with those of Rome. Pilate stifled the voice of conscience, set aside the result of his judicial inquiry, disregarded the warning of his wife, and basely consented to a murder in obedience to Jewish clamor. The priests, it is true never wavered in their demand for the Saviour's death, and even warned Pilate that if he refused to order the execution he would not be Caesar's friend. This touched the Governor's weak point: his ambition. To stand well with Caesar he gratified the populace and ordered his troops to carry out their wishes.
There are various legends and traditions concerning Pilate's further history. The Acta Pillati, an apocryphal work still extant, contains some of these. One tradition is to the effect that the Emperor Tiberius, alarmed at the universal darkness which had suddenly fallen on his empire upon the day of the crucifixion, summoned Pilate to Rome to answer for having caused it Pilate was condemned to death, but pleaded ignorance as his excuse. His wife died at the moment of his execution. Another tradition is that Tiberius, having heard of Christ's miracles, wrote to Pilate bidding him send Jesus to Rome. Pilate was compelled to confess that he had crucified him, and was thrown into prison and committed suicide. Earth and sea refused to receive his body, and it was repeatedly cast up, finally being sunk in a pool at Lucerne, under the shadow of Mount Pilatus. Josephus, the Jewish historian (in Antiquities, 18 chap. 4:1), states authoritatively that Pilate met with political disaster. The Samaritans complained against him to Vitellius, president of Syria, who sent Pilate to Rome to answer to Caligula, the successor of Tiberius, and he soon afterward killed himself. The scene of this act is uncertain.
Yes, as Pilate told Jesus (John 19:10), he had power to release him. His difficulty lay in his own bad record. If he refused to oblige the Jews in this matter, they might go to Rome and accuse him before the Emperor of many acts of misgovernment. It would have done him no harm for them to complain of his letting Jesus go. In that matter, his defense that the prisoner was innocent, would have been sufficient. But they would probably say nothing about Jesus; they would bring charges against him for which he had no defense and he would lose his office. He concluded that he could not afford to set them at defiance, although he ought to have done so.
Christ had done many miracles, as when he healed the blind, stilled the storm and raised the dead. His remark to Peter (Matt 26:53) that his Father would give him twelve legions of angels if he asked for deliverance, showed that he believed he could be delivered if he wished. The only reason why he had no desire to come down from the cross was that love of the human race held him there. He knew that his voluntary sacrifice was essential to the great atonement for the sins of the world. He had foreseen his own death on the cross and on several occasions had spoken of it
Ten: (1) Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18; (2) Matt 28:8-10; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:9-11; (3) Luke 24:34; (4) Mark 16:12,13; Luke 24:13-35; (5) Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23; (6) John 20:24-29; (7) Matt 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; (8) John 21:1-24; (9) Matt. 28:16; (10) Acts 1:3-8.
The question has often been asked, but never satisfactorily answered. We must conclude, in the absence of any Scriptural statement about the garments, that they belonged to that strange mysterious life on which Christ entered when he rose from the dead. That they were not of the ordinary materials seems clear from the Gospel narratives, which represent Christ as "vanishing out of their sight" (Luke 24:31), appearing among his disciples in a room the doors of which were shut (John 20:19), and being seen now at Jerusalem, now at Emmaus, and in Galilee, at least forty miles distant. Whatever the garments were, and wheresoever they came from, they were clearly not of the substantial kind, which would have prevented these disappearances.
The language of Luke 24:39 is clear and explicit. The resurrection body proved that Jesus was "the Son of God with power" in taking to himself the same identical body which had been crucified and laid in the grave, and yet which had been glorified "by some such inscrutable change as took place at the transfiguration." The very fact attests him as the Master of life and death and as divine. He continued forty days on earth after the resurrection, taking again to himself that life which he had laid down, in order that his followers and the whole world might be convinced of the completeness of his triumph over the grave and that he had not "seen corruption." He ascended to heaven a spiritual body. (Phil. 3:21, Col. 3:4.)
In Matthew 12:40 he said that he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The passage has long perplexed Biblical students. The most probable explanation is that Christ adopted a mode of expression common among the Jews, and said that he should be in the grave three "evening-mornings," which the translators rendered three days and nights. The Jews also had a rule, of which there are several examples in other parts of the Bible, that any part of the onah, or period, counted as the whole. Thus the interval between the crucifixion and the burial on the Friday would be part of Friday, and would count as one "evening-morning"; from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday would count as the second; and from Saturday sunset to the resurrection on Sunday morning as the third. The disciples evidently regarded the Sunday as the third day, as is seen by the conversation on the way to Emmaus, when Cleopas said: "This is the third day since these things were done." (Luke 24:21.) Professor Wescott, a great New Testament scholar and one of the editors of the most widely used text of the Greek New Testament, held the view that crucifixion and burial occurred on Thursday; but practically every other authority disagrees with him. The celebration of Friday as the day of our Lord's death and burial dates back to extremely early times in Church history. It is true that the expression "three days and three nights" in the passage you mention sounds very emphatic to our Western ears, accustomed to the sharp distinction conveyed by the words in our time and speech. But, as Dr. Whedon comments here, "the Jews reckoned the entire twenty-four hours in an unbroken piece as a night-and-day. They counted the odd fragment of a day, in computation, as an entire night-and-day. Our Lord, therefore, was dead during three night-and-days."
That is the opinion of many who have written on the subject, physicians included. It is certain that the Crucifixion did not kill him, as that was a death by exhaustion. Jesus was not exhausted, for we are told (Matt. 27:50) that he "cried with a loud voice" when he yielded up the ghost. The fact that when the soldier pierced his side there came thereout blood and water (John 19:34) indicates, according to eminent surgeons, that the heart was ruptured. The most probable way of accounting for the blood and water flowing from a wound in the side of a dead body is that the spear pierced the pericardium--or sac which contains the heart--which would contain blood and water if the heart were ruptured. The severe strain in the Garden the night before, the intensity of which was indicated by a sweat of blood, probably prepared the physical nature of Jesus for the sudden collapse, which caused Pilate to "marvel that he was dead already." (Mark 15:44.)
When the soldiers cast lot for the Saviour's garment (John 19:24) they had no design to fulfill a prediction of the Old Testament. They had probably never heard of the prophecy. They simply perceived that if they tore the garment into four pieces they would spoil it, and it would be of no value. It was the most natural course for such men to cast lots for it The evangelist, in writing that it was done "that the Scripture might be fulfilled" meant that in God's providence the fulfillment took place. The soldiers were unconsciously doing the thing that it was predicted they would do. John was anxious to show that Christ was the predicted Messiah, and he mentions this incident to show that the details of the prophetic writings were fulfilled in him.
It was not a time for the old familiar greeting or handclaspings. He had not come to renew the former human associations with his followers. A great change had taken place. The crown of his life-work was not yet complete. He must show himself in his resurrected body to his disciples before he ascends to the Father. Mary evidently comprehended the significance of the change and went and told the disciples.
The visible resurrection was essential as a demonstration of his victory over death. The facts of the ascension are so well authenticated in numerous passages, that they are accepted by all denominations of the Christian Church. It was a bodily ascension, visible to the multitudes, as far as human eye could penetrate. What change may have occurred in the spiritualizing of his body, in its preparation for his place on God's right hand, we may only conjecture. The best commentators hold that "though Christ rose with the same body in which he died, it acquired, either at his resurrection or at his ascension, and without the loss of identity, the attributes of a spiritual body, as distinguished from a natural body; of an incorruptible, as distinguished from a corruptible, body." See Phil. 3:21; Col 3:4.
He was altogether lovely, Song of Solomon 5:16; holy, righteous, good, faithful, true, just, guileless and sinless, spotless, innocent, harmless (Luke 1:35; Acts 4:27; Is. 53:11; Matt. 19:16; Is. 11:5; John 1:14; John 7:18; Zec. 9:9; John 5:30; Is. 53:9; I Pet. 2:22; John 8:46; I Pet. 1:19; Matt. 27:4.). He was forgiving, Luke 23:34; merciful, Heb. 2:17, and loving, John 13:1, 15:13; compassionate and benevolent, Is. 40:11; Luke 19:41; Matt. 4:23,24; Acts 10:38. He was meek, lowly in heart; patient, humble and long suffering, Matt 11:29, 27:14; I Tim. 1:16; Luke 22:27. Though zealous, he was resigned, resisted temptation and was obedient to God the Father, even as he had been subject to his parents in his youth (Luke 2:49, 22:42; John 4:34, 15:10; Luke 2:57).
It is held that Jesus, in applying to himself the title Son of Man, intended to emphasize his humanity and his representative character. The Jews were looking for a Messiah who would raise Israel to the head of the nations; Jesus wished to impress the disciples with the fact that he was representative of the whole human race and not of the Jews only. Then, too, to have spoken openly of himself as the Son of God would have been at once to exasperate the Jews and bring upon himself a charge of blasphemy, as in the end it did (see John 10:36). The title, Son of Man, was not open to that danger, as it was expressive of lowliness, humility and identification with humanity. In using it, however, Jesus did not withdraw his claim to be the Son of God. When the High Priest put him on his oath (see Matt. 26:63-65) he acknowledged that he was the Son of God.
