Horæ Apostolicæ

[Resource Manager]

No. II.

 

The narrative agrees with the epistles in representing the resurrection of the Lord Jesus as the foundation of the church, and the subject of distinct testimony by the apostles before Saul’s conversion, and from the very year and month of its occurrence.

 

First, in the choice of a new apostle in the place of Judas, this is mentioned to have been the very purpose of the ap­pointment. “Of these men which have Companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, .... must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his re­surrection.”

 

Next, it is a main subject of the first discourse of Peter on the day of Pentecost. “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.—He, seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.”

 

In the second discourse, on the healing of the cripple in the temple, this testimony is equally prominent. “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. . . Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”

 

This truth appeal’s again in the defence before the council. “By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye cruci­fied, whom God raised from the dead even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.”

 

It appears again in the summary of the apostolic teaching after their dismissal. “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.”

 

Once more, it appears in the second defence before the Sadducees, the great deniers of the resurrection. “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour.”

 

Last of all, it appears in the words of Stephen, in the very hour of his death. “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”

 

It is needless to continue the quotations further, as they now become contemporary with St Paul’s own testimony, whose conversion is related soon after.

[Resource Manager]

No. III.

 

The history, like the letters, affirms that Jesus was born of the seed of David; but it also states that his mother survived the time of the resurrection, while it never alludes to any earthly father, and thus agrees with the view implied in the letters, and distinctly taught in the gospels, of his miraculous birth from a virgin mother.

 

Acts 1:14. “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.”

 

Ch. 2:30. “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he (David) seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ . . This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.”

 

Ch. 13:22,23. “And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king. . . Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.”

[Resource Manager]

No. IV.

 

In the history we are further taught that the home of Jesus was at Nazareth, that his teaching was mainly in Galilee, and that it was preceded by the ministry of John the Baptist, his forerunner.

 

The name, Jesus of Nazareth, occurs six times in the history (2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 26:9). The first and third instances are found in the discourses of Peter on the day of Pentecost, and before the Sanhedrim; the second in the cure of the impotent man at the gate of the temple; the fourth in the accusation against Stephen; and the two others in the discourses of St. Paul, first before the Jews, and afterwards before Festus and Agrippa. The same fact appears in another form in the words of Tertullus, when he styles the apostle “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.”

 

That the apostles were Galilæans is taught by the language ascribed to the angels at the ascension, and of the Jews on the day of Pentecost. And that the teaching of Jesus was chiefly in Galilee appears from the words of Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:37).

 

That our Lord was preceded by John the Baptist as his forerunner is no where affirmed by the historian in his own person, except in chap. 18:25, where he says of Apollos, that “he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, know­ing only the baptism of John.” Yet it is remarkable in how many ways the same truth is indirectly affirmed. First, in the parting promise of Christ: “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Next, in the rule prescribed by Peter for the choice of an apostle: “Beginning from the baptism of John .... must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” Thirdly, in the discourse to Cornelius; “That word ye know, which was published throughout all Judæa, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached.” Fourthly, in the speech of Paul in the synagogue at Antioch: “When John had first preached before his coming the bap­tism of repentance to all the people of Israel.” It is here even joined with some particulars of John’s teaching: “And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.” Fifthly, in his conversation with the disciples at Ephesus: “Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”

[Resource Manager]

No. V.

 

The history not only implies in every part, but openly asserts in two passages, that the Lord Jesus wrought many miracles during his ministry before his resurrection.

 

The first statement is found in the discourse of Peter on the day of Pentecost: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.” There is here a double assertion, not only of the fact itself but that it was public and notorious.

 

The next is in the address to Cornelius: “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem.”

 

That only two such passages are found in the whole history, although these miracles are evidently presupposed in every part, is another mark of reality. While signs and wonders were wrought continually by the apostles themselves, and the resurrection was the distinguishing glory of the Lord Jesus, and the communication of these miraculous powers to his followers, rather than their personal exercise, it is natural that his own miracles should be mentioned only in such an his­torical review as Peter gave to Cornelius, or to the multitudes at Jerusalem.    Now the epistles contain no example of such a historical retrospect of events earlier than the crucifixion and the last supper, and hence it is quite natural that no such express averment should be found in them. Yet the fact of these miracles is plainly implied in every part of the history, as well as of the letters, since the miracles of the apostles themselves are said to be wrought, not by their own power, but by the power and in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[Resource Manager]

No. VI.

 

The book of Acts agrees with the epistles in fixing the number of the apostles at twelve, and in assigning a priority to three of the number, Peter, James, and John. For though the elder James has the second place in the list, given at first, it is plain that after bis death the other James is the only one, besides Peter and John, who is named at all in the history. But besides this entire agreement with the conclu­sions brought us by the letters, the history proceeds further, and gives us the names and order of all the twelve, in entire harmony with the three earlier gospels.

 

Acts 1:13. “And when they were come in, they went up into an upper chamber, where both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.”

 

Ver. 17. “For he (Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus) was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.”

 

The history teaches us further, that these twelve had Com­panied with Jesus from the very time of John the Baptist’s ministry. The gospels affirm this plainly of six out of the whole number, and place the ordination of the whole number before the time of the Baptist’s death.

[Resource Manager]

No. VII.

 

The book of Acts affirms many other particulars respecting our Lord, which are contained in the four gospels, and form together a main element of the Gospel history.

 

1st. That our Lord appeared repeatedly after his resur­rection, through a space of forty days, and ate and drank with the apostles, Acts 1:3, 4; 10:41; 13:31. Indeed the length of this interval is specified here only; but the gospels evi­dently require one of three weeks at the least.

 

2nd. That our Lord ascended from the neighbourhood of Bethany, or some part of the Mount of Olives, and was taken up into heaven, Acts 1:9-12.

 

3rd. That several women, including the mother of Jesus, had accompanied our Lord from Galilee to Jerusalem, Acts 1:14; 13:31.

 

4th. That Judas, one of the twelve, betrayed the Lord Jesus, and was a guide to those who took him, and died soon after in remorse by a violent death, so that a well-known field at Jerusalem derived its name from the event, and was called, “The field of blood,” Acts 1:16, 19.

 

5th. That our Lord’s death was at or near the time of the Jewish passover. This appears from the history by plain inference; for we are told that our Lord rose the third day, that he was seen forty days by the apostles, that the baptism of the Spirit was to be not many days after his ascension, and that it took place on the day of Pentecost. Assuming ten days for the interval, which is indeterminate, the death of our Lord would fell on the very day of the passover.

 

6th. That Pilate had determined to release Jesus, and was only prevented from so doing by the hatred and obsti­nacy of the Jewish rulers, Acts 3:13. That, while they publicly rejected Christ, they desired as a favour the acquittal of a murderer in his stead, ver. 14.

 

7th. That not only Pilate, but also Herod, and Jews and Gentiles alike, had some active share in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, Acts 4:27.

 

8th. That our Lord rose again the third day, and appeared afterwards, not to all the people, but only to chosen witnesses, and especially to the apostles, Acts 10:40, 41.

 

9th. That our Lord, before he ascended, promised to send down the Spirit upon his followers before they left Jerusalem, Acts 11:16.

 

10th. That the Pharisees and the Sadducees were the two leading sects among the Jews, of whom the Sadducees denied a resurrection, while the Pharisees and the great body of the nation fully believed in it, Acts 23:7, 8; 24:15; 26:6,7.

 

11th. That it was predicted of the Christ that he would suffer death, and be the first to rise from the dead, and after­wards become a light of the Gentile nations, Acts 26:23.

[Resource Manager]

No. VIII.

 

There are a few general remarks, which are naturally sug­gested by this review of the testimony contained in the book of Acts to the gospel history.

 

And first, nearly all the facts which the epistles announce respecting our Lord’s personal history are confirmed by the book of Acts; while not one contradiction, even in appearance, exists between them.

 

Secondly, since it is a direct narrative, and mounts twenty years higher than the letters, as far back as to the time of the ascension, the book of Acts reveals many other particulars which do not appear in the letters. Such are the names of the other nine apostles, besides Peter, James, and John, the interval from the resurrection to the ascension, the name of our Lord’s mother, his residence at Nazareth, the baptism of John, and the continuance of his disciples more than twenty years after the crucifixion, the treachery of Judas and his fearful end, the concurrence of Herod and Pilate in our Lord’s death, the desire of Pilate for his release and the opposition of the Jews, the scene of the ascension, and the conversation of Christ with the apostles after his resurrection.

 

Thirdly, all these facts, which are contained in the book of Acts, appear again in the four gospels, but with still more copious details. There is no appearance of contradiction, although there are several points where the coincidence is only indirect. Such is the exact length of the interval from the resurrection to the ascension, the end of Judas after his treachery, and the circumstances relating to the field of blood, the exact place of the ascension, the course of our Lord’s ministry, beginning in Galilee and closing at Jerusalem, and the upper room where the apostles were assembled at the day of Pentecost. There is here exactly the gradation which we should naturally expect in a direct narrative of our Lord’s life, a narrative of events beginning at its close, where some re­trospective allusions would be sure to occur, and a series of letters, of which the earliest is more than twenty years later, yet all of them alike based upon the certain truth of a public and notorious history.

 

Finally, these retrospective allusions, while they include all the main elements of the gospel history, are so imbedded in the narrative, and are presented in such various forms, that they cannot be set aside without a rejection of the whole nar­rative. Some of them occur in the statements of the historian himself; but others in the discourse of Peter after the ascen­sion, others on the day of Pentecost, others in the address to Cornelius, others in the discourse of Paul at Antioch, and others in the history of his stay at Ephesus, and others, finally, in his defence before Agrippa. The woof of Divine truth is so skilfully woven, that the attempt to get rid of one thread can only succeed by a desperate determination to sacri­fice the whole. The epistles and the Acts, by mutual com­parison, prove their own truth and authenticity, and then, by their joint allusions, they establish the main facts of the evan­gelical narrative, before we enter on the internal testimony of the gospels themselves.

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER III.

 

THE INTERNAL COINCIDENCE OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

 

The allusions in the book of Acts and in the epistles of St. Paul, it has now been clearly shown, establish the truth of the main outlines of the Gospel history. To complete the line of reasoning adopted in the “Horæ Paulinæ,” we should now consider the undesigned coincidences in the four gospels them­selves. This inquiry, however, to be pursued thoroughly, would require a distinct work, and a full investigation of their probable dates, their mutual relations to each other, the proper mode of harmonizing their narratives, and the other main questions which have occupied harmonists and critics in every age of the church until now. In this closing chapter a few only of those coincidences will be selected which are most capable of a separate exhibition, apart from all deeper research into the order and connexion of the whole evangelical history. It will merely be assumed that the fourth gospel, of St. John, was composed later than the others, and that these were in existence before the latest epistles of St. Paul were written.

[Resource Manager]

No. I.

 

Matt. 8:16. “When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick.”

 

There is here no reason assigned why the sick were not, on this occasion, brought to Jesus until the evening. On turn­ing, however, to the narrative in the other gospels, Mark 1:32; Luke 4:40, 41, this reason is apparent. We are told that on the sabbath day Jesus entered into the synagogue at Caper­naum, and taught; that immediately on leaving it he entered into the house of Simon, and it was the very same evening on which this crowd of applicants for mercy were gathered at the door. Now from Matt. 12:10, it also appears that the opinion was common among the Jews, that it was not lawful to heal on the sabbath day. We have thus a clear reason why the people waited until the evening, but one of which no trace exists in Matthew’s narrative, taken alone.

[Resource Manager]

No. II.

 

Matt. 10:2. “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphæus, and Lebbæus, whose surname was Thaddæus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”

 

In the two other gospels, the seventh and eighth names occur in a different order. Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, where the distinctive title, the publican, is also wanting. The whole list is composed of six pairs of names, the order of which seems to have been determined by the order of their call, whether to be disciples or apostles. Matthew places his own name second in the pair to which it belongs, and adds the offensive epithet, the publican. Mark and Luke, on the contrary, place his name before that of his comrade, and withhold the title which he himself has added in a feeling of humility. This minute difference is naturally explained by the modesty of the evangelist, and thus becomes a pledge for the genuineness of the whole Gospel where it appears. 

[Resource Manager]

No. III.

 

The four gospels, without any direct assertion, lead us to the same conclusion, that Joseph was dead before our Lord’s ministry began.    This will appear by collating the passages.

 

John 2:1, 2, 12. “And the third day there was a mar­riage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.— After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.”

 

Matt 12:46,48. “While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?”

 

Ch. 13:55, 56. “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?”

 

Mark 3:31. “There came then his brethren and his mother, and standing without, sent unto him, calling him.”

 

Ch. 6:3. “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?”

 

Luke 8:10. “Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.”

 

John 19:25. “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that dis­ciple took her unto his own home.”

 

There is thus no mention of the presence of Joseph at the feast in Cana, or the return to Capernaum, during the message of our Lord’s relatives, the visit to Nazareth, or the cruci­fixion. All the four narratives agree, indirectly, in leading to the same conclusion, that the death of Joseph was earlier than our Lord’s ministry. This agreement is unlikely to have oc­curred in fictitious narratives, and is therefore one mark, in the gospels, of their historical reality.

[Resource Manager]

No. IV.

 

Matt. 13:2. “And great multitudes were gathered to­gether unto him, so that he went into the ship (τὸ πλοῖον) and sat.”

 

The meaning of the definite article in this passage is so far from being evident, that our translators have omitted it entirely. No ship has been mentioned in this context, to which it can be referred. How, then, can the peculiar expression be accounted for?

 

On turning to the Gospel of St. Mark, not in the parallel passage, but somewhat earlier, we meet with a simple expla­nation in these words: “And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multi­tude, lest they should throng him,” 3:9. It is plain that this ship or boat, provided expressly for such a purpose, would be familiar to the thoughts of the apostle, and hence we may explain the force of the phrase, “he entered into the ship, and sat”

 

The same explanation will equally apply to Matt. 14:22, where the same expression recurs: “And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into the ship (εἰς τὸ πλοῖον), and to go before him to the other side, while he sent the mul­titudes away.”

 

This coincidence, from its very minuteness, depending merely on the insertion of the article, is so much the more unsuspicious and complete.

[Resource Manager]

No. V.

 

In each gospel an account is given of the miracle of the five thousand. We are told also, in every case, that the disciples took up twelve baskets of fragments. Matt. 14:20; Mark 6:43; Luke 9:17; John 6:13. In every gospel, also, these baskets are termed cophini (δώδεκα κοφίνους πλήρεις).

 

The similar miracle of the four thousand is recorded only by St. Matthew and St. Mark, who state that the disciples took up seven baskets of fragments. Here, however, a dif­ferent term is employed, and in each gospel the baskets are called spyrides, Matt. 15:37; Mark 8:8 (ἑπτὰ σπυρίδας).

 

Now it is remarkable that, when our Saviour rebukes his disciples, after crossing from Dalmanutha, the same distinc­tion is accurately observed, Matt. 16:9, 10; Mark 8:19,  20.

 

“Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? (πόσους κοφίνους ἐλάβετε;). Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets (σπυρίδας) ye took up?”

 

“When I brake the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets (κοφίνους) full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets (σπυρίδας) full of fragments took ye up?    And they said, Seven.    And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?”

 

From the word σπυρις being used, Acts 9:25, where Paul was let down in a basket by the wall of Damascus, it is natural to infer that it denotes baskets of a large size. The cophini, being twelve, might, perhaps, be the provision baskets of the apostles. But whatever was the exact nature of the distinction, the constant mention of cophini in reference to one miracle, and of spyrides in connexion with the other, is a minute and striking evidence of historical reality, and proves how the details of each event were fixed in the memory of the apostles.

[Resource Manager]

No. VI.

 

John 6:5. “When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great multitude come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not suf­ficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.”

 

This apostle is never once named, in the first three gospels, as having any special question put to him, or taking part in the conversation of our Lord, and only once beside in the Gospel of St. John. Why should the question now be ad­dressed to him rather than the others? The passage itself offers no key to the incident, and we might readily suppose that it was an accidental circumstance.

 

Let us turn to St. Luke 9:10, where the same miracle is recorded, and we find this further circumstance mentioned, which fixes the scene of the miracle. “And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.” The miracle is then said to have been wrought at the close of that very day.

 

If now we turn once more to St. John’s Gospel, we find in the first chapter this passing intimation, “Now Philip was of Bethsaida, from the city of Andrew and Peter.” Two different prepositions are here used, one of which seems to denote the birthplace, and the other the usual abode. Hence the meaning seems to be that Philip, though a native of Caper­naum, was an inhabitant of Bethsaida. It is thus explained why our Lord should address the inquiry to him rather than the others.    They were in a desert place, belonging to Bethsaida; and hence Philip was more likely than any of the rest to know where a supply of provisions might possibly be found.

 

One doubt, however, still remains. There were two Beth-saidas near the sea of Tiberias, some have even supposed a third. For this last opinion, however, there is no evidence, and it has arisen only from a misconstruction of this very passage. Many have thought that the scene of the miracle was Bethsaida-Julias, to the north-east of the lake. If so, the coincidence would be deceptive, since Philip belonged to Bethsaida of Galilee, John 12:21.

 

There are conclusive reasons, which forbid us to place the scene in the neighbourhood of Julias. The suburbs of one of the largest cities near the lake would be ill suited for the purpose of retirement. The course of the disciples on their return is also inconsistent with such a view of the locality. They crossed over towards Bethsaida, while the route from Julias to Capernaum would not bring them near to Bethsaida of Galilee.

 

One easy supposition removes all difficulty, and maintains the reality of the coincidence. Capernaum, Bethsaida, Cho-razin were fishing towns on the west of the lake, and would very likely have separate districts belonging to them on the opposite side, for the convenience of the crews in their frequent short voyages across the lake. If the miracle occurred in such a district belonging to Bethsaida of Galilee, and lying opposite to it on the further side of the lake, the whole becomes con­sistent and natural, and the appeal to Philip, as an inhabitant of Bethsaida, and acquainted with its localities, retains its strict propriety.

[Resource Manager]

No. VII.

 

John 6:24. “When the people saw therefore that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.”

 

The surprise of the people at not finding Jesus is easily explained, since they saw that he had not entered the ship, and no other vessel was near, until the arrival of the other boats from Tiberias, early the next morning. But why should they expect the disciples to be there, whom they had seen embark the evening before? An answer is found in St. Mark’s Gospel.  When Jesus came to them in the fourth watch, “he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary.” With a stormy and adverse wind, that lasted until three or four in the morning, it was very natural to suppose that the disciples would have put back again, and be found along with Jesus on the eastern shore.

[Resource Manager]

No. VIII.

 

John 18:36. “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.”

 

Why did not the adversaries of our Lord mention the fact, that one of his followers had really fought, and wounded a servant of the high priest? Their silence, if we consider only their eager malice, might seem unaccountable, and a kinsman of Malchus was present at the trial. But the Gospel of St. Luke solves the difficulty. As soon as the blow was struck, Jesus had said, “Suffer ye thus far: and he touched his ear, and healed him.” Any reference to Peter’s offence would thus have brought to light the Divine power of the Lord, as well as his innocence, and have turned to their own confusion.

 

But further, these words of Christ do really allude to that event, although the allusion is so delicate as to be entirely lost in the usual version; for their precise meaning, if we observe the tense of the original Greek, seems to be, “Then would my servants have gone on fighting (ἠγωνίζοντοἂν), that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” The form of the phrase is clearly retrospective, and the use of the imperfect, instead of the aorist, implies continuance. So that our Lord really ap­peals to that very act of forbearance by which he had arrested the hasty zeal of his followers, while he manifested his Divine power in healing the servant whom they had wounded. No allusion could be more delicate and unobtrusive, or afford a clearer sign of historical reality.

[Resource Manager]

No. IX.

 

Matt. 4:11,12,17. “Now when Jesus had heard that John was delivered up, he departed into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum.....From that  time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the king­dom of heaven is at hand.”

 

John 3:22-24. “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judæa; and there he tarried with them and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Æon near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison.”

 

John 4:1,2. “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that; Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples), he left Judæa, and departed again into Galilee.”

 

In the “Leben Jesu,” by Dr. Strauss, these passages are re­ferred to as a pattern of those direct and positive contradic­tions, which prove the gospels to be mythical and not his­torical. “One gospel,” it is said, “represents the first appear­ance of Jesus in Galilee as subsequent to the imprisonment of John the Baptist; whilst another remarks, long after Jesus had preached both in Galilee and Judæa, that ‘John was not yet cast into prison.’”

 

Now, in reality, this alleged contradiction is a most beau­tiful example of undesigned and perfect harmony, and a con­vincing pledge of the historical fidelity of both the gospels.

 

And, first, the contradiction is produced by a double mis­statement of what the gospels really affirm. St. Matthew tells us that, after John’s imprisonment, Jesus returned into Galilee; but there is not one word about its being his first appearance in the province. On the contrary, he represents him to have resided there for nearly thirty years previously, and there is nothing in the passage which forbids us to sup­pose a previous return thither after his baptism, if not attended with a course of public preaching. On the other hand, St. John does not assert any public ministry of Christ in Galilee before John’s imprisonment. All that he records is a single miracle in a private festival, and a stay, apparently of a very few days, before the first passover.

 

If we examine the passages more closely, their mutual har­mony will become very conspicuous.

 

1. First, St. Matthew tells us that our Lord’s return to Galilee was in consequence of the tidings having first reached him that John had been cast into prison. Now since he states that our Lord’s home was Nazareth, there is here im­plied, though in a most indirect manner, some previous stay in Judæa, besides what was required by the fact of his bap­tism. The most natural implication will be, that he had begun his ministry in Judæa; but that the imprisonment of John being a signal of danger if he should continue there any longer, he transferred it to Galilee. Now this obscure inti­mation of St. Matthew is precisely what we find confirmed by the Gospel of St. John, which states a previous exercise of our Lord’s ministry in Judæa, before John’s imprisonment.

 

2. Two returns into Galilee are specified in St. John’s Gospel, 1:43; 4:43-45. The first question is, which of these answers to the description of St. Matthew. Now even apart from the reference to John’s imprisonment, it is only the second, not the first, which fulfils the description. For, after the return in Matthew, our Lord began at once a course of public teaching in Galilee, and a circuit of the whole province. But nothing of the kind appears after the first return in St. John’s Gospel. On the contrary, his stay is expressly said to have been “not many days,” and no act of public teaching is expressed, or even implied. On the contrary, it is evidently taught us that our Lord delayed the commencement of his public ministry till he could open it with more solemnity at Jerusalem, at the feast of the passover.

[Resource Manager]

3. Let us now examine the statement of the later gospel, that “John was not yet cast into prison.” Here it is plainly implied that the imprisonment took place soon after, and that, without such a cautionary remark, the readers might naturally have supposed it was already begun. The words are evi­dently inserted as a parenthesis, to remove a probable mis­apprehension from their minds. Now whence could that impression have arisen, which alone rendered the cautionary remark necessary? Plainly, from the three earlier gospels, which mention no public ministry of our Lord until after John’s imprisonment was begun. The words are, therefore, a tacit intimation of St. John to his readers, that his narrative is here a supplement to the other gospels, and relates to an earlier part of our Lord’s ministry which they had not recorded. If this earlier ministry, however, had been placed in Galilee, it would have contradicted their statements; but since the scene as well as the time was different, instead of a contradic­tion, it is a coincidence, and illustrates the force of their state­ment, that John’s imprisonment was the signal for our Lord’s departure into Galilee.

 

4. There is still one point of divergence in the two gospels which needs explanation. According to St Matthew, it was the tidings of John’s imprisonment which occasioned  the return of Jesus into Galilee. According to St. John, it was his knowledge that the Pharisees had heard of his popularity, and that he was making and baptizing more disciples than John. There is here a very near approach to a contradiction, which only illustrates more strikingly the truth and accuracy of both evangelists. Mr. Greswell infers, from John 4:1, that the Baptist was not imprisoned when our Lord set out from Judæa; and from the other gospels, that he was imprisoned before the arrival in Galilee, and hence places it during the stay of two days in Samaria. This, however, creates a real contra­diction, since Matthew affirms that Jesus had heard of the imprisonment before he departed into Galilee. On the other hand, the words John 4:1, are most naturally understood of a report that both Jesus and John were baptizing, with this only difference, that the followers of Jesus were more numerous than those of John. How, then, shall this partial discre­pancy be reconciled, and the two accounts be shown to agree?

 

The solution, on close inquiry, is very simple. Our Lord and the Baptist were alike baptizing at the Jordan, and not far from each other. The tidings of the imprisonment would, therefore, reach our Lord, it is most likely, in a single day. Machærus, where John was confined, is close to that part of Jordan which borders on the land of Judæa. Hence the tidings would reach our Lord either on the same, or at furthest on the following day. But the Pharisees, to whom allusion is made, are evidently the ruling party of the Jews in the sanhedrim at Jerusalem. The increase of our Lord’s popu­larity was gradual, though rapid. The whole continuance of his ministry in Judæa did not probably exceed two months; and it would only be during the last two or three weeks that it would be likely to have surpassed the ministry of John in the numbers who followed it. Three days would; probably, be required for tidings from Ænon, where John was bap­tizing, so that the comparison could be fully made. And hence it is probable that the report of our Lord’s superior popularity would have ripened into full conviction in the minds of the Pharisees only for ten days or a fortnight before John’s im­prisonment. That event, as soon as it was known, would concentrate all their opposition upon Jesus himself, already become the more dangerous adversary, and would thus be a motive for his removal, not so much in itself, as on account of the fresh impetus which it would give to their malicious oppo­sition. Thus the two circumstances will agree perfectly in respect of time, while the statement of St. John is a supple­ment to that of St. Matthew, in the key which it supplies to the motives of our Lord. In fact, if his chief danger were from Herod, it is strange that he should remove out of Judæa, which was not subject to his power, into Galilee, which was the chief part of his tetrarchy. But the words of St. John remove the difficulty. It was not Herod himself who was the source of danger, but the jealousy of the Pharisees, already awakened by his growing popularity, and sure to be concen­trated upon him, now that the Baptist was put out of the way.

[Resource Manager]

No. X.

 

John 4:43,44. “Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee. For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.”

 

Luke 4:23,24. “And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy coun­try. And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.”

 

Matt. 13:57. “And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.”

 

The harmony between these passages, in their report of our Lord’s own saying, is direct and simple; but, for this very reason, forms no part of the present argument. It is their difficulties and apparent obscurities which really furnish us with a most convincing proof of their historical reality.

 

And first, the statement in St. Luke belongs to our Lord’s visit to Nazareth, before he went down to Capernaum, and there began his public ministry. It thus appears to involve a strange oversight and complete anachronism; for if our Lord had not yet removed to Capernaum, or opened his public ministry, which seems to have begun in his own city by that solemn appeal to prophecy, how could the Nazarenes make that appeal to him, “Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.”

 

Now here the Gospel of St. John supplies an indirect but complete answer.    We are there told that our Lord returned first to Cana in Galilee; that while at Cana, a nobleman of Capernaum came to him and entreated that he would heal his son; that the cure was wrought by Jesus, without his going to that city in person, and led to the conversion of the whole household. Here, then, was a cure wrought in Capernaum, even before Jesus himself had taken up his residence in that city, exactly of the kind which might elicit the request of the Nazarenes; for it was plainly a miracle of healing which they demanded from him.

 

Another difficulty is found in the passage of St. John’s Gospel. For since our Lord dwelt at Nazareth, and this is always called his own country in the other gospels, how could this saying of Christ explain his removal into Galilee? Here most commentators have felt some perplexity. They suppose, in general, that there is a tacit allusion to the particular part of Galilee, to which our Lord returned, as if the ellipsis were to be supplied— “not, however, to Nazareth, but to Cana and Caper­naum.” The adage is then applied in both cases to the very same circumstance, the removal from Nazareth to some other part of Galilee. But the ellipsis is most harsh and unnatural; for the remark occurs upon the mention of the province, and not of the particular town to which he returned. Had such been the meaning of the writer, he would surely have arranged his statement differently. “Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee. And he came again to Cana, where he made the water wine. For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.” But since he has not adopted this order, we may fairly reject the explanation as strained and unnatural.

 

We are thus thrown back upon a much simpler inter­pretation, where all is consistent; that Judæa, in the view of the evangelist, was our Lord’s own country, and in this respect the most natural scene of his ministry. Now this is in entire agreement with the facts, though not with the phraseology, of the other gospels; for, according to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born at Bethlehem of Judæa, and was of the royal lineage of David. According to St. Matthew, the return to Nazareth, after the visit of the magi, was by a Divine admonition, to avoid the danger of a longer continuance at Bethlehem, the natural home of the promised Son of David. Hence it is plain that Judæa, in contrast with Galilee, was our Lord’s natural home and proper country; though, from his later residence there, Nazareth was his own country, in contrast to every other part of Galilee.

 

Now the passage, when thus explained (and no other ex­planation is consistent with the plain meaning of the words), becomes a remarkable example of undesigned coincidence. For this gospel, though it states the difficulties and objections of the Jews, because of our Lord’s supposed birth-place at Nazareth, and home in Galilee, does not state any where his true birth-place, or the tribe to which he belonged. The use of the phrase, “his own country,” as applied to Judæa, though fully justified by the facts in the other gospels, is without a parallel, since they always refer it to Nazareth only. Yet there is here a further congruity. For those gospels are occu­pied entirely with the ministry in Galilee, except on the last visit to Jerusalem; and Nazareth was certainly our Lord’s own country, in contrast with the rest of Galilee. But St. John records almost entirely the ministry in Judæa, and in stating the first transfer of that ministry to Galilee, it was equally natural and appropriate mat he should style Judæa “his own country.”

 

The saying, it thus appears, received two distinct and suc­cessive fulfilments; first in the departure from Judæa, the proper home of the son of David, to despised Galilee, because of the unbelief of the Jews; and next, in the transfer of his home from Nazareth to Capernaum, through the similar unbelief of the Nazarenes.

[Resource Manager]

No. XI.

 

The first three gospels agree in giving us a list of the twelve apostles, and the order is the same, with one or two slight variations. In St. Matthew’s Gospel his own name is placed after that of Thomas, which follows it in the two others. In St. Mark, Andrew is the fourth in order, fol­lowing the two sons of Zebedee, while in St. Luke, Judas the brother of James, being the same with Lebbæus, comes after Simon Zelotes, just before the name of the traitor. With these exceptions, the arrangement is the same in all the lists.

 

Now a reason for this order, in the priority of the first four apostles, may be found in the narrative of their call, when Simon and Andrew were first invited to follow Christ, and then James and John, the sons of Zebedee. With regard, however, to the place of the two others which follow next, there is no key to explain it, and indeed their names never occur elsewhere in these gospels.

 

On turning, however, to the fourth gospel, we have an explanation, which bears every mark of undesignedness. In­deed it requires a very careful attention, to decipher its meaning so plainly, as to make it applicable in this inquiry. It will be necessary to quote at some length.

 

John 1:35-47. “Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, where dwellest thou? He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: it was about the tenth hour. One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, from the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.”

 

It is plainly deducible from the connexion, that these inci­dents occurred after the forty days’ temptation, at the very beginning of our Lord’s ministry. It was the first intro­duction of these disciples to Jesus, and they seem to have been the first disciples who followed him.

 

The name of the other disciple, who heard John speak and followed Jesus, is not given. Yet we may infer with cer­tainty, that it was one of the sons of Zebedee, and probably the evangelist himself. For when it is said of Andrew, “he first (οὗτος πρῶτον) findeth his own brother Simon,” it is implied that the other disciple also had an own brother, whom he brought to Jesus. St. John also invariably conceals his own name throughout the Gospel. On this view the word first has a double emphasis. Not only each of these disciples brought a brother to Jesus, but Andrew was earlier than his companion in so doing. Hence it follows that the first pair of disciples who came to Jesus, were Simon and Andrew, and the next in order were James and John, and since their dis­cipleship began on the same day, the elder brother, perhaps, in each case took the priority. The narrative next describes the call of Philip, and then of Nathanael, who is mentioned again, John 21:2, and clearly as one of the apostles. Hence he is doubtless the same with Bartholomew, by which patro­nymic he is termed in the other gospels. Philip and Bartho­lomew are united there, as Philip and Nathanael are in this passage, and the two names, Nathanael and Bartholomew, never occur together.

 

Thus, in this simple narrative, the order of discipleship of three pairs of apostles is determined, and is the very same in which they are placed in the apostolic list. The coincidence is real, but indirect. For the other evangelists never assert that the order of the names was that of original discipleship; while in the fourth gospel the names of James and John are not given, and Bartholomew appears under a distinct title, as Nathanael. Indeed the existence of the apostles, as a distinct body, is not alluded to in this gospel, until the close of the sixth chapter. The passage before us bears the marks of being a simple narrative by an eye witness, in the order of time; and the agreement with the order of the apostles, in the three lists of the other gospels is a spontaneous mark of historical reality.

[Resource Manager]

No. XII.

 

John 6:66-71. “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.....Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for he it was that would betray him, being one of the twelve.”

 

This is the first allusion, in St. John’s Gospel, to the twelve apostles, as distinct from the rest of the disciples. The passage agrees entirely with the express statements of the other gospels, and yet no one who reads it can possibly believe it introduced for the mere purpose of producing a coincidence. The only further mention of them, in this gospel, is of the very same kind. “But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.” The har­mony is evidently spontaneous, and arises from the instinctive habits of thought in the writer, who knew well that the number and even the names of the twelve apostles, with their distinct call, were facts already quite familiar to his readers. That the statement could not be borrowed from the other gospels is further proved by the addition of the minute cir­cumstance in each passage, that Judas was the son of a father named Simon, and that Thomas had also the surname of Didymus. It is this indirect assumption of historical facts, as familiarly known, and needing no illustration, which forms one practical test of genuine and faithful narrative.

[Resource Manager]

No. XIII.

 

Matt. 13:55. “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?”

 

There is a harmony, not obvious but recondite, in the number of our Lord’s brethren, which appears only upon careful and attentive inquiry.

 

First, we read in John 19:25, that there “stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene.” Here we learn that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had a sister, also called Mary, who was the wife of a disciple named Cleopas.

 

Next, in Matt. 27:56, we learn that among the women then present were “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.” And again that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary sat over against the sepulchre.” Here we learn that the sister of the mother of Jesus, or Mary the wife of Cleopas, was also the mother of James and Joses, and distinguishable by this description from the other Marys.

 

Thirdly, in Mark 15:41, this Mary is called “the mother of James the less and of Joses.” In ver. 47 she is called simply the mother of Joses, and in the verse that next follows simply the mother of James. The epithet, James the less, implies that there were two persons of this name, distinguished either in rank, or by personal stature. Now we know that there were two apostles of this name, and that the first in order was the son of Zebedee and Salome. And hence the only natural inference is that James the less is the other apostle, whose name occurs always near the end of the list.

 

Now it is clear that if James and Joses, the brethren of our Lord, were actually the sons of the mother of Jesus, the title, Mary the mother of James and Joses, would be no suf­ficient distinction for the wife of Cleopas. On the other hand, if they were the sons of Mary, the sister of the mother of Jesus, then they would be his own cousins, and in the Hebrew idiom the brethren of Jesus. And hence we infer that these two brethren were really the sons of the wife of Cleopas, and that the James thus mentioned is the same with James the less, or the second James in the list of the twelve apostles.

 

It is true that this apostle is called the son of Alphæus. But Alphaeus and Cleopas are two forms which might be given in Greek to the same Hebrew surname, or this Mary, it is quite possible, might be married successively to two hus­bands, and James be her son by the former marriage.

 

Now the conclusion thus obtained indirectly is ratified by the incidental statement in the Epistle to the Galatians, where St. Paul speaks of this same apostle, whom he saw on his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, and whom he styles, to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, the Lord’s brother.

 

But this is not the only coincidence. For a Judas, as well as a James, is mentioned by the Nazarenes among the brethren of Jesus, and a Judas, besides Iscariot, is found in the list of the apostles. We can prove that these also are the same person, though in a very circuitous manner.

 

And first, this apostle, in two of the lists, is termed Lebbæus or Thaddæus. It is only Luke who styles him twice, in his two lists of the apostles, “Judas, of James,” where our translators supply the word, “brother.” If their supplement be allowed, the question seems decided at once, for if Judas was the brother of James, and James the brother of the Lord, and son of the second Mary, then Judas must also have been one of our Lord’s brethren, and would almost of course be the person so styled by the Nazarenes.

[Resource Manager]

It has been maintained, however, as by Olshausen, that son is the true supplement, and hence that this Judas the apostle, being the son of some other James, is not the same with the Judas in the list of the Nazarenes, nor with the Judas, brother of James, who wrote the epistle. For this view an appeal is made to grammatical usage. But, even on this very ground, the modern critic is less exact than the old interpreters. For the form of the phrase, Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου, differs from that where the son is denoted, by the absence of the article, and exactly resembles the phrase, Μαρίὰ Ἰακώβου, where not wife, the usual supplement, but mother is implied. In both cases Mary and Judas are identified by the mention of a relative still better known than themselves. This could therefore be no unknown James, but one of the two apostles of that name, and as clearly the second. Now the apostle Judas could not be the son of the apostle James, but might very well be a younger brother, and such accordingly is the only true con­struction of the phrase of St. Luke.

 

Now this conclusion is incidentally confirmed by two dis­tinct and indirect testimonies of the apostolic epistles. And first, the Epistle of Jude has the superscription, “Judas, the brother of James.” This agrees thoroughly with the previous inference, that Jude the apostle was the brother of James the apostle, and probably his younger brother, and one of the four brethren of Jesus mentioned by the Nazarenes. There is no assertion, it is true, that the writer is one of the twelve, but the whole tone of the epistle, its early adoption into the canon, and its resemblance to the Epistle of St. Peter, render this the most natural view, and we have thus a coincidence, indi­rect in all its parts, but satisfactory and complete.

 

Again, if Jude the apostle was the brother of James, it follows that not one only, but two brethren, that is, own cousins of the Lord, were in the apostolic college. And this fact comes to light also, very indirectly, in a passage of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where St. Paul writes as follows: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as both the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor. 9:5.) Here the very order of the words proves that there is a climax, and that the brethren of the Lord here alluded to were apostles, just as “the rest” who are named before them, and Cephas who is mentioned after them. Hence it appears that there were at least two apostles to whom this distinctive title applied; which agrees punctually with the conclusion just established, that Judas was the brother of James, and that both apostles are the same as the James and Judas in the list of the Nazarenes.

 

There is here a further coincidence, which, though delicate, seems to be not the less real. The question of the Nazarenes, “Are they not here with us?” applies to the sisters only. But since two of the four brethren whom they named were of the number of the apostles, it is clear that the assertion implied in their words would not have been true, if extended to these also; for they must have been absent from Nazareth during the whole time of their presence with Jesus, and per­haps even earlier.

 

It may seem a difficulty in the way of this coincidence, that St. John tells us, 7:3-5, the brethren of our Lord did not believe in him; and also that St. Luke mentions their presence, Acts 1:15, along with the apostles, and still distinct from them. The latter passage, however, is quite con­sistent with the previous conclusion, since there were two, among the four named by the Nazarenes, who were not of the number of the apostles; for it is clear that Simon the Canaanite or Zealot is a different Simon from the one in their list. The statement in St. John is more perplexing, though its difficulty would not be removed, by distinguishing James and Jude the apostles from supposed namesakes among our Lord’s brethren. We should still have to explain the contrast between John 7:3-5 and Acts 1:13, where there is a seeming contradiction. The true explanation seems to be that the title, “brethren,” is here used in a wider sense, for the near relations of our Lord, as distinct from the two, and perhaps from all the four brethren, in that list of the Nazarenes. The mention of the twelve just before, and the familiarity of the fact, that two of them were brethren of the Lord, would render the meaning clear to the writer himself, and to his first readers.

[Resource Manager]

No. XIV.

 

The evangelists mention a double cleansing of the temple by our Lord, once at the very beginning, and one just before the close, of his public ministry. The later event is recorded by St Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, but the earlier by St. John only.    They have so great a resemblance in their general character, that some critics, in defiance of the clear statements of the gospels, and with a strange sacrifice of common sense to rash hypothesis, have maintained them to be the same. Yet, amidst the resemblance, there is a minute difference, which suits well the difference of the circum­stances, and shows the historical accuracy of either narrative. In St. John, at the first occurrence, the rebuke is couched in a general admonition. “Take these things hence: make not my Father’s house a house of merchandize.” But on the repe­tition of the offence, and the second exercise of authority, the rebuke becomes a cutting and severe denunciation of their aggravated sin. “It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves” This minute, but appropriate difference, will go far, with thought­ful minds, to confirm the historical accuracy of the evangelists in their report of each event.

[Resource Manager]

No. XV.

 

Matt. 26:60, 61. “At the last came two false wit­nesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.”

 

Mark 14:57-59. “And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together.”

 

The partial diversity of these two statements may be at once explained by the fact that the reports of the witnesses did not agree together. Yet the agreement is so close as to imply the existence of some saying of Jesus, which might account for their definite charge against him. No passage, however, is found in the first three gospels to explain it. Only in the fourth gospel, and in an entirely different connexion, at the very opening of our Lord’s ministry, and at Jerusalem, the scene of the trial, we find a complete key to their testi­mony. “Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.”

 

We have here precisely the fact which accounts for the false testimony of the witnesses. For the conversation took place in Jerusalem, and excited at the time the wonder and unbelief of the Jews. It may even assist us to perceive in what light this testimony was urged against the Lord; namely, that he pretended to be a prophet, and yet had failed to give that very sign which he proposed himself on first opening his ministry, as the test and pledge of a Divine com­mission. And it must be observed that St. John, who records this saying, makes no mention of the false testimony which it serves to explain, and even places it in a connexion entirely different, and at the greatest possible distance of time, three years before the trial occurred.