The Life of Jesus of Nazareth Part 15

VI

John the Baptist

24. On the character and work of John the Baptist see KeimJN II. 201-266 and references in the index under John the Baptist. Keim's is much the most satisfactory treatment; it is, moreover, Keim at his best. See also Ewald, _Hist, of Israel_, VI. 160-200; WeissLX I. 307-316; FairbSLX 64-79; W. A. Stevens, Homil. Rev. 1891, II. 163 ff.; Bebb in HastBD II. 677-680; Wellhausen _Isr. u. judische Geschichte_, 342f.; Feather, _Last of the Prophets_. Reynolds, _John the Baptist_, obscures its excellencies by a vast amount of irrelevant discussion.

25. On the existence of a separate company of disciples of John see Mk.

ii. 18, Mt. ix. 14, Lk. v. 33; Mk. vi. 29, Mt. xiv. 12; Mt. xi. 2f., Lk.

vii. 18f.; Lk. xi. 1; Jn. i. 35f.; iii. 25; Ac. xix. 1-3. Consult Lightfoot, _Colossians_, 400 ff.; Baldensperger, _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_, 93-152.

VII

The Messianic Call

26. On the baptism of Jesus see WendtTJ I. 96-101; EdersLJM I. 278-287; BaldSJ 219-229. WeissLX I. 316-336 says that the baptism meant for Jesus, already conscious of his Messiahs.h.i.+p, "the close of his former life and the opening of one perfectly new" (322); KeimJN II. 290-299 makes it an act of consecration, but eliminates the Voice and Dove; BeysLJ I. 215-231 thinks that Jesus, conscious of no sin, yet not aware of his Messiahs.h.i.+p, sought the baptism carrying "the sins and guilt of his people on his heart, as if they were his own" (229). Against Beyschlag see E. Haupt in Studien u. Kritiken, 1887, 381. Baldensperger shows clearly that the Messianic call was a revelation to Jesus, not a conclusion from a course of reasoning.

27. On the temptation see WendtTJ I. 101-105; WeissLX I. 337-354; EdersLJM I. 299-307; FairbairnSLX 80-98; BaldSJ 230-236; BeysLJ I.

231-237; KeimJN II. 317-329. All these see in temptation the necessary result of the Messianic call at the baptism.

28. The locality of the baptism of Jesus cannot be determined. Tradition has fixed on one of the fords of the Jordan near Jericho, see SmithHGHL 496, note 1. On the probable location of Bethany (Bethabarah) (Jn. i. 28) see discussion in AndLOL 146-151; EnBib 548; and especially Smith's note as above.

29. On the anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit see WeissLX I. 323-336; BeysLJ I. 230f. For the influence of the Spirit in the later life of Jesus see Mk. i. 12; Mt. iv. 1; Lk. iv. 1; iv. 14, 18, 21; Mk. iii. 29, 30; Mt.

xii. 28; Jn. iii. 34; compare Ac. i. 2; x. 38. Clearly these refer not to the ethical and religious indwelling of the Divine Spirit (comp. Rom. i.

4), but to the special equipment for official duty. This is the OT sense, see Ex. x.x.xi. 2-5; Jud. iii. 10; I. Sam. xi. 6; Isa. xi. 1f.; xlii. 1; lxi. 1; and consult Schultz, _Old Test. Theol._ II. 202f. Jesus seems to have needed a like divine equipment, notwithstanding his divine nature.

See GilbertLJ 121f.

30. How this Messianic anointing is to be related to the doctrine of Jesus' essential divine nature cannot be determined with certainty. It must not be forgotten, however, that it is a _datum_ for Christology, and that it cannot be explained away. It indicates one of the particulars in which Jesus was made like unto his brethren. What was involved when the Son of G.o.d "emptied himself and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil.

ii. 7) we can only vaguely conceive. Two views of early heretical sects seem rightly to have been rejected. The Docetic view, held by some Gnostics of the 2d cent., dates the incarnation from the baptism, but distinguishes Christ from the human Jesus, who only served as a vehicle for the manifestation of the Son of G.o.d; the Christ descended on Jesus at the baptism, ascending again to heaven from the cross, compare Mt. iii. 16 and xxvii. 50 in the Greek; see Schaff _Hist. of Xn Church_^2, II. 455f.

The recently discovered Gospel of Peter presents this view, Gosp. Pet. -- 5. The Nestorian view represents that the baptism was, in a sense, Jesus'

"birth from above" (Jn. iii. 3, 5); thus the incarnation was first complete at the baptism though the Logos had been a.s.sociated with Jesus from the beginning. See Schaff, _Hist, of Xn Church_^2, III. 717 ff.; Conybeare, _History of Xmas_, Amer. Jour. Theol. 1899, 1-21.

31. The traditional locality of the temptation is a mountain near Jericho called _Quarantana_, see AndLOL 155; the tradition seems to date no further back than the crusades. It is, however, probable that the "wilderness" (Mt. iv. 1, Mk. i. 12, Lk. iv. 1) is the same wilderness mentioned in connection with John's earlier life and work (Mt. iii. 1, Mk.

i. 4), the region W and NW of the Dead Sea, see SmithHGHL 317. Others (Stanley, _Sinai and Palestine_, 308; EdersLJM I. 300, 339 notes) hold that the temptation took place in the desert regions SE of the sea of Galilee; this is possibly correct, though the record in the gospels suggests the wilderness of Judea. On the source of the temptation story see WeissLX I. 339 ff.; BeysLJ I. 234; Bacon, Bib. Wld. 1900, I. 18-25.

VIII

The First Disciples

32. SandayHastBD II. 612f.; GilbertLJ 144-157; WeissLX I. 355-387; AndLOL 155-165; EdersLJM I. 336-363; BeysLJ II. 129-148 (a.s.signs here a considerable part of the synoptic account of work in Capernaum).

33. _The early confessions_. On the genuineness of the Baptist's testimony to "the Lamb of G.o.d" see M. Dods in _Expos. Gk. Test_. I .695f.; Westcott, _Comm. on John_, 20; EdersLJM 1. 342 ff.; WeissLX 1. 362f. (thinks the evangelist added "who taketh away the sin of the world"); Holtzmann, _Hand-comm._ IV. 38f. holds that the evangelist has put in the mouth of the Baptist a conception which was first current after the death of Jesus.

On the confessions of Nathanael and the others, see Jour. Bib. Lit. 1898, 21-30.

34. _Cana_ is probably the modern Khirbet Kana, eight miles N of Nazareth.

A rival site is Kefr Kenna, three and one-half miles NE from Nazareth. See EnBib and HastBD, also AndLOL 162-164.

35. _The miracles of Jesus_ are challenged by modern thought. It is customary in reading other doc.u.ments than the N.T. instantly to relegate the miraculous to the domain of legend. Miracles, however, are integral parts of the story of Jesus' life, and those who attempt to write that life eliminating the supernatural are constrained to recognize that he had marvellous power as an exorcist and healer of some forms of nervous disease. So E. A. Abbott, _The Spirit on the Waters_, 169-201. Our knowledge of nature does not warrant a dogmatic definition of the limits of the possible; see James, _The Will to Believe_, vii.-xiii., 299-327.

The question is confessedly one of adequate evidence. The evidence for the supreme miracle--the transcendent character of Jesus--is clear, see Part III. chap. iv.; and the miraculous element in the story of his life must be considered in view of this supreme miracle. In a.s.sociation with him his miracles gain in credibility. In estimating the evidence for them their dignity and worthiness is important. What the devout imagination would do in embellis.h.i.+ng the story of Jesus is exhibited in the apocryphal gospels; the miracles of the canonical gospels are of an entirely different type, which commends them as authentic. By definition a miracle is an event not explicable in terms of ordinary human experience. It is therefore futile to attempt to picture the miracles of Jesus in their occurrence, for the imagination has no material except that furnished by ordinary experience.

For our day the miracles are of importance chiefly for the exhibition they give of the character of Jesus; they can be studied with this in view without regard to the curious question how they happened. Read SandayHastBD II. 624-628; and see Fisher, _Grounds of Christian and Theistic Belief, _ chaps, iv.--vi., _Supernatural Origin of Christianity_^3, chap, xi.; Bruce, _Miraculous Element in the Gospels; Apologetics_, 409 ff.; Illingworth, _Divine Immanence_; Rainy, Orr, and Dods, _The Supernatural in Christianity_.

Part II.--The Ministry

I

General Survey

36. SandayHastBD II. 609f.; GilbertLJ 136-143; AndLOL 125-137; BeysLJ I.

256-295.

II

The Early Ministry in Judea

37. SandayHastBD II. 612^b-613^b; WeissLX II. 3-53; EdersLJM I. 364-429; BeysLJ II. 147-168; GilbertLJ 158-179.

38. On _the chronological significance of John iv_. 35 see AndLOL 183; WeissLX II. 40; Wieseler, _Synop_. 212 ff, who find indication that the journey was in December. EdersLJM I. 419f.; Turner in HastBD I. 408, find indication of early summer. Some treat iv. 35 as a proverb with no chronological significance; so Alford, _Comm. on John_.

39. Geographical notes. _Aenon_ near Salim has not been identified. Most favor a site in Samaria, seven miles from a place named Salim, which lay four miles E of Shechem, see Conder, _Tent Work in Palestine_, II. 57, 58; Stevens, Jour. Bib. Lit. 1883, 128-141. But can John have been baptizing in Samaria? WeissLX II. 28 says "it is perfectly impossible that he [John]

can have taken up his station in Samaria." Other suggestions are: some place in the Jordan valley (but then why remark on the abundance of water, Jn. iii. 23?); near Jerusalem; and in the south of Judea. See AndLOL 173-175. _Sychar_ is the modern 'Askar, about a mile and three-quarters from Nablus (Shechem), and half a mile N of Jacob's well. See SmithHGHL 367-375.

40. General questions. _Was the temple twice cleansed?_ (see sect. 116).

Probably not. The two reports (Jn. ii. 13-22; Mk. xi. 15-18 --s) are similar in respect of Jesus' indignation, its cause, its expression, its result, and a consequent challenge of his authority. They differ in the time of the event (John a.s.signs to first Pa.s.sover, synoptics to the last) and in a possibly greater sternness in the synoptic account. These differences are no greater than appear in other records of identical events (compare Mt. viii. 5-13 with Lk. vii. 2-10), while the repet.i.tion of such an act would probably have been met by serious opposition. If the temple was cleansed but once, John indicates the true time. At the beginning of the ministry it was a demand that the people follow the new leader in the purification of G.o.d's house and the establishment of a truer wors.h.i.+p. At the end it could have had only a vindictive significance, since the people had already signified to the clear insight of Jesus that they would not accept his leaders.h.i.+p. For two distinct cleansings see the discussion in AndLOL 169f., 437; EdersLJM I. 373; Plummer on Luke xix.

45f. For one cleansing at the end see KeimJN V. 113-131. For one cleansing at the beginning see WeissLX II. 6 ff.; BeysLJ II. 149 ff.; GilbertLJ 159 ff.

41. _The journey to Galilee_. Do John (iv. 1-4, 43-45) and Mark (i. 14 = Mt. iv. 12; Lk. iv. 14) report the same journey? Both are journeys from the south introducing work in Galilee; yet the reasons given for the journey are different (compare Jn. iv. 1-3 with Mk. i. 14). If the Pharisees had a hand in John's "delivering up" (Mk. i. 14; comp. Jos. Ant.

xviii. 5. 2), the same hostile movement may have impelled Jesus to leave Judea. He may not have heard of John's imprisonment until after his departure, or some time before he opened his new ministry in Galilee. See GilbertLJ 173f. AndLOL 176-182 argues against the identification.

42. _The n.o.bleman's son_ (Jn. iv. 46-54). Is this a doublet of Mt. viii.

5-13; Lk. vii. 2-10? John differs from synoptics in the time, the place, the disease, the suppliant, his plea, and Jesus' att.i.tude. Matthew and Mark differ from each other concerning the bearers of the centurion's messages to Jesus. John's account is similar to synoptic superficially, but is probably not a doublet. Compare Syro-Phnician's daughter (Mk. vii.

29f.). See GilbertLJ 202; Meyer on John iv. 51-54; Plummer on Luke vii.

10. WeissLX II. 45-51 identifies. Read SandayHastBD II. 613.

III and IV

The Ministry in Galilee

43. Read SandayHastBD II. 613-630; GilbertLJ 180-283. Consult WeissLX II.

44 to III. 153; EdersLJM I. 472 to II. 125; BeysLJ II. 140-147,168-294.

See AndLOL 209-363 for discussion of details, and KeimJN III. 10 to IV.

346 for an illuminating, though not unprejudiced, topical treatment.