A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ

PART XIV THE RESURRECTION, APPEARANCES, AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST (continued 2)

Reading edition

Previous chapter ←PART XIV THE RESURRECTION, APPEARANCES, AND ASCENSION OF CHRISTEnd of this edition

All chapters and sections (18)

(c) The audience is different. Matthew (4:25) states that his audience was composed of "great multitudes from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond Jordan," while Luke (6:17) says that there was "a great multitude of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon." Matthew says (5:1) also that "his disciples came unto him." Hence both assemblages were composed of great multitudes from many regions besides many of his disciples, but in neither case is Jesus said to address himself to any save his disciples, his followers (Matt. 5:1 and Luke 6:20). So in both accounts the Saviour seems to withdraw a little from the great outside crowd of curiosity seekers. But the multitudes also must have heard something of what he said, for they were astonished at his teaching (Matt. 7:28). Andrews well shows that the audience in Matthew were not mostly Jews (according to Kraft), and the audience in Luke mostly heathen. Matthew omits Tyre and Sidon, but he had already mentioned Syria (4:24), which includes Tyre and Sidon. Neither list may be complete. Hence nothing can be made out of Luke's omission of Galilee, Decapolis, and beyond Jordan. Great multitudes from the same general regions are alluded to as being present.

(d) The contents are radically different. It is objected by Alford, Greswell, etc., that Luke omits large portions of what Matthew has so that Luke has only thirty verses, while Matthew has one hundred and seven. But this leaves out of consideration the several large portions of the same matter which Luke has placed elsewhere, or which Jesus repeated on other occasions (cf. Matt. 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4; Matt. 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-31). Jesus often repeated his sayings on other occasions as all teachers do and ought to do. Neither evangelist gives a complete report of this wonderful discourse. So Matthew omits some things which Luke records (cf. Matt. 5:12 with Luke 6:23-6; Matt. 7:12 with Luke 6:31-40). Nor need we be surprised that Luke, writing generally for all Christians, omits large portions towards the beginning of the sermon that were designed especially for Jews (see Matt. 5:17-27; 6:1-18). These Matthew would be sure to record. Luke adds four woes to the beatitudes. It is unnecessary to remark upon minor variations of language, since the gospels manifestly aim to give the sense of what the Saviour said and not the verbatim words. The variations in the Synoptic reports of the sayings of Jesus add much to the interest of the narratives. Moreover, to offset these variations, which admit of explanation, it ought to be remembered that the two discourses begin alike and end alike, that they have a general similarity in the order of the different parts, and that they show a general likeness and often absolute identity of expression.

So these differences all melt away on careful comparison, and it is not proved that there are two distinct sermons.

2. Another theory holds that the two sermons are distinct, but spoken on the same day, and near together. So Augustine, who is followed by Lange. The further points of this theory are two. (a) The one (Matt.) was spoken before the choice of the Apostles, to the disciples alone, and while Jesus was sitting on the mountain. (b) The other (Luke) was spoken after the choice of the Apostles, to the multitudes, and standing upon the plain. It is not hard to see that these points do not solve the question. In Matt. 7:28 we are told that the multitudes were astonished at his teaching and in Luke 6:20 that "he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said." So this distinction vanishes. The question of the mountain and the plain has been already discussed, and another more probable explanation suggested. It is only a conjecture that the discourse of Matthew was before the appointment of the Twelve. This theory has had no great following.

3. Wieseler holds that Matthew has simply brought together detached sayings of Jesus on different occasions and does not mean to present the whole as one discourse; Luke's account being only one of the discourses used by Matthew. But this violates the evident notes of place and audience and surroundings by which Matthew gives local color and cast to the entire discourse. See Matt. 5:1 and 8:1. The case of the grouping of the miracles in chapters 8 and 9 is not parallel, since there Matthew does not state that they occurred on one occasion. The fact that various portions of this discourse are repeated elsewhere by Matthew is immaterial, because this was a common habit of Jesus in his discourses. Votaw in his exhaustive and able discussion of the Sermon on the Mount in the extra volume in the Hastings D. B. admits the possibility of this hypothesis, but considers it far less probable than the historical reality of the Sermon as recorded by both Matthew and Luke. Moffatt (Encycl. Biblica) considers it "a composition rather than an actual address," while Bacon (Sermon on the Mount) admits only what is also in Luke. Adeney (Hastings D. C. G.) holds to the essential integrity of the address in Matthew.

4. Both Matthew and Luke give substantially similar accounts of the same discourse. In that case we have a good illustration of the use of the Logia in Matthew and Luke. Most of the arguments for this interpretation have been mentioned in rebuttal of the previously mentioned theories. (a) This is the most natural explanation in view of the large volume of similar matter in both, in the beginning, progress, and close of the discourse. It is always best to give the Scripture the most natural and manifest setting, when possible. (b) This theory is the most probable one, since it is hardly likely that Jesus would again make the same sermon to the same audience, and under the same circumstances. (c) There are no objections to this theory that do not admit of a probable explanation. See the discussion above. The omissions and additions in each case suit the specific purpose of the writer. The apparent contradictions, when studied carefully, blend into a harmonious whole. Hence we seem to be justified in maintaining the identity of the discourses recorded by Matthew and Luke. For a careful outline of this matchless discourse see Broadus on Matthew. Stalker, The Ethics of Jesus, has a very able exposition of the teaching.

10. The Combination of Luke and John

We now have to deal with the most perplexing question in harmonistic study, the proper disposal of the mass of material furnished by Luke in 9:51-18:14. McClellan discusses ten schemes, pushes them all aside, and then suggests another which is no more convincing and equally complicated. Nothing can be attempted here but a presentation of the chief points in this endless discussion. All the principal plans for arranging this part of Luke proceed on one or the other of the following ideas:

1. Some hold that this portion of Luke is neither orderly nor chronological. Hence many of the incidents, here recorded as apparently belonging to the last six months of the Saviour's ministry, in reality are to be placed earlier. They are put here as a sort of summing up of things not mentioned elsewhere. So Robinson and others. In favor of this theory it is urged that Luke here speaks of some things that Matthew and Mark put before the third Passover, such as the healing of a demoniac (Luke 11:14-36) and the blasphemy following. But it may be well replied.

(a) It is not at all clear that we have here the same events that are recorded in Matthew and Mark. Similar miracles were often wrought in the Master's work and similar sayings were frequently repeated on similar or different occasions. This was a common habit with him, as we have heretofore seen.

(b) This portion of Luke is his distinctive contribution to the ministry of Christ in addition to his account of the nativity. He has condensed his account of the withdrawals from Galilee, apparently to make room for the description of another part of Christ's work. Matthew and Mark almost confine themselves to the ministry in Galilee, while Luke thus devotes the bulk of his narrative to what seems to be a later ministry, after Jesus has left Galilee. It is hardly likely that this account should be a mere jumble of scattered details.

(c) Especially is this unlikely in view of Luke's express statement (1:3) that he was going to write an orderly narrative. In no real sense could this be true, if this large section is dislocated in time and order of events.

2. Others refer the entire narrative (Luke 9:51-18:14) to the last journey of the Saviour to Jerusalem to the Passover and see a triple reference to the same journey arguing for triplications in Luke. Others prefer to understand it as meaning the journey to the Feast of the Tabernacles or Dedication. Some would combine this idea with the unchronological plan noticed above. In favor of this journey being continuous and the last one to Jerusalem, the following arguments are adduced:

(a) The language of Luke 9:51, "when the days were being completed that he should be received up," implies that the end was drawing near, and that he was setting his face towards Jerusalem to meet it. This is true without doubt, for Wieseler's interpretation of "received up" as meaning Christ's reception by man is entirely too forced. The expression points to the end of Christ's earthly career. But what does the vague expression, "the days were being completed," mean? Does it have to mean only a few weeks? May it not include as much as six months? For we know that Jesus had been instructing his disciples on this very subject expressly and pointedly, and at the Transfiguration he had spoken of his "decease." Henceforward this was the uppermost subject in his mind. So the interpretation is correct, but the inference is not necessary. This journey in Luke 9:51 need not be either just before the Passover or the Dedication. It could be as early as Tabernacles and be thus described.

(b) It is insisted that this is Jesus' final departure from Galilee, the one described by Matthew and Mark. No place is allowed for a return to Galilee after the departure in Luke 9:51. Robinson urges that Luke 9:51 naturally means a final departure from Galilee. But it may simply mean that he left it as a sphere of activity, not that he never entered Galilee again. And then Luke 17:11 expressly says that Jesus went "through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." This means more than going on the border between the two countries, as McClellan argues. He went through some portions of Samaria and Galilee. In order for McClellan to carry out his scheme he has to resort to the artificial device of referring part of John 10:40 to the departure from Galilee, and the other half to the Perean ministry after a diversion of considerable length into Samaria and back into Galilee. So the effort is not convincing to place all the material in this large section of Luke in one last journey to Jerusalem.

3. The combination of Luke's narrative with that of John. Wieseler was the first to point out a possible parallel between Luke and John. John gives us three journeys,—the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2 ff.), the journey to Bethany at the raising of Lazarus (John 11:17 f.), the final Passover (John 12:1). Luke likewise three times in this section speaks of Jesus going to Jerusalem, 9:51; 13:22; 17:11. Hence it would seem possible, even probable, that their journeys corresponded. If so, John 7:2-11:54 is to be taken as parallel to Luke 9:51-18:14. This plan is followed by various modern scholars.

According to John's chronology, Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2), at the Feast of Dedication (10:22), and at the Passover (12:1). Just after the Feast of the Dedication we find him abiding beyond Jordan, where John had baptized (John 10:40). From this point he comes to Bethany near Jerusalem at the raising of Lazarus (John 11:17), whence he withdraws to a little town called Ephraim in the hills north of Jerusalem (John 11:54). Here he abides awhile with his disciples away from his enemies till he goes to the Passover. Such is John's outline of these last six months of the Saviour's life.

(a) But how is all this to be reconciled with the statement of Luke (17:11) that Jesus went through Samaria and Galilee? If Jesus went back to Galilee, John would have mentioned it, we are told. Not necessarily, not unless it fell in with his plan to do so. Hence no conflict need exist between Luke and John. Luke says he went through Galilee and John permits it by the break in his narrative at 11:54. Various points in the six months have been suggested as the point when the return to Galilee was made. The most natural point is from Ephraim, whither he had withdrawn (John 11:54). It was not far to go up through Samaria and join in Galilee (Luke 17:11) the pilgrims from his own country who were in the habit of going to the Passover through Perea, to avoid passing through Samaria. This supposition is not improbable, as Robinson and McClellan urge, but very natural; it makes Luke and John both agree, and allows Luke 9:51 to mean that Jesus then left Galilee as a field of operations. Various other theories are suggested for this return to Galilee, but none of them appear as fitting as this one. It was just before the Passover, when such a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem would be made.

(b) One other point needs to be considered. The theory we hold makes the journey in Luke 9:51 identical with the one in John 7:2-10, viz., to Tabernacles. Many hold such identity to be impossible because of apparent contradictions in the narratives. Andrews makes three objections against this identity: (1) That the Lord refused to go with his brethren (John 7:6). But it was his brothers who were not favorable to him that he refused to go with. He simply wished to avoid publicity. His face was set (Luke 9:51) all the time, but he was not going with them. (2) That the manner of the going is unlike; the one in John is secret, while the one in Luke is public. But the secrecy in John may merely mean the avoidance of the caravan routes and so through Samaria (Luke). The messengers sent before were not to herald his coming to gather crowds simply, but to make ready for him. It was needed, since the Samaritans saw that his face was as if he were going to Jerusalem. (3) That he went rapidly according to John and slowly according to Luke. He does, according to John, appear in Jerusalem before the feast is over, but Luke does not make him move slowly. Nor is it necessary to connect the sending of the seventy (Luke 10:1 ff.) with this journey. It belongs rather to the interval between Tabernacles and Dedication. So the secret going of John and the going through Samaria of Luke agree. John explains, 7:10, that Jesus rejected the advice of his brothers. This theory is held irrespective of this being the final departure from Galilee. It is not necessary to fill out every detail in this programme and show where Jesus was between Tabernacles and Dedication. The main outlines remain clear and harmonious and are fairly satisfactory. This combination of Luke and John preserves the integrity of both narratives and fills up a large blank that would otherwise exist in these closing months of the Saviour's life. Upon the whole, therefore, this view seems decidedly preferable, though nothing like absolute certainty can be claimed in regard to the question.

We do not know what special source Luke had for 9:51-18:14. Some of it may have come from the Logia (Q). Hawkins (Oxford Studies, pp. 55 ff.) calls it "the Travel Document." Burton (Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem) suggests "The Peræan Document" and thinks that Luke may have drafted it early out of oral material. But at any rate it is a great and characteristic portion of his Gospel and adds greatly to our knowledge of Christ.

11. Did Christ Eat the Passover?

To put this question in another form, it would be, On what day of the month was Jesus crucified? For the crucifixion occurred on the same Jewish day as the eating of the meal recorded by all four Evangelists. Nearly all agree that the crucifixion occurred on Friday and the meal was eaten the evening before, our Thursday, but the beginning of the Jewish day, counting from sunset to sunset. But what day of the month was it? The Passover feast began on the 15th Nisan, the lamb being slain in the afternoon of the 14th. But the day of the week would vary with the new moon. If Jesus ate the regular Passover supper, he was crucified on the 15th Nisan. If he ate an anticipatory meal a day in advance and was himself slain at the hour of killing the paschal lamb, he was crucified on the 14th Nisan. In that case he did not really eat the Passover supper at all. So then we must seek to determine the truth about this matter, because express statements are made about it in the Gospels.

1. Some sentimental views of the question need to be disposed of first. A great controversy once raged in the early churches about the Passover.

(a) In the latter part of the second century some of the churches of Asia Minor, largely composed of Jewish Christians, kept up the Passover on the ground that Jesus had eaten it the night before his crucifixion. Polycarp, the disciple of John, expresses the persuasion that Jesus ate the Passover.

(b) But some of the churches were afraid of this example and its application to the discussion about the relation of the Mosaic laws to Christianity. So they took the position that Jesus did not eat the Passover himself, but as the Paschal Lamb, was crucified at the time the lamb was slain. He was our Passover. The Greek churches now hold this position, while the Latin churches hold that Jesus ate the Passover. But those arguments are purely subjective and do not affect the question of fact. Hence we waive this old-time controversy and come to the testimony of the Gospels themselves.

2. The testimony of the Synoptists, Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The evidence they give is abundant and explicit to the effect that Jesus ate the regular Paschal Supper on the evening after the 14th Nisan.

(a) Jesus predicted that his death would occur during the Feast of the Passover. See Matthew 26:2, "Ye know that after two days the Passover cometh, and the Son of Man is delivered up to be crucified." See also Mark 14:1 and Luke 22:1, where the fact is alluded to. Passover is used in the general sense of the feast of unleavened bread, as Luke explains. The feast of unleavened bread followed the Passover meal, beginning the next morning and lasting a week. But the one term was used to include the other. The Passover was expanded to mean the entire feast that followed, and vice versa.

(b) It is true that the Jewish authorities decided not to put Jesus to death during the feast (Matthew 26:5; Mark 14:2). But this decision was reached not because of any compunctions of conscience in the matter, but because they were afraid of a tumult among the people, owing to the great crowds, many of whom were friendly to Christ. But so soon as Judas offered his services, their fears vanished and they proceeded with their murderous designs (Matthew 26:14; Mark 14:11). The rulers did expedite matters at the crucifixion that the bodies might not be exposed on the Sabbath. But they had often tried to slay Jesus on the Sabbath heretofore. Public executions did take place during the feasts (Deut. 17:12 f.).

(c) The Synoptists flatly say (Matthew 26:17, 20; Mark 14:12, 17; Luke 22:7, 14) that on the first day of unleavened bread Jesus sent Peter and John from Bethany into the city to make preparations for eating the Passover, and that on the evening of the same day he ate it with his disciples. Luke calls it "the hour." Now, the first day of unleavened bread was the 14th Nisan. There is no question about this. Josephus speaks of the feast lasting eight days. The lamb of the supper being slain on the afternoon of this day, it was regarded as the beginning of the feast. Besides, Mark and Luke end the whole matter by saying that on this day they sacrificed the Passover. Jesus himself calls it the Passover (Luke 22:15). It is useless to say that Jesus ate the Passover a day in advance. This could not be done, especially by one to whom the temple authorities were hostile. Equally useless is it to say that the Jews ate the Passover a day too late. If a mistake was made about the new moon, they would hardly keep the Passover on two different days, nor would Jesus be apt to make a point about the matter.

3. The testimony of John. If we had only the evidence of the Synoptists, no serious trouble would ever arise on this question. Strauss has strenuously urged that John is on this point in hopeless conflict with the other Evangelists, since he makes Jesus eat the Passover on the evening after the 13th Nisan (Wednesday), and not the evening after the 14th (Thursday). This idea has gained a foothold among many able modern writers who see a clear contradiction between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. Some of these evidently do so because they hold that the Paschal controversy in Asia Minor arose from this supposed conflict of John with the Synoptists, and that this shows John's Gospel to have been in existence when that controversy began. It is not worth while to maintain that John in chapter 13 alludes to a different meal on a different occasion. The points of contact with the Synoptists are too sharp and clear, such as the sop given to Judas. But five passages in John are produced as being in direct opposition to the statements of the Synoptic Gospels. A careful examination of each of these five passages in the Fourth Gospel will show that John does not say that Jesus ate the Passover meal a day in advance of the regular time, but quite the contrary.

(a) John 13:1 f., "Now before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing, etc." Here, it is alleged, a distinct statement is made that this supper was before the Passover, and consequently twenty-four hours before. But several things are taken for granted in this inference. One is that the phrase "feast of the Passover" is to be confined to this particular meal, and is not to include the entire festival of unleavened bread (cf. Luke 22:1). Often by a metonymy of speech the name of a part is given to the whole. Besides, it is not certain that verse 1 is to be connected with verse 2. The best exegetes agree that a complete idea may be presented therein, either a general statement that Jesus loved his own before the Passover and until the end, or that he came into special consciousness of this love just before the Passover. And if the more natural interpretation be taken and the application of this love be made in verse 2, it is not necessary that the "before" be as much as twenty-four hours. Observe also the text adopted in the Revised Version in verse 2, not "supper being ended," but "during supper." With this reading agree the other references in 13:4, "riseth from supper," 13:12, "sat down again," 13:23, "there was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom." So the natural meaning is that just before the meal began, Jesus purposed to show his love for his own by a practical illustration. So, after they had all reclined at the table according to custom, Jesus arose and passed around the tables, washing their feet; then he reclined again and proceeded with the meal. So nothing at all can be made out of this passage against the view that this was the regular Passover; but, on the other hand, the most natural meaning is that John is here describing what took place at this Passover meal. Else, why should he mention the Passover at all?

(b) John 13:27, "That thou doest, do quickly." The objection is made that the disciples would not have thought that Jesus referred to the feast (13:29), if the Passover meal was already going on or was over. So, it is urged, this remark must have been made a day before the Passover was celebrated. But if that were the case, where would be the necessity for hurry, as there would be plenty of time on the morrow? The word "feast" here need not be confined to the paschal supper, but more naturally refers to the whole of the feast, of which the supper was a part. So this haste was needed to provide for the feast of unleavened bread which began on the next morning. No real force lies in the fact that this day was a holy day, being the first day of the Passover festival. The Mishna expressly allows the procuring, even on a Sabbath, what was needed for the Passover. If this could be done on a Sabbath, much more could it be done on a feast day which was not a Sabbath. Hence not only was it possible for the disciples to have misunderstood the remark of Jesus on the Passover evening, but it was far more natural that such misapprehensions should arise then than a day before. So this passage, like the preceding, when rightly understood, really confirms the Synoptists.

(c) John 18:28, "They themselves entered not into the palace, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover." At first sight this does look like a contradiction. For this was certainly after the feast of John 13:2; and if they had not eaten the Passover meal, why here is a clear case of conflict of authorities. But it is by no means certain that the phrase "eat the Passover" means simply the paschal supper. This phrase occurs five times in the New Testament besides this, but all in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12, 14; Luke 22:11, 15). In all of these the reference is to the paschal supper. But the word "passover" is used in three senses in the New Testament, the paschal supper, the paschal lamb, or the paschal festival. The word is used eight times in John besides this instance, and in every case the Passover festival is meant. So we may fairly infer that the usage of John must determine his own meaning rather than that of the Synoptists. This becomes more probable when we remember that John wrote much later than they, after the destruction of Jerusalem, when these terms were not used so strictly. He always speaks of "the Jews" as separate from Christians. And this very expression is used in 2 Chronicles 30:22, "And they did eat the festival seven days." The Septuagint translates it, "And they fulfilled (kept) the festival of unleavened bread seven days." See Robinson. So it is entirely possible for the phrase, "eat the Passover," to mean in this instance also the celebration of the Passover festival. Some have urged that the Sanhedrin had not eaten the Passover at the regular hour because of the excitement of the trial. But this is hardly tenable. And, moreover, since this remark was made early in the morning, how could that affect the eating of the supper in the evening? For whatever impurities one had during the day passed away at evening. Hence this uncleanness must belong to the same day on which it was incurred. If the Passover festival had begun, this would be true, for they would wish to participate in the offerings of that day. So this passage likewise becomes an argument in favor of agreement with the Synoptists.

(d) John 19:14, "Now it was the Preparation of the Passover." This is claimed to mean the day preceding the Passover festival. Hence Christ was crucified on the 14th Nisan, in opposition to the Synoptists. The afternoon before the Passover was used as a preparation, but it was not technically so called. This phrase "Preparation" was really the name of a day in the week, the day before the Sabbath, our Friday. We are not left to conjecture about this question. The Evangelists all use it in this sense alone. Matthew uses it for Friday (27:62), Mark expressly says that the Preparation was the day before the Sabbath (15:42), Luke says that it was the day of the Preparation and the Sabbath drew on (23:54), and John himself so uses the word in two other passages (19:31, 42), in both of which haste is exercised on the Preparation, because the Sabbath was at hand. The New Testament usage is conclusive, therefore, on this point. This, then, was the Friday of Passover week. And this agrees with the Synoptists. Besides, the term "Preparation" has long been the regular name for Friday in the Greek language, caused by the New Testament usage. It is so in the Modern Greek to-day. It was the Sabbath eve, just as the Germans have Sonnabend for Sunday eve, i.e., Saturday afternoon. So this passage also becomes a positive argument for the agreement between John and the Synoptists.

(e) John 19:31, "For the day of that Sabbath was a high day." From this passage it has been argued that at this Passover the first day of the Passover festival coincided with the weekly Sabbath. But that is an entirely gratuitous inference. This coincidence would, of course, be a "high day," but so would the first day of the feast, the last day, or the Sabbath of the feast. In John 7:37 the last day is called "the great day of the feast." The Sabbath occurring during the festival would be a high day likewise. Robinson's arguments on this point are quite conclusive. Nothing can be made out of the expression against the position of the Synoptists.

McClellan discusses various other passages in John which show that the crucifixion occurred on Friday, and that this was the first day of the feast (John 18:39, 40; 19:31, 42; 20:1, 19, etc.). We conclude then that a fair interpretation of the passages alleged not only removes all contradiction between John and the Synoptists, but rather decidedly favors the view that they have the same date for the Passover meal, and that Jesus ate the Passover at the regular hour and was crucified on Friday, 15th Nisan.

It is reassuring to note that David Smith (The Days of His Flesh, Appendix VIII) reaches the same conclusion as that just stated. He makes it out that Jesus ate the regular Passover meal and was crucified on Friday 15th of Nisan and that the passages in John really agree with the Synoptic account.

12. The Hour of the Crucifixion

In John 19:14 it is stated that the time when Pilate sentenced Jesus to be crucified, or rather when he began the last trial in which he sentenced him, was about the sixth hour. We read, however, in Mark 15:25 that it was the third hour when Christ was crucified. The Synoptists all unite in saying that the darkness began at the sixth hour. The Jewish way of counting the hours was to divide the night and day into twelve divisions each, beginning at sunrise and sunset. The hours would thus vary in length with the time of year. Just after the vernal equinox the third hour of Mark would be about 9 A.M., and the sixth hour of the Synoptists would be about noon. The ninth hour, when Jesus gave his piteous cry to God (Mark 15:34), would be about 3 P.M. But how can the sixth hour of John, the time when Jesus was sentenced by Pilate, be reconciled to this schedule? A real difficulty is here presented, but by no means an insuperable one, as Alford and Meyer hold. Let us discuss some of the more usual explanations. Andrews and McClellan give quite a variety of suggested solutions.

1. Some hold that "sixth" in John is a textual error for "third." This could easily happen, since the gamma and the digamma of the Greek are very similar. Eusebius said that the accurate copies had it "third" in John. But the textual evidence is overwhelmingly against it, and, besides, the difficulty would not be removed. John is evidently speaking of the time at the last trial and Mark of the time after Jesus has been led out to the crucifixion. So nothing is gained by this hypothesis. We should still be confronted with the same difficulty. The change to third in John was a mere stupid scribal correction.

2. Others would change the punctuation in John 19:14 so as to make "of the Passover" belong to "sixth hour," beginning from midnight. But there is no evidence that the Passover began with midnight. So Hofmann. This is very forced and unnatural.

3. Views that hinge on the word "preparation." Some would hold that John simply says that about noon the preparation time of the Passover begins. But Preparation here means Friday, and noon is not the hour needed to harmonize with Mark. Equally arbitrary is it to count six hours backward from noon so as to reach six o'clock.

Augustine suggested that the six hours are to be counted from 3 A.M. This would make 9 A.M., and would concur with the hour of Mark. But this is wholly arbitrary and unsatisfactory, and would not relieve the trouble.

4. Equally arbitrary is the solution that makes Mark refer to the hour of the sentence and John to the crucifixion, just the reverse of the Scripture account. Augustine also proposed that Jesus was crucified at the third hour by the tongues of the Jews, and at the sixth by the hands of the soldiers.

5. Others hold that Mark and John both speak in general terms. Hence the crucifixion may have taken place between 9 and 12 in the morning. Mark looks in one direction and John in the other without aiming at definiteness. The Jews, it is true, were not as exact in the use of expressions of time as we are to-day, but this solution hardly meets the requirements of the case. Mark puts his third hour at the beginning of the crucifixion, and John his sixth hour at the beginning of the last trial. This reconciliation does not reconcile.

6. The most satisfactory solution of the difficulty is to be found in the idea that John here uses the Roman computation of time, from midnight to noon and noon to midnight, just as we do now. Hence the sixth hour would be our six o'clock in the morning. If this hour was the beginning of the last trial of Jesus, we then have enough, but not too much, time for the completion of the trial, the carrying away of Jesus outside the city walls, together with the procuring of the crosses, etc. All the events, moreover, narrated by the Evangelists, could have occurred between dawn (John 18:27) and six or seven.

For a long time it was doubted whether the Romans ever used this method of computing time for civil days. Farrar vehemently opposes this idea. But Plutarch, Pliny, Aulus Gellius, and Macrobius expressly say that the Roman civil day was reckoned from midnight to midnight. So the question of fact may be considered as settled. The only remaining question is whether John used this mode of reckoning. Of course, the Romans had also the natural day and the natural night just as we do now. In favor of the idea that John uses the Roman way of counting the hours in the civil day, several things may be said.

(a) He wrote the Gospel late in the century, probably in Asia Minor, long after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Jewish method would not likely be preserved. Roman ideas were prevalent in Asia Minor. John evidently is not writing for the Jews primarily, since he constantly speaks of "the Jews" as outsiders. John is writing to be understood by the people, and this is the way it would be understood in Asia Minor.

(b) All the passages in John, where the hour is mentioned, allow this computation. John 1:39 would be 10 A.M.; 4:6 f. would be 6 P.M., counting from noon also (as we do). This hour suits best the circumstances. In the evening the women would come to get water, Jesus would have time for his journey thither, and would be tired and hungry. In John 4:52 the hour would be 7 P.M. This hour likewise suits the circumstances better. John 11:9, Are there not twelve hours in the day? is not against this idea, since here obviously the natural day, as opposed to night, is meant. The Romans used both methods and so do we.

(c) Moreover, one passage in John (20:19), when compared with Luke 24:29, 36, makes it necessary to understand that John used the Roman method in this instance. It was toward evening, and the day had declined, according to Luke, when Jesus and the disciples drew near to Emmaus. Here he ate supper and, "rising up that very hour," the disciples returned seven miles to Jerusalem and told these things to the eleven who were together. But while they were narrating these things Jesus appeared to them. Now John, in mentioning this very appearance of Jesus (20:19), says that it "was evening on that day, the first day of the week," i.e., evening of the day when Mary Magdalene had seen the Lord. But with the Jews the evening began the day. Hence John, here at least, is bound to mean the Roman day. It was the evening of the same day in the morning of which Mary had seen Jesus. This appears conclusive. John did use the Roman method here, may have done so always, almost certainly did so in 19:14. Besides, as McClellan shows, the natural meaning of John's phrase is that it was the sixth hour of the Friday (Preparation) of the Passover. But we have just seen that John in 20:19 counts according to the Roman day. Hence the sixth hour of Friday would be six o'clock in the morning.

This is the only solution that really harmonizes John and Mark. The rest make the hours agree, but the hours bring together different events. This method harmonizes the whole narrative, and seems entirely probable, if we can assume that the Romans or Greeks employed hours in this sense, a point denied by Ramsay.

Sir W. M. Ramsay (The Expositor for March, 1893, and Extra Volume, Hastings D. B.) contends that Mark and John are at variance, but that it is of small moment, since the ancients had little notion about hours. He seeks to show that the martyrdom of Polycarp and Pronius, usually relied on to prove that in Asia Minor the hours were counted from midnight, took place in the afternoon, instead of the morning, the usual time. Hence the eighth and tenth hours respectively would be 2 P.M. and 4 P.M. Ramsay argues that, when hours were counted, they were always counted from sunrise. He holds that John is more accurate about hours than Mark and that hence Mark is in error. He agrees that John "stood on the Roman plane" in the use of time, but denies that the sixth hour can be our 6 A.M. But the evidence is too uncertain for such a dogmatic position.

13. The Time of the Resurrection of Christ

1. Mark, Luke, and John say that the resurrection had taken place early on the first day of the week, i.e. early Sunday morning. Mark (16:9) says that Jesus, "having risen early, on the first day of the week, appeared, etc." The position of "early" is ambiguous in the Greek and the passage is disputed. Mark (16:2) states that it was very early on the first day of the week, the sun having risen, when the women came to the sepulchre. Luke (24:1) says that the women came to the tomb at early dawn on the first day of the week. John (20:1) says that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb in the morning on the first day of the week. So then, there is no doubt that these three Evangelists mean to say that Jesus rose very early on Sunday morning, and that shortly after that event came the two Marys and some other women to anoint his body with spices.

Much objection is made to some of the details in the accounts of Mark and John especially as being inconsistent. John (20:1) says that Mary comes while it is yet dark, while Mark says (16:2) that the sun was risen. But Mark also says in the same verse that it was very early, which would agree with John's statement that it was yet dark. Hence Mark's other statement, that the sun was risen, must be interpreted in the light of his own words. Two solutions can be offered.

(a) We may suppose, as McClellan and others, that John's note of time refers to the starting from Bethany, while it was yet dark or very early (Mark). In a few minutes it would be early dawn (Luke), and by the time the women come to the tomb, the sun would be up. All this is entirely possible and looks even probable, for in the twilight of early dawn, the border line is very narrow between darkness and sunrise. A stiff morning walk would pass through all the stages. It all depends on where you take your stand in this fleeting interim. Mark covers both sides and so includes it all from the first glimmering light till the full light of day.

(b) Or the expression, "the sun was risen" (aorist participle), may simply be a general expression applicable to the phenomena of sunrise. The first gleam of daylight comes from the rising sun, though not yet completely risen. Robinson gives several examples from the Septuagint, where the same phrase is used in the aorist tense in a general way for the dawning light of day (Judges 9:33; 2 Kings 3:22; Ps. 104:22). Either of these explanations is entirely possible and removes the difficulty.

2. But Matthew seems to put the resurrection on the evening after the Sabbath, our Saturday evening. He says (28:1), "But late on the Sabbath day, as it was dawning into the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to view the sepulchre." If this passage means that the visit was made at the end of the Sabbath day (evening) and after the resurrection of Jesus, then Matthew is in plain contradiction to the other Evangelists. Some have taken the position that Jesus rose at sunset on the Sabbath day, forgetting that Mark (16:9) says that he rose early in the morning. There are several ways of reconciling Matthew with the other gospels.

(a) Greswell, Alford and others would translate "late on the Sabbath day" by "late in the week." The Greek word is the same in this verse for Sabbath and week. In both cases, therefore, the translation could be the same. But little sense would result from this translation. "Late in the week" and "dawning into the first day of the week" hardly fit well. By this explanation the latter expression is used for the first part of Sunday and the visit occurred in this dawning part of the day.

(b) Others would translate "late on the Sabbath day" by "after the Sabbath day." Godet, Grimm and others contend that the Greek idiom could mean this, and the Koiné allows it (Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, pp. 645 f.). This rendering is possible, though the papyri have instances of "late on" for this preposition (opse), and it is so translated by several English translators. Thus the Greek idiom allows either "late on" or "after."

(c) Matthew does not clearly say that this visit was made after the resurrection of the Saviour although his words may mean that. Hence the words may have their natural meaning as sustained by the papyri. Late on the Sabbath day, about sundown say, the two Marys go to view the sepulchre (Matt. 28:1), having rested through the day (Luke 23:56). The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee had gone thither on Friday, after his burial, to see where he was laid and had prepared spices. If they went at nightfall at the close of the Sabbath (Matt. 28:1) "to see the sepulchre," they could have bought spices after sundown (Mark 16:1). Then (Mark 16:2) in the early morning, they rose and took the spices and went to anoint his body. It was then that they saw the angel (Matt. 28:5). Matthew does not say that in the visit of 28:1 the angel appeared to them. He speaks of the earthquake having come, and the resurrection, and then resumes. This view gains some support from the use of the same Greek word in Luke 23:54, "And it was the day of the Preparation (Friday) and the Sabbath drew on (was dawning)." Here the meaning seems to be that the Sabbath dawned at the close of the day. So Westcott, McClellan and others. However it may be about the visit of the women in Matt. 28:1, Matthew certainly does not mean to say that Jesus rose at sunset on the Sabbath. The whole course of his narrative in the rest of the chapter shows that it was the morning of Sunday when the angel appeared. While (Matt. 28:11) the women went to the disciples, the soldiers ran to the chief priests (Matt. 28:13) and said that the disciples came by night and stole him while they slept, clearly implying that it was now day. Hence Matthew does not teach that Jesus rose at sunset, but the reverse. Besides, Matthew expressly says that Jesus rose on the third day, which would not be true, if he rose on the Sabbath.

(d) Sabbath day may be used of the day followed by the night, according to a possible understanding of the language. The Jews originally counted from evening to evening, but this custom did not prevail universally. Jonah (1:17) and Matthew (12:40) speak of three days and three nights, following the day by the night. Meyer, Morison, Clark and others hold this view, and it is possible, but certainly not so satisfactory as the view given under (c). At any rate, it remains clear that Matthew agrees with the other Evangelists in putting the resurrection of Jesus Sunday morning. The chief point of difficulty is Matthew's visit of the women in 28:1, whether this was in the evening before simply "to view the sepulchre," or in the morning to anoint the body of the Saviour. The condensed account of Matthew leaves this question unsettled, and there we too shall have to leave it. And this last matter does not affect the question as to the time of the Lord's resurrection, but only the number of the visits made by the women.

14. The Length of Our Lord's Stay in the Tomb

Quite an effort is made in some quarters to show that Jesus remained in the tomb seventy-two hours, three full days and nights. The effort seems due to a desire to give full value to the expression "three days" and to vindicate scripture. But a minutely literal interpretation of this phrase makes "on the third day" flatly erroneous. A good deal of labor has been expended in the impossible attempt to make three and four equal to each other. There are three sets of expressions used about the matter, besides the express statements of the Gospels about the days of the crucifixion and resurrection. Let us examine these lines of evidence.

1. Luke settles the matter pointedly by mentioning all the time between the crucifixion and the resurrection (Luke 23:50-24:3). The burial took place Friday afternoon just before the Sabbath drew on (Luke 23:54). The women rested on the Sabbath (Saturday) (Luke 23:56), and went to the sepulchre early Sunday morning, the first day of the week (Luke 24:1). There is no escaping this piece of chronology. This is all the time there was between the two events. Jesus then lay in the tomb from late in the afternoon of Friday till early Sunday morning. The other Gospels agree with this reckoning of the time, as we have already seen.

2. But how about the prediction of Jesus, repeatedly made, and once illustrated by the case of Jonah, that he would rise after three days? Are two nights and a day and two pieces of days three days? Let us see.

(a) The well-known custom of the Jews was to count a part of a day as a whole day of twenty-four hours. Hence a part of a day or night would be counted as a whole day, the term day obviously having two senses, as night and day, or day contrasted with night. So then the part of Friday would count as one day, Saturday another, and the part of Sunday the third day. This method of reckoning gives no trouble to a Jew or to modern men, for that matter. In free vernacular we speak the same way today.

(b) Besides, the phrase "on the third day" is obliged to mean that the resurrection took place on that day, for, if it occurred after the third day, it would be on the fourth day and not on the third. Now it so happens that this term "third day" is applied seven times to the resurrection of Christ (Matt. 16:21; Matt. 17:23; Matt. 20:19; Luke 24:7, 21, 46; 1 Cor. 15:4). These numerous passages of Scripture, both prophecy and statement of history, agree with the record of the fact that Jesus did rise on the third day. (Luke 24:7.)

(c) Moreover, the phrase "after three days" is used by the same writers (Matthew and Luke) in connection with the former one, "the third day," as meaning the same thing. Hence the definite and clear expressions must explain the one that is less so. The chief priests and Pharisees remember (Matt. 27:63) that Jesus said, after three days I rise again. Hence they urge Pilate to keep a guard over the tomb until the third day (Matt. 27:64). This is their own interpretation of the Saviour's words. Besides, in parallel passages in the different Gospels, one will have one expression and another the other, naturally suggesting that they regarded them as equivalent. (Cf. Mark 8:31 with Matt. 16:21, Luke 9:22 with Mark 10:34.) On the third day cannot mean on the fourth day, while after three days can be used as meaning on the third day.

(d) Matthew 12:40 is urged as conclusive the other way. But the "three days and three nights" may be nothing more than a longer way of saying three days, using day in its long sense. And we have already seen that the Jews counted any part of this full day (day and night) as a whole day (day and night). Hence this passage may mean nothing more than the common "after three days" above mentioned, and, like that expression, must be interpreted in accordance with the definite term "on the third day" and with the clear chronological data given by Luke and the rest. They seemed to be conscious of no discrepancy in these various expressions. Most likely they understood them as well as we do at any rate.

A LIST OF THE PARABLES OF JESUS

The Sign of the Temple, §

The Physician, §

(cf. §

The Three Parables about the New Dispensation, §

The Blind Guiding the Blind, The Mote and the Beam, §

The Wise and Foolish Builders, §

The Children in the Market Place, §

The Two Debtors, §

Parables about Satan's Kingdom, §

The Unclean Spirit that Returned, §

The Sower, §

The Seed Growing of Itself, §

The Tares, §

The Mustard Seed, §§

and

110

The Leaven, §§

and

110

The Hid Treasure, §

The Pearl of Great Price, §

The Net, §

The Scribe, §

The Parable of Corban, §

The Unmerciful Servant, §

The Good Shepherd, §

101

The Good Samaritan, §

103

The Importunate Friend, §

105

The Rich Fool, §

108

The Waiting Servants, §

108

The Wise Steward, §

108

The Fig Tree, §

109

Seats at Feasts, §

114

Feast for the Poor, §

114

The Great Supper, §

114

The Tower and the King, §

115

The Lost Sheep, §

116

(cf. §

The Lost Coin, §

116

The Lost Son, §

116

The Unrighteous Steward, §

117

The Rich Man and Lazarus, §

117

Unprofitable Servants, §

117

The Importunate Widow, §

121

The Pharisee and the Publican, §

121

The Laborers in the Vineyard, §

124

The Pounds, §

127

The Two Sons, §

132

The Wicked Husbandmen, §

132

The Rejected Stone, §

132

The Marriage Feast and the Wedding Garment, §

132

The Fig Tree, §

139

The Porter, §

139

The Master and the Thief, §

139

The Wise Servant, §

139

The Ten Virgins, §

139

The Talents, §

139

The Sheep and the Goats, §

139

A LIST OF THE MIRACLES OF JESUS

The Water Made Wine, §

The Courtier's Son, §

The First Draught of Fishes, §

The Capernaum Demoniac, §

Simon's Mother-in-law, §

A Leper, §

The Paralytic, §

The Impotent Man, §

The Man with a Withered Hand, §

The Centurion's Servant, §

The Widow's Son, §

A Blind and Dumb Man, §

The Stilling of the Storm, §

The Gadarene Demoniacs, §

The Woman with an Issue of Blood, §

Jairus' Daughter, §

Two Blind Men, §

A Dumb Demoniac, §

The Five Thousand Fed, §

Jesus Walking on the Water, §

The Phoenician Woman's Daughter, §

The Deaf and Dumb Man, §

The Four Thousand Fed, §

A Blind Man Healed, §

The Demoniac Boy, §

The Shekel in the Fish's Mouth, §

The Man Born Blind, §

100

The Woman with an Infirmity, §

110

The Man with the Dropsy, §

114

The Raising of Lazarus, §

118

The Ten Lepers, §

120

Blind Bartimæus and His Companion, §

126

The Fig Tree Cursed, §

129

Malchus' Ear, §

153

The Second Draught of Fishes, §

180

Besides these particular miracles numerous general groups must be added, as

Mark 6:56

;

Matt. 4:23 f.

;

9:35 f.

;

Luke 4:40 f.

;

5:15 f.

;

6:17-19

;

7:21 f.

;

John 2:23

;

3:2

;

4:45

;

20:30

;

21:25

LIST OF OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE GOSPELS

MarkQuoted From

1:2Mal. 3:1; Isa. 40:3

1:3Isa. 40:3

1:11Ps. 2:7; Isa. 42:1

1:24Ps. 16:10

1:44Lev. 13:49; 14:2-32

2:24Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; 23:25

2:25Lev. 24:9; 1 Sam. 21:1-6

4:12Isa. 6:9, 10

4:29Joel 3:13

4:32Dan. 4:9

6:18Lev. 18:16; 20:21

7:6, 7Isa. 29:13

7:10Ex. 20:12; 21:17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 5:16

8:18Isa. 6:9, 10; Jer. 5:21; Ezek. 12:2

8:38Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12

9:7Deut. 18:15; Isa. 42:1; Ps. 2:7

9:12Mal. 4:5

9:131 Kings 10:2, 10

9:48Isa. 66:24

9:49Lev. 2:13

10:4Deut. 24:1

10:6Gen. 1:27; 5:2

10:7, 8Gen. 2:24

10:19Ex. 20:12-17; Deut. 5:16-21

10:27Gen. 18:14; Job 42:2

11:9Ps. 118:26

11:17Isa. 5:17; Jer. 7:11

12:2Isa. 5:1 f.

12:10, 11Ps. 118:22 f.

12:19Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5, 6

12:26Ex. 3:6

12:29Deut. 6:4, 6

12:31Lev. 19:18

12:331 Sam 15:22

12:36Ps. 8:7; 110:1

13:12Mic. 7:6

13:14Dan. 9:27

13:19Dan. 12:1

13:24Dan. 8:10; Eccl. 12:2; Joel 4:16

13:26Dan. 7:13

14:12Ex. 12:18-20

14:18Ps. 41:9

14:24Ex. 24:8; Lev. 4:18-20; Jer. 31:31

14:27Zech. 13:7

14:34Ps. 42:6

14:62Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13

14:64Lev. 24:16

15:24Ps. 22:18

15:34Ps. 22:1

MatthewQuoted From

1:1-171 Chron. 1:34; 2:1-15; 3:1-19

1:23Isa. 7:14

2:2Num. 24:17

2:6Mic. 5:1 f.

2:15Hos. 11:1

2:18Jer. 31:15

3:3Isa. 40:3

3:17Ps. 2:7; Isa. 42:1

4:4Deut. 8:3

4:6Ps. 91:11

4:7Deut. 6:16

4:10Deut. 6:13

4:15 f.Isa. 8:23; 9:1 f.

5:4Isa. 61:2

5:5Ps. 37:11

5:6Ps. 55

5:7Ps. 18:25; Prov. 11:17

5:8Ps. 24:3-5

5:21 f.Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17

5:27Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18

5:31Deut. 24:1

5:33 ff.Ex. 20:7; Num. 30:2; Lev. 19:12; Deut. 5:11; 23:21; Isa. 66:1; Ps. 48:2

5:38Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21

5:43Lev. 19:18; Deut. 23:6; 25:19

8:11Isa. 49:12

8:17Isa. 53:4

9:13Hos. 6:6

9:36Num. 27:17; Ezek. 24:5

10:35Mic. 7:6

11:5Isa. 2:18-19; 35:5-6; 61:1

11:10Mal. 3:1

11:15Mal. 4:5

11:23Isa. 14:13-15

11:24Gen. 19:24

11:29 f.Jer. 6:16

12:2Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; 23:25

12:3Lev. 24:9; 1 Sam. 21:1-6

12:5Num. 28:9-10

12:7Hos. 6:6

12:18-21Isa. 42:1-4

12:40Jonah 1:17; 2:1-2; 3:5; 4:3; 1 Kings 10:1-10

13:14, 15Isa. 6:9, 10

13:32Dan. 4:9-21

13:35Ps. 78:2

13:43Dan. 12:3

15:4Ex. 20:12; 21:17; Lev. 20:9

15:8, 9Isa. 29:13

16:4Jonah 3:4

16:18Ps. 89:4, 26, 38, 48

16:27Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12

17:5Isa. 42:1; Deut. 18:5; Ps. 2:7

17:11-121 Kings 19:2, 10; Mal. 4:5-6

18:16Deut. 19:15

19:4Gen. 1:27; 5:2

19:5Gen. 2:24

19:7Deut. 24:1

19:18Ex. 20:12, 13, 14; 21:17; Deut. 5:19, 20

19:19Lev. 19:18; Ex. 20:12

19:26Gen. 18:14

21:5Isa. 62:11; Zech. 9:9

21:9Ps. 118:26

21:13Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11

21:16Ps. 82

21:33Isa. 5:1 f.

21:42Ps. 118:22

21:44Isa. 8:14

22:24Deut. 25:5

22:32Ex. 3:6, 15

22:37Deut. 6:5

22:39Lev. 19:18

22:44Ps. 110:1

23:5-6Ex. 13:9; Num. 13:38-39; Deut. 6:8; 11:18

23:23Lev. 27:30; Mic. 6:8

23:35Gen. 4:8; 2 Chron. 24:20-21

23:38 f.Ps. 118:26; Jer. 12:7; 22:5

24:15Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11

24:21Dan. 12:1

24:24Deut. 13:1

24:29Dan. 8:10; Joel 4:16

24:30Dan. 7:13; Isa. 13:9-10; Ezek. 32:7-8; Amos 8:9; Zeph. 1:14-16

24:37Gen. 6:11-13; 7:7, 21-23

25:31Zech. 14:5

25:46Dan. 12:2

26:28Ex. 24:8; Lev. 4:18-20; Jer. 31:31; Zech. 9:11

26:31Zech. 13:7

26:64Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13

26:65Lev. 24:16

27:6Deut. 23:18

27:9, 10Jer. 18:2; 19:2; 32:6; Zech. 11:13

27:24Deut. 21:6-9

27:34Ps. 69:21

27:35Ps. 22:19

27:46Ps. 22:1

LukeQuoted From

1:15Num. 6:3; Judg. 13:4-5; 1 Sam. 1:11

1:17 Mal. 3:1; 4:5-6

1:19Dan. 8:16; 9:21

1:31Isa. 7:14

1:322 Sam. 7:12-17

1:35Ex. 13:12

1:38Gen. 18:14

1:46 f.1 Sam. 2:1-10

1:481 Sam. 1:11

1:491 Sam. 2:2

1:50Ps. 103:17

1:511 Sam. 2:4; Ps. 89:10

1:521 Sam. 2:7; Job. 5:11; 12:19

1:531 Sam. 2:5; Ps. 107:9

1:54Isa. 41:8-9; Gen. 17:7; Mic. 7:20

1:59Lev. 12:3

1:68Ps. 72:18; 111:9

1:691 Sam. 2:10; Ps. 18:3

1:71Ps. 18:4; 106:10

1:72 f.Gen. 17:7; Lev. 26:42; Ps. 105:8; Mic. 7:20

1:76Mal. 3:1

1:78Mal. 4:2

1:79Isa. 8:22; 9:2

2:21Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3

2:23 f.Ex. 13:2, 12; Lev. 12:1-8

2:30Isa. 52:10

2:32Isa. 42:6; 49:6

2:41Ex. 23:14-17; Deut. 16:1-8

2:521 Sam. 2:26

3:4-6Isa. 40:3-5

3:22Ps. 2:7; Isa. 42:1

3:23-381 Chron. 1:1-4, 24-28; 2:1-15; 3:17; Ruth 4:18-22

4:4Deut. 8:3

4:8Deut. 6:13

4:10 f.Ps. 91:11

4:12Deut. 6:16

4:18 f.Isa. 58:6; 61:1 f

4:25-271 Kings 17:1, 8-9; 18:1-2; 2 Kings 5:1, 14

4:34Ps. 16:10

5:14Lev. 13:49; 14:2-32

6:2Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; 23:25

6:3Lev. 24:9; 1 Sam. 21:1-6

6:21Isa. 61:2

7:22Isa. 2:18-19; 35:5-6; 61:1

7:27Mal. 3:1

8:10Isa. 6:9 f.

10:12Gen. 19:24

10:15Isa. 14:13-15

10:27Lev. 18:5; 19:18; Deut. 6:4 f.

11:29Jonah 3:1-4

11:311 Kings 10:1-3

11:32Jonah 3:5-10

11:42, 51Lev. 27:30; Gen. 4:8; 2 Chron. 24:20 f.; Mic. 6:8

12:53Mic. 7:6

13:14, 19Ex. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15; Dan. 4:10-12, 20 f.

13:27, 29Ps. 6:8; 13:29; 107:3; Isa. 49:12

17:12Lev. 13:45-46

17:13 f.Lev. 13:49; 14:1-3

17:26Gen. 6:11-13; 7:7, 21-23

17:28, 33Gen. 18:20-22; 19:24-25; Gen. 19:26

18:20Ex. 20:12-17; Deut. 5:16-21

19:8, 10Ex. 22:1; Num. 5:6-7; Ezek. 34:16

19:38Ps. 118:26

19:46Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11

20:9Isa. 5:1 f.

20:17Ps. 118:22 f.

20:18Isa. 8:14

20:28, 38Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5 f.; Ex. 3:6

20:42 f.Ps. 8:7; 110:1

21:20Dan. 9:27

21:22Dan. 12:1

21:25 f.Dan. 8:10; Joel 4:16; Isa. 13:9 f.; Ezek. 32:7 f.; Amos 8:9; Zeph. 1:14 f.

21:27, 28Dan. 7:13; Deut. 30:4 (LXX); Isa. 21:12 f.; Zech. 2:6 (LXX)

22:37Isa. 53:12

22:46Ps. 31:5

22:69Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13

23:30Hos. 10:8

23:46Ps. 31:6

23:56Ex. 12:16; 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15

24:46Hos. 6:2

JohnQuoted From

1:23Isa. 40:3

1:29, 36Isa. 53:7

1:492 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7

1:51Gen. 28:12

2:18Ex. 16:4, 15; Neh. 9:15; Ps. 69:9

3:14Num. 21:8-9

4:5Josh. 24:32

5:10Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14

6:14Deut. 18:15

6:31Ex. 16:4; Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:24

6:45Isa. 54:13

7:22Gen. 17:9-14; Lev. 12:1-3

7:38Prov. 18:4

7:422 Sam. 7:12; Isa. 11:1; Mic. 5:2

8:5Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24

8:17Deut. 17:6; 19:15

8:39Isa. 6:9 f.

10:16Ezek. 35:23; 37:24

10:34Ps. 82:6

12:13Ps. 118:26

12:14 f.Zech. 9:9

12:27Ps. 42:6

12:38Isa. 53:1

12:40Isa. 6:9 f.

13:18Ps. 41:9

15:25Ps. 35:19; 69:5

16:22Isa. 66:14

17:12Ps. 41:9

19:24Ps. 22:18

19:29Ps. 69:21

19:36Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:21

19:37Zech. 12:10

19:42Deut. 21:22

A LIST OF SOME UNCANONICAL SAYINGS OF JESUS

Some of the more important reported sayings of Christ are given which are not found in the Gospels or Acts; whether true words of the Master or not, it is not known. Some certainly are not like the Spirit of Christ, but it will be of service to the student to compare them with the genuine Words of Jesus in our Gospels. The Apocryphal Gospels are passed by as not worth using in this list.

1. The Logia of Jesus (Grenfell and Hunt):

Jesus saith: Except ye fast to the world, ye shall in no wise find the Kingdom of God; and except ye keep the Sabbath, ye shall not see the Father.

Jesus saith: I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh was I seen of them, and I found all men drunken, and none found I athirst among them, and my soul grieveth over the sons of men because they are blind in their heart.

Jesus saith: Wherever there are ... and there is one ... alone, I am with him. Raise the stone and there thou shalt find me, cleave the wood and there am I.

Jesus saith: A prophet is not acceptable in his own country, neither doth a physician work cures upon them that know him.

Jesus saith: A city built upon the top of a high hill and stablished, can neither fall nor be hid.

2. Readings found in Codex D.

One is concerning a man found working on the Sabbath, and comes after Luke 6:4: O man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and art a transgressor of the law.

Likewise Codex D has, after Matt. 20:28: But you seek to increase from little, and from greater to be less.

3. Quotations found in various early Fathers.

From Barnabas: Let us resist all iniquity, and hold it in hatred. They who wish to see me and lay hold on my kingdom must receive me by affliction and suffering.

From Origen and others: Show yourselves tried money changers.

Ask great things, and the small shall be added to you; and ask heavenly things, and the earthly shall be added unto you.

He who is near me is near the fire: he who is far from me, is far from the kingdom.

For those that are sick I was sick, and for those that hunger, I suffered hunger, and for those that thirst, I suffered thirst.

From Clement of Rome (Ep. II.): Keep the flesh pure, and the seal unspotted.

When the two shall be one, and that which is without as that which is within, and the male with the female neither male nor female.

If ye kept not that which is small, who will give you that which is great? For I say unto you, that he that is faithful in very little is faithful also in much.

From Justin Martyr: In whatsoever I may find you, in this will I also judge you. Such as I may find thee, I will judge thee.

From Ignatius: Take hold, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.

From Clement of Alexandria: He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns shall rest. Look with wonder at that which is before you. My mystery is for me and for the sons of my house.

From Papias: The days will come in which vines shall spring up, each having ten thousand stocks, and on each stock ten thousand branches, and on each branch ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand bunches, and on each bunch ten thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall give five and twenty measures of wine. And when any saint shall have seized one bunch, another shall cry: I am a better bunch; take me; through me bless the Lord.

SIMILAR INCIDENTS AND CHIEF REPEATED SAYINGS

Calling Disciples: §§

, and

Cleansing the Temple: §§

and

129

Owning Jesus as Messiah: §§

118

Rejection at Nazareth: §§

and

Miraculous Draught of Fishes: §§

and

180

Parables of Mustard Seed and Leaven: §§

64 (d)

and

110

The Tours of Galilee: §§

, and

Healings on the Sabbath: §§

49-51

100

110

114

The Lists of the Twelve: §§

and

Courtier's Son and Centurion's Servant: §§

and

The Model Prayer: §§

and

105

The Anointing of Christ: §§

and

141

The Blasphemous Accusation: §§

, and

106

Groups of Parables: §§

91-92

108

114-117

121

124

132

139

Sending the Twelve and Sending the Seventy: §§

and

102

Feeding the Five Thousand and the Four Thousand: §§

and

Tests of Discipleship: §§

and

115

Jesus Foretelling His Death: §§

125

139-152

The Twelve Contending for Supremacy: §§

125

144

Attacking Jesus in Jerusalem: §§

96-101

111

119

124-135

153-167

Foretelling the Second Coming: §§

120

127

139

148-151

Divorce: §§

and

122

Like Children: §§

and

123

Rewards of Service: §§

and

124

Worldly Anxieties: §§

and

108

The Ninety and Nine: §§

and

116

Baptism of Death: §§

108

and

125

The Pounds and the Talents: §§

127

and

139

The Agony of Christ: §§

130

and

152

Denouncing the Scribes and Pharisees: §§

and

137

Lament Over Jerusalem: §§

113

128

, and

137

About a Sword: §§

147

153

The Three Commissions: §§

178

181

, and

183

In general the Later Judean Ministry and the Perean Ministry, chiefly Luke's contribution to the Life of Christ, furnish many events and discourses similar to those described in the Galilean Ministry. Sections 102 to 127 furnish most of the so-called "doublets" or repeated sayings of Jesus or similar miracles. This is just what we should expect in a popular teacher who journeyed in different parts of the country. Some of these were real doublets, spoken by Jesus more than once. Others may be grouped by Luke in a different place. We have no way to decide the problem.

BY PROFESSOR A. T. ROBERTSON

A HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS FOR STUDENTS OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. Based on the BROADUS HARMONY.

A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH. Third Edition. Pages 1538.

A SHORT GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. Fifth Edition. Pages 284. Translation in Dutch, French, German and Italian.

PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. The Wisdom of James. Second Edition. Pages 271.

PAUL THE INTERPRETER OF CHRIST. Second Edition. Pages 155.

TYPES OF PREACHERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Pages 238.

EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF JESUS. Pages 212. Numerous Editions.

EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF PAUL. Numerous Editions. Pages 337.

JOHN THE LOYAL: Studies in the Ministry of the Baptist. Pages 327. Several editions.

THE PHARISEES AND JESUS. The Stone (Princeton) Lectures. The Studies in Theology Series. Pages 201.

LUKE THE HISTORIAN IN THE LIGHT OF RESEARCH. Pages 267.

THE NEW CITIZENSHIP. Pages 157. Second Edition.

THE GLORY OF THE MINISTRY. Pages 243. Second Edition.

MAKING GOOD IN THE MINISTRY. A sketch of John Mark. Pages 174. Second Edition.

PAUL'S JOY IN CHRIST. Studies in Philippians. Pages 267. Second Edition.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Pages 173. Second Edition.

THE STUDENT'S CHRONOLOGICAL NEW TESTAMENT. Second Edition.

COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. The Bible for Home and School. Pages 308.

STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL. Pages 158.

STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Many editions. Pages 284.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING GOD THE FATHER. The Teaching of Jesus Series. Pages 190.

KEYWORDS IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS. Pages 127. Several Editions.

LIFE AND LETTERS OF JOHN A. BROADUS. Pages 476. Numerous Editions.

SYLLABUS FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDY. Pages 207. Fourth Edition.