The great crisis in the life of Christ; His trials and crucifixion

Preface

No, I am not going to write a “Life of Christ.” None has ever been written. The four Evangelists did not attempt it. One of them says that Jesus said and did so many things that the world could not contain the books if all were written. What they did was to write of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. On this grand theme they all write ; and each one of them leads up to it in his own way. Each records a sufficient number of facts in His life to introduce Him, before entering upon a portrayal of His trials and crucifixion.

This is what I aim to do. After a discussion of the person of Christ, to bring Him before the reader, I aim to blend and harmonize all the facts in the life of Jesus, from the time He came to Bethany, six days before the Passover, through all His trials and afflictions, to His resurrection and ascension.

In presenting the subject, I shall be guided by the following rules of interpretation :

1. The surroundings , or circumstances of the case.

Under this rule I- will summon to my aid what may

be known of Jewish customs and Roman laws.

2. The text.

PREFACE.

Notice carefully just what is. said. Under this rule I will refer to the Greek when necessary.

3. The context.

I interpret each passage in the light of what precedes and follows.

4. Parallel passages.

I let scripture interpret scripture. These narratives are all parallel. I will connect and blend them so as to set forth the facts exactly as they occurred.

5. Accept all the facts in the case.

All the facts. This is important. By leaving out one fact I would conclude that John the Baptist is the veritable Elijah. That is the fact, that he says, “I am not!” Jno. 1:21.

6. Believe implicitly zvhat is said.

Sometimes persons fail to understand scripture because really they do not believe what is said, and are trying to understand something else.

7. Never let an interpretation set aside a plain statement of fact.

This is a principle that is so frequently disregarded, sometimes by able men. The fact is plainly stated, and that repeatedly, that Jesus was buried the day before the Sabbath and rose the day after the Sabbath. Mark 15:42, 16:1,9; Luke 23:54-56. But Jesus, speaking on another subject, and addressing scribes and Pharisees, to whom He spake in parables, said the Son of Man should be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Matt. 12:40. See Matt. 13: 1-16.

Now, an eminent evangelist, in a published sermon,

PREFACE.

interprets this to mean that He would be in the tomb three -days and three nights, and uses the following 'extravagant language :

“Christ was crucified on Thursday, as certainly as He told the truth, and the Bible records are correct.’’

“I fully realize that I know but little, hence make mistakes many and great; but I do know, the Bible being true, Christ was not crucified on Friday, it not being possible for it to be possible for it to have ever been possible,” etc., etc.

He knows the record does not say that Jesus would be in the grave three days and three nights ; for he says it means that, and cannot mean anything else ! But it certainly does mean something else, for He was not in the tomb three whole days and nights. See what He said to the disciples. Matt. 16:21.

Another distinguished minister and author is just as extravagant in his claim that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday. He says :

“Placing the trial and crucifixion of Jesus on Thursday, instead of Friday, lessens the discrepancy between the time Jesus predicted that He would lie in the tomb, and His resurrection on Sunday morning, April io, but does not remove it. It still leaves more than twelve hours unfulfilled.”

“The assumption of all Christendom that the New Testament teaches that Jesus was put in the tomb Friday evening and arose before daylight Sunday morning, arrays the history in flat contradiction of two of the clearest and most important predictions made by Jesus. If the history is correct, Jesus was mistaken or He lied.”

So this writer sets aside facts by interpretation, unless for want of perception he thought Jesus really did say what he attributes to Him. He twice misquotes Him. He says :

c

PREFACE.

“Jesus predicts, Matt. 12:40, that He will lie in the tomb ‘three nights and three days.’ Jesus declared also, ‘I will lie in the tomb three nights and three days.’ ”

Notice he directly misquotes the Savior, attributing to Jesus what He never said, and putting it in quotation marks. If he made an oversight, I commend him to rule No. 2.

If these seven rules are strictly followed, it is practically impossible to fall into error.

As I accept implicitly all the four Evangelists say, and wish the reader to do so, I deem it important to present some of the evidence that the historic books of the New Testament are credible and trustworthy. If I had sufficient space, I would proceed as a lawyer in court, who first adduces the testimony of his own witnesses, then shows that that testimony is corroborated by opposing witnesses, and in the third place, appeals to circumstantial evidence. But such a course would require a large volume rather than a brief Introduction. Suffice it to say that the writers of Epistles in the New Testament, the Apostolic and Christian Fathers and all the witnesses friendly to Jesus, attest the historic value of those books. And their testimony is confirmed and corroborated by His bitterest enemies, like Porphyry, Celsus and Julian; and by standard historians like Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus bears witness that there was such a character as John the Baptist; that he preached righteousness and practiced baptism, and was finally put to death by order of Herod. Ant. Bk. 18, ch. 5, s. 1 and 2.

He also mentions the martyrdom of “James, the brother of Him who is called Christ, and some others.’’ Ant., Bk. 20, s. 1-9, p. 406.

In modern copies of Josephus there is an allusion

INTRODUCTION .

to the death of Jesus, but I do not use it because its genuineness has been denied, and I want to use nothing except such facts as rest upon an immovable foundation; and because my cause is stronger without it. With it we have only a brief allusion to Jesus, where we should have whole pages. But without it we have in the passage about James an involuntary allusion to Christ, where none was intended, showing that he had made such an impression that the historian incidentally mentions His name, while studiously endeavoring to avoid giving any account of Him.

Tacitus says the Christians were so called from

“Christus, who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”

Then this Roman historian continues :

“This pernicious superstition, though checked for awhile, broke out again, and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also.”

He also attests the fact that Christians suffered martyrdom in Rome in the year 64, about thirty years after the death of Jesus. Annals , Book 15, ch. 14.

The celebrated Jewish rabbi, Dr. Wise, of Cincinnati, admits the correctness of this passage, as well as of those quoted from Josephus. He says of his countrymen :

“They cursed Herod when he slew John the Baptist. They cursed Ananias when he slew James .” — Origin of Christianity , p. ii.

This learned rabbi also witnesseth that the Talmud confirms those books in their leading facts. He says :

“The Talmud often mentions the name of Jesus,” and continues : “Those passages of the Talmud to which we refer

Introduction

bear the names and the stamp of prominent cotemporaries of Jesus and the Apostles. This settles the question. Had those Rabbis considered Jesus an ignoramus or mere impostor, they must have said so somewhere ; but they did not.” Ib. p. 3.

Dr. Wise says the Talmud gives account of several successes of the apostles, particularly the conversion of Rabbi Eliezer and Paul (p. 21). On the 24th page of his little book the rabbi says :

“Paul is an open book in history. We have his genuine Epistles, in which he gives considerable account of himself and his exploits. We have one portion of the Acts, in which, contrary to the balance of that book, the author narrated in the first person plural, ‘we,’ which appears to be taken from the notes of one of Paul’s companions, Luke, Timothy, Silas, or any other.”

An infidel writer, Mr. Taylor, speaks to the same purport. Taylor’s Diegesis, p. 376.

The earliest infidel writers, Celsus, Porphyry and Julian, quoted or alluded to each of those books, and admitted their general truthfulness. The same is true of a number of modern infidels, such as Ernest Renan. The skeptical but polished historian Gibbon speaks of these books as follows :

“The authentic histories of the actions of Christ were composed in the Greek language, at a considerable distance from Jerusalem, and after the Gentile converts were grown extremely numerous .” — Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, page 574.

I dismiss this branch of the subject with the remark that every material fact of gospel history , except the resurrection of Jesus, is either corroborated by an un-

INTRODUCTION.

believing historian , or admitted by an ancient or modern disbeliever !

I now proceed to consider briefly the circumstantial evidence showing that the four Gospels and Acts are credible histories. This evidence is three-fold.

In the first place. The fact that these books have been read, quoted and appealed to as most reliable documents ever since they were written and an institution established upon the facts recorded therein that has swayed the minds of millions of the human race, revolutionizing governments and remodeling the forms and habits of society, in the way that Christianity has done, is in itself sufficient to show that they have a historic basis to rest upon; and when this thought is coupled with the additional reflection that their genuineness and authenticity were not denied for centuries, either by friend or foe, the consideration assumes majestic proportions, giving to the argument for their entire truthfulness a strength that is well-nigh invincible. If those books are not credible histories, how came the church to be established upon what they record? If they have no historic basis, how came so many men to be deluded ? Men, too, of brilliant mind and high station, such as Paul and Eliezer, Cornelius and Sergius ! Why were the original promulgators and their adherents willing to sacrifice life and liberty in attestation of these alleged facts? If Christianity has no historic basis, how did it originate? And if these books do not furnish the real basis, what reason could the disciples have had for suppressing their real history and adopting fiction in lieu thereof? And how were they en-

INTRODUCTION.

abled to do so in face of the bitterest enemies without, and amid frequent strifes and contentions within? And if these books are fictions, why were they received and revered by all Christians, including every heretical sect? The fact that those books were universally received both by heretics and by standard Christians, and in all countries where Christianity gained a foothold, shows very plainly that they are historic and true. But when we remember that their general truthfulness was never questioned by any of the early enemies of the cross, the case is still stronger. Celsus, Porphyry and Julian never denied that these books are historical ; but assumed it as an undeniable fact, and argued accordingly. Every argument they advance is based upon that hypothesis. I insist that this is a weighty consideration. If those early and inveterate enemies of the religion of Jesus could have denied the authenticity of these books they would have done so. But they made no attempt in that direction. If the books were untrue, then was the time to show it. No research can do it now, for every discovery in Christian Antiquities but strengthens the argument in their favor. As President Hinsdale truly remarks :

“All the discoveries of the last century bearing on the question have gone to establish the genuineness of the Gospels.”

In the second place. The harmony of these books with the geography, customs, history and politics of the age and country in which they were written proves them to be credible histories. In these narratives we find a species of local knowledge and a familiarity with

transpiring events that could be possessed only by inhabitants of that country, and by persons living in that age. These marks stamp the Gospels and Acts as true histories. That is a trait that could not have been imitated by a forger at a later date. A Greek or Roman of the second or third century would not have possessed sufficient knowledge of the affairs of Judea before the fall of Jerusalem; and a Jew in those centuries would have been deficient in Grecian and Roman laws, customs and modes of thought.

I have not time to elaborate this argument. My worthy reader is aware that there are many striking corroborations in the writings of that eminent Jewish historian, Josephus. To show what I mean, I give one example. We read in Mark : “And the daughter of the said Herodias came in and danced,” etc. (6:22). When we turn to Josephus we read : “Herodias was married to Herod, son of Herod the Great. They had a daughter whose name was Salome.” Ant., Bk. 18, ch. 6, sec. 4. The writings of Josephus abound with such corroborative statements; and Rabbi Wise says passages in the Talmud bear the names and the stamp of prominent contemporaries of Jesus and the Apostles. Furthermore, the celebrated French infidel, Renan, deposeth as follows :

“I have traveled through the evangelical province in every direction; I have visited Jerusalem, Hebron and Samaria. Scarcely any locality important in the history of Jesus has escaped me. All this history which, at a distance, seems floating in the clouds of an unreal world, thus assumed a body, a solidity which astonished me. The striking accord of the texts and the places, the wonderful harmony of the

INTRODUCTION.

evangelical ideal, with the landscape which served as its setting, were to me as a revelation. I had before my eyes a fifth gospel, torn but still legible, and thenceforth through the narratives of Matthew and Mark, instead of an abstract being, which one would say had never existed, I saw a wonderful human form live and move .” — Life of Jesus , page 46.

In the third place. The circumstance that there are several of these books, and that they corroborate and explain each other, is proof, conclusive and irrefutable, that they are credible and trustworthy histories. In order to the proper appreciation of this argument, it must be remembered that the Gospels are separate and distinct books, just as much so as though they had never been placed together in one volume. It must be remembered that they are four different narratives, penned by four different writers ; and that the Acts of the Apostles is a continuation of the history, written by the author of one of the Gospels. * These writers, then, as that able jurist, Mr. Greenleaf, remarks, should be admitted in corroboration of each other as readily as Josephus and Tacitus or Polybius and Livy. But they not only agree with and corroborate each other, but they actually explain and illustrate each other. There are many incidental allusions and undesigned coincidences in these books that could not possibly have occurred unless the writers had a common body of real facts from which to draw their statements.

I adduce one example, just to show what I mean: Matthew says, “When Jesus heard that John was cast into prison, He departed into Galilee,” but he has nowhere informed us that John was cast into prison. But when we turn to Luke, he informs us that Herod

INTRODUCTION.

“added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison,” and Mark gives us similar information. Matt. 4:12, Luke 3:20, Mark 1:14. .

The multitude of similar examples that might be given, proves beyond all peradventure that there was a general fountain of historic truth from which each of these writers drank; and establishes most conclusively that those five books are fair and faithful representations of what actually occurred. There is no possibility of evading this conclusion. It cannot be said that the books were written by one man ; for their style is confessedly different, and the specific aim of the writers manifestly diverse. Matthew evidently wrote for the Jews to prove the proposition that Jesus is the Messiah. Mark wrote for a similar purpose but to a different class of readers. John wrote to prove that Jesus Messiah is the Son of God. Jno. 20:31. While Luke wrote for the avowed purpose of informing his friend Theophilus just what things were universally accepted as certain by the Christians at the time he wrote. Luke 1 :l-4.

Nor can it be said that these writers colluded for the purpose of deception, for no badges of fraud appear. Besides, there are some seeming contradictions and apparent discrepancies. Had there been collusion the least shadow of discrepancy would not be visible in these writings. The very fact that some things appear to be discrepant shows that these writers wrote independently of each other, and that they pay regard to nought but truth.

The strength of this circumstantial argument can

INTRODUCTION.

not be over-estimated. If, after eighteen centuries have passed away, dating from the present anno domini, the civil war should be denied with all its bloody realities, would not Greeley’s, Pollard’s, Stephens’ and Schmucker’s histories of the same corroborate and establish the claims of each other, in addition to proving the reality of the war? And if those four histories were found to differ in some respects and present even real discrepancies, would not that, so far from proving them false or legendary, strengthen their claim by precluding the idea of collusion? Most assuredly it would. Then if it were found that another history had been written by one of the quartet, giving an account of affairs and transactions after the termination of the war, that would make the case still stronger, especially if the actions of some of the same men who had figured in the war were therein recorded. Then, if many undesigned coincidences were found in those books, such as may be found in the Gospels and Acts, would not the evidence be as strong as strength itself, and as invincible as eternal and unchanging truth?

Furthermore, if the books referred to had been bound together in one volume for centuries, it would not alter the case, nor weaken their separate testimony. There is no sane man but what would admit everything claimed in the case supposed. Then why not give full weight to the evidence in the case of the Evangelists? The cases are most assuredly parallel. This line of argument I consider so conclusive that I would be compelled to accept these writers as reliable

INTRODUCTION .

historians, if I had no other evidence than the support which each unit of the quartet gives to the others when considered as a trio.

What further proof could we have in support of those evangelical narratives? When an attorney has shown that the testimony of his own witnesses presents a solid phalanx of evidence in favor of his client ; that their testimony is corroborated by adverse witnesses, and that even some of the material points are conceded by opposing counsel; and that there are circumstances which cannot be accounted for if a verdict is rendered against his client, he has done all that it is possible to do in the way of proving an allegation.

Such is exactly the body of evidence in support of the proposition “that the historic books of the New Testament are credible and trustworthy.” Christian witnesses speak with one voice in favor of their claims, and no cross-examination is sufficient to break the force of their testimony; their testimony is corroborated by infidel writers and unbelieving historians ; and the circumstantial evidence is so overpowering in their favor that there are many circumstances which can not be accounted for without admitting their claims. I shall, therefore, in the remainder of this discussion, accept them as possessing (at least) equal weight with other standard histories, and reason accordingly. Especially as so-called higher criticism has been unable to shake them, or weaken the evidence in their favor.

Tatian’s Diatessaron in Arabic, and every other item of evidence points to their early authorship. No fact contrary to their traditional authorship has been

INTRODUCTION.

established. Adverse theories have destroyed one another, or been destroyed by new data. The Synoptics are proven to. be products of the period before the destruction of Jerusalem. The negative critics have had to yield on John also. Baur placed it A. D. 175. Harnack and other radicals now date it from A. D. 80 to A. D. 110. Prof. John McNaugher, of Pittsburg, in an able paper in the Bible Student and Teacher , calls attention to these facts and then sums up the matter as follows :

“For the credibility of the Gospels, which is the essential question, the cumulative guarantees usually adduced are still intact, notwithstanding the learned and laborious investigation that has been had — are stronger for that reason. Higher criticism by its assignment of the gospels to the first century, has so far justified their trustiness, owing to the relation between date and value. And then no iconoclast has done hurt to the marvelous delineation of the divine Christ, has spoiled his mysterious loneliness or wrested away his sceptre of spiritual ascendancy. The fourfold sketch, with its limpid spontaneity, remains self-evidencing at the first, makes compelling appeal to ‘the intuitions and pieties’ of all but those blinded by invincible prepossessions.”

For a full discussion of the credibility of the Gospels, and all kindred subjects, see my “Hand-Book of Christian Evidence.”

Prof. Frederick G. Wright has stated some of the facts so well that I take pleasure in presenting some of his statements :

"Tt had long been known that a pupil of Justin Martyr, named Tatian, had prepared a work called the ‘Diatessaron,’ meaning ‘The Book of the Four.’ It was known from various references of the Church historians that this book was widely circulated during two or three centuries, and that

INTRODUCTION.

Ephraem Syrus, a distinguished teacher of the fourth century, had written a commentary upon the Diatessaron. But long ago all copies of this book, and of Ephraem Syrus’ commentary upon it, had disappeared, and the way was therefore opened for these overconfident critics to assert, with little fear of contradiction, that if we should discover this lost work of Tatian we should find that it represented, not the combination of the four Gospels, but the original source from which the four Gospels was derived, and that its history of Christ would differ in material respects from that which we find in the four Gospels.

“But in the year 1876 there came to light, from an unexpected quarter, facts which completely confounded the critics, and relegated to the dust heap a whole library of critical books which had been written during the preceding generation. At the date just mentioned, there was discovered in the library of the Armenian monastery at Venice a copy of Ephraem Syrus’ commentary upon Tatian’s Diatessaron and it began, just as it was reported by one of the earliest historians to have begun, with the. passage, ‘In the beginning was the ‘Word.’ By going through the commentary, and copying out the passages commented upon by Ephraem, it appeared that the Diatessaron was nothing more than a Harmon}'" of the Gospels, whose texts did not* differ materially from the standard text of the Gospel. Three or four years later, as a result of inquiries started by this discovery, two Arabic translations of the Diatessaron were found, one in the Vatican library at Rome, and another in the Armenian monastery at Venice.

“By these opportune and remarkable discoveries a whole brood of nineteenth-century critics were discredited and proved to be false prophets. This discovery of the Diatessaron, instead of disproving the early date of the Gospel of John, proved it beyond all possibility of doubt. In short, it produced a revolution among the critics that was worthy of being advertised in large capitals and flaming letters upon the outside pages of daily newspapers. Tatian’s Diatessaron, written before the middle of the second century, was nothing but a Harmony of the Gospels. The Gospels, there-

INTRODUCTION.

fore, must have been received and generally disseminated many years before that date. Indeed, they must have had exclusive circulation very close to the time of the death of the Apostle John. There could no longer be any reasonable doubt that the four Gospels were contemporary documents, the product of the generation of men that witnessed the life of our Lord upon earth ; and this at last even Harnack ad^ mits, saying that ‘the chronological succession in which the tradition has arranged the original documents of Christianity is in all essential points, from the Epistles of St. Paul to the writings of Irenaeus, correct, and compels the historian to keep clear of all hypotheses concerning the course of events which conflict witlj this succession.’ And now within a few months Harnack has given his adhesion to the theory that Luke was the author of the Third Gospel as well as of the Acts of the Apostles.

“Close examination of the documents themselves amply confirms their early date, and shows that their writers were contemporaneous with the facts narrated. The destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 A. D. was a turning point in the world’s history. The changes that took place in Palestine in the whole social, political, and religious conditions were sweeping. The Temple and its service disappeared. The Jews were scattered to the four corners of the earth. The Roman power came into absolute sway. But the first three Gospels betray no knowledge of these changes. Their language, their references to geography, to social, political, and religious conditions are wholly such as would be used by writers in the second quarter of the first century. The only exception to this statement is found in the brief prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. And that is so indefinite that it is really no exception to the rule. To those familiar with literary analysis, this is as clear proof as we can possibly have that the records were made and stereotyped before the immense changes that took place in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. It would be impossible for a person at the present time to write a history of events before the Civil War without using language and geographical and political references which would betray

JXTRODUGTION.

his knowledge of the changes produced by that event. In a similar manner may we reason with even stronger force that the Gospels are contemporary documents. They furnish us the story as it was told by the Apostles in their lifetime, and accepted by the early Christians as the sole basis of their religious hopes and activities.”

“No one familiar with the facts can fail to be impressed with the inferior character of the literature of the post-apostolic age. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, are great names. They would compare favorably, both in learning and mental capacity, with the critics of the present day. But they show, in their writings, the infirmities of the class as a whole. Iranaeus, for example, could soberly argue that it was necessary to have four Gospels, because there were four winds and four corners of the earth. The writings of all of them abound in fantastic and absurd arguments. Had the Gospels been written by such speculative critics, instead of by plain men who narrated simply what their ears had heard, and their eyes had seen, and their hands had handled of the Word of Life, the truth would have been diluted beyond recognition, and perverted beyond all hope of recovery.

“No amount of criticism can disturb our well-grounded confidence in the New Testament.”

THE GREAT CRISIS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST

Chapter I. The Person Of Christ

“Calm on the listening ear of night,

Where wild Judea stretches far Her silver mantled plains.

“Celestials choirs, from courts above,

Shed sacred glories there !

While angels with th^ir sounding lyres, Make music on the air !

“The answering hills of Palestine Send back their glad reply,

And greet from all their holy heights The dayspring from on high.

“Glory to God ! the sounding skies Do with their anthems ring !

‘Peace on the earth ! Good will to men !’ From Heaven’s eternal King.

“Light on thy hills, Jerusalem,

The Savior now is born !

Ever since the heavenly hosts sang round the Babe in Bethlehem, myriads sing His praises — myriads which multiply as the years are rolling on!

No- wonder. For He stands forth a unique figure among the sons of men. In the Bible He was prefigured in prophecy and type ; and His name is coupled with everything that is true, beautiful or good.

Was the first man in Eden godlike and grand? Jesus is the Son of Man. Was the woman the paragon of beauty, the essence of sweetness and love? Jesus is the seed of the woman. Was Adam in his primitive state called the Son of God? Jesus is called the Second Adam. And He is the second man to be called the Son of God. No fallen man out of Christ was ever called a Son of God. Did God call the nation of Israel by that name, saying,