Page images
PDF
EPUB

men of Nineveh shall rise up in judgment against this generation, and shall condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." But when Matthew repeats the same answer of Jesus in answer to the same demand for a sign (xiv. 40), he adds the explanation of the reference, "for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights [which Jesus was not, but only one day and two nights] in the heart of the earth;"-and he then proceeds with the same context as Luke.

1

.

"in

The prophecies of the second coming of Christ (Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xvii. 22-37; xxi. 5-36) are mixed up with those of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in a manner which has long been the perplexity and despair of orthodox commentators. The obvious meaning of the passages which contain these predictions-the sense in which they were evidently understood by the evangelists who wrote them down-the sense which we know from many sources they conveyed to the minds of the early Christians-clearly is, that the coming of Christ to judge the world should follow immediately (“immediately," those days,") the destruction of the Holy City, and should take place during the lifetime of the then existing generation. Verily, I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt. xxiv. 34; Mark xiii. 30; Luke xxi. 32.) "There be some standing here that shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matth. xvi. 28). "Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come (Matth. x. 23). "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" (John xxi. 23).

66

Now if these predictions really proceeded from Jesus, he was entirely in error on the subject, and the prophetic spiri was not in him; for not only did his advent not follow close

1 See 1 Cor. x. 11; xv. 51.

Phil. iv. 5. 1 Thess. iv. 15. James v. 8. 1 Peter iv. 7. 1 John ii. 18. Rev. i. 1, 3; xxii. 7, 10, 12, 20.

2 An apparent contradiction to this is presented by Matth. xxiv. 14; Matth. xiii. 10, where we are told that "the gospel must be first preached to all nations." It appears, however, from Col. i. 5, 6, 23 (see also Romans x. 18), that St. Paul considered this to have been already accomplished in his time.

I

on the destruction of Jerusalem, but 1800 years have since elapsed, and neither he nor the preliminary signs which were to announce him, have yet appeared. If these predictions did not proceed from him, the evangelist has taken the liberty of putting into the mouth of Christ words and announcements which Christ never uttered.

Much desperate ingenuity has been exerted to separate the predictions relating to Jerusalem from those relating to the Advent; but these exertions have been neither creditable nor successful; and they have already been examined and refuted at great length. Moreover, they are rendered necessary only by two previous assumptions: first, that Jesus cannot have been mistaken as to the future; and, secondly, that he really uttered these predictions. Now, neither of these assumptions are capable of proof. The first we shall not dispute, because we have no adequate means of coming to a conclusion on the subject. But as to the second assumption, we think there are several indications that, though the predictions in question were current among the Christians when the gospels were composed, yet that they did not, at least as handed down to us, proceed from the lips of Christ; but were, as far as related to the second advent, the unauthorized anticipations of the disciples; and, as far as related to the destruction of the city, partly gathered from the denunciations of Old Testament prophecy, and partly from actual knowledge of the events which passed under their eyes.

In the first place, it is not conceivable that Jesus could have been so true a prophet as to one part of the prediction, and so entirely in error as to the other, both parts referring equally to future events. Secondly, the three gospels in which these predictions occur, are allowed to have been written between the years 65 and 72 A.D., or during the war which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem'; that is, they were written during and after the events which they predict. They may, therefore, either have been entirely drawn from the events, or have been vaguely in existence before, but have derived their definiteness and precision from the events. And we have already seen in the case of the first evangelist,

1 The war began by Vespasian's entering Galilee in the beginning of the year A.D. 67, and the city was taken in the autumn of A.D. 70.

that he, at least, did not scruple to eke out and modify the predictions he recorded, from his own experience of their fulfilment. Thirdly, the parallel passages, both in Matthew and Mark, contain an expression twice repeated-" the elect"-which we can say almost with certainty was unknown in the time of Christ, though frequently found in the epistles, and used, at the time the gospels were composed, to designate the members of the Christian Church.

CHAPTER IX.

SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED-MARK AND LUKE.

MANY of the criticisms contained in the two last chapterstending to prove that Matthew's Gospel contains several statements not strictly accurate, and attributes to Jesus several expressions and discourses which were not really uttered by him—are equally applicable both to Mark and Luke. The similarity-not to say identity-of the greater portion of Mark's narrative with that of Matthew, leaves no room for doubt either that one evangelist copied from the other, or that both employed the same documents, or oral narratives, in the compilation of their histories. Our own clear conviction is that Mark was the earliest in time, and far the most correct in fact.

As we have already stated, we attach little weight to the tradition of the second century, that the second gospel was written by Mark, the companion of Peter. It originated with Papias, whose works are now lost, but who was stated to be a "weak man" by Eusebius, who records a few fragments of his writings. But if the tradition be correct, the omissions in this gospel, as compared with the first, are significant enough. It omits entirely the genealogies, the miraculous conception, several matters relating to Peter (especially his walking on the water, and the commission of the keys1), and everything miraculous or improbable relating to the resurrection -everything, in fact, but the simple statement that the body was missing, and that a "young man" assured the visitors that Christ was risen.

1 See Thirlwall's remarks on this subject. Introd. cvii.

2 We must not forget that the real genuine Gospel of Mark terminates with the 8th verse of the 16th chapter.

In addition to these, there are two or three peculiarities in the discourses of Jesus, as recorded by Mark, which indicate that the evangelist thought it necessary and allowable slightly to modify the language of them, in order to suit them to the ideas or the feelings of the Gentile converts; if, as is commonly supposed, it was principally designed for them. We copy a few instances of these, though resting little upon them.

Matthew, who wrote for the Jews, has the following passage, in the injunctions pronounced by Jesus on the sending forth of the twelve apostles: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (x. 5.) Mark, who wrote for the Gentiles, omits entirely this unpalatable charge. (vi. 7-13.)

Matthew (xv. 24), in the story of the Canaanitish. woman, makes Jesus say, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Mark (vii. 26) omits this expression entirely, and modifies the subsequent remark. In Matthew it is thus:- It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it unto the dogs." In Mark it is softened by the preliminary, "Let the children first be filled," &c.

66

Matthew (xxiv. 20), "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day." Mark omits the last clause, which would have had no meaning for any but the Jews, whose Sabbath day's journey was by law restricted to a small distance.

In the promise given to the disciples, in answer to Peter's question, "Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?" The following verse, given by Matthew (xix. 28), is omitted by Mark (x. 28):'Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

66

The Gospel of Luke, which is a work in some respects of more pretension, and unquestionably of more literary merit, than the two first, will require a few additional observations. The remarks we have made on the prophecies of his own sufferings and resurrection, alleged by Matthew and Mark to have been uttered by Jesus, apply equally to Luke's narrative, in which similar passages occur; and in these, there

« PreviousContinue »