1.02.02.01 The Gospels
I. THE GOSPELS. The unique interest of the Gospels to us is that they witness of Jesus Christ, and therefore in our reading of these books our first aim must be to learn all they teach about our Lord and Saviour. This gives to the study of the Gospels a supreme value above that of any other study in the world, placing it foremost even among Biblical topics. Whatever other parts of the Bible we may select for favorite reading, or whatever other parts we may let fall into comparative neglect, we cannot give too much attention to these four accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. This, then, is the first thing to be observed in regard to the study of the Gospels: it must have the place of preeminence among Biblical studies.
1. The Portraiture of Christ.— The Gospels are not so much biographies of our Lord as portraits. The evangelists did not aim at giving full, connected narratives, but rather at preserving important incidents and characteristic scenes, by means of which they might encourage faith. Reading them with due regard to the intention they follow, we have to see how they make Jesus Christ known to us. A caution that has been felt necessary with other Biblical studies is here of paramount importance. It is most important to free our minds from all preconceptions and simply look at the four portraits by themselves, so that they may tell their own story. The misleading course, one that is terribly common, is to read the Gospels through our own notion of what Jesus must have been, with the result, seen in all similar cases, that we miss the point of what we are reading. During nearly 2000 years Christian theology has been busy framing ideas of the nature of Him who has come to be regarded as “the second person of the Trinity. “Accordingly, we have a theological Christ, remote and abstract, difficult to understand, still more difficult to trust and love. On the other hand, popular preaching and popular hymns have combined to make familiar to the people of our age a rather feeble picture, tender and gracious and winsome, but lacking the power and dignity of the true Christ. It will be an immense gain if we can turn from the abstract “second person” of the creeds and the romantic Jesus of popular ideas to the real Christ of the Gospels. We need a self-denying ordinance if we are to do this. For the time being we must forget our theology we must put the hymns and the sermons and the popular religious books on the shelf we must set ourselves down to read the Gospels with open minds, that they may tell their own tale. It is astonishing what a revelation this will be to some of us — little less than the discovery of a new Christ! The Gospels are like palimpsests; the ancient writing has been written over by generations of well-meaning doctors of the church. What they have done is very well in its way; only it is a thousand pities that it stands where it is. This must be scraped off; we must clear away all theological comments, all accompanying ideas that do not legitimately spring out of the story, so that it shall lie open before us, for the first time truly legible, while we begin to read the Gospels just to learn what they have to tell us about Jesus Christ. Then we shall see the mingled grandeur and gentleness, the wonderful depth and the singular simplicity, the grace and the strength, the mercy that attracts sinners, the sincerity that scathes hypocrites, the majesty that awes all who are not blind to the glory revealed in the story of those wonderful years of the earthly ministry of Jesus.
2. The Four Accounts.— In the four Gospels we possess four distinct accounts of Jesus Christ. They are not altogether independent of one another. Probably both Matthew and Luke are largely based on Mark, and probably all three of the earlier Gospels were known to John. Still, each writer has his own principle of selection, each combines information of his own with what he borrows from the common stock, and each has his own way of regarding the subject he is writing upon. Thus we get diversity in the midst of unity. A “harmony” of the Gospels is an attempt to arrange the several contributions of the four evangelists so that they shall all fall into their right places in a common story. This presents some difficulties; that it does so is apparent from the fact that the schemes of different students by no means agree together. Now, the temptation of the harmonist is to smooth away all differences between the accounts he has set himself to bring into line. But a strict regard for truth should put us on our guard against all such processes. Of course it is only reasonable and right to explain difficulties where they admit of explanation, and where they do not at once appear to admit of explanation it is wise to be slow in pronouncing the divergences to be hopelessly irreconcilable. In some cases, if we knew more, it is very likely we should see a way of bringing together what now seem to us to be very divergent accounts. Still, it is not to be denied that there are some differences that cannot be reconciled. When we come across these we are bound to recognize them.
Nothing but harm can come of the attempt to smother them with a cloud of vague phraseology. For example, Matthew gives his narrative of the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem without a hint that Mary and Joseph had come from Nazareth (Mat 2:1), and later on introduces Nazareth as though it were first thought of as a refuge from the jealousy of Archelaus (Mat 2:23); but Luke shows how Mary and Joseph were residents of Nazareth (Luk 1:26-27), who were only on a visit to Bethlehem on the occasion of the census when Jesus was born (Luk 2:1-5), and who returned to their own city in due course (Luk 2:39). Matthew gives the Sermon on the Mount as actually on the mountain (v. 1); Luke’s account points to a plain (Luk 6:17), and his version of the words spoken by Jesus varies from that of the first Gospel. According to Mark, Jesus met and cured Bartimaeus as He was going out of Jericho (Mark 10:46); according to Luke, it was as He was entering the city (Luk 18:35); according to Matthew, there were two blind men cured, the occasion being the same as in Mark, on the departure from Jericho (Mat 20:29-30). After the resurrection, according to Matthew, the principal appearances of Jesus to His disciples took place in Galilee, whither He had told them to go expecting to meet Him J according to Luke, they were in Jerusalem.
Now, it is possible in some of these cases, as well as with some others,— for these are but a few specimens out of many,— to effect a reconciliation. Thus the Sermon on the Mount may have been on a small level place in one of the hollows of the mount, or Jesus may have repeated it with some variations, so that in one evangelist we may have the first delivery of it and in the other evangelist the second. But this is not possible in every case. It has been suggested that Jesus may have cured one blind man on His entrance to Jericho and another on His departure. But the circumstances of the Jericho miracle are so peculiar, and yet are so nearly identical in each account, that we cannot take refuge in this simple explanation. In each report we have the first public confession of Christ, apart from the confessions of the demoniacs at an earlier period; and other peculiar details also agree. If we met the three accounts in three newspapers we should not hesitate for a moment to accept them as slightly variant narratives reporting the same incident. It is only a peculiar theory of inspiration that could ever tempt us to do otherwise in the case of the Gospels. But this twisting of the plain meaning of the sense of Scripture is really most fatal to faith in the sacred record, and it cannot be right if it is not true. We dare not sacrifice truth for what we regard as “safe,” and in the long run an honest, straightforward recognition of these differences is the safest course.
It is the nervous attempt to explain away the differences that magnifies their importance and so makes stumbling-blocks of them. If they were calmly recognized as in no way disturbing, their comparative insignificance would soon be perceived. When we have admitted their existence to the full we have by no means endangered the narrative, much less have we in the least degree confused the portrait of Christ which it was the design of the evangelists to supply. The questions whether the family of Jesus came from Nazareth, whether the great sermon was preached on the top of a mountain or on a plain, whether there were two blind men cured at Jericho and whether the miracle took place at the entrance to the city or at the departure, whether Jesus was seen by His disciples in Galilee after the resurrection, or in Jerusalem, or both —these are all of very secondary importance. However we reply to them, the fundamental facts of the narratives referred to remain: Jesus was born. He left us the wonderful teachings of the famous sermon. He cured the blind. He rose from the dead, and was seen by His disciples. It is the same with divergences on other points. They do not in any way undermine the foundations of the faith or even remove important elements from the story of Jesus. Then is it not most reasonable to admit their presence without the slightest reserve and to proceed to sum up the mass of sure information that remains unshaken in spite of these sources of uncertainty concerning minor points?
3. The Synoptics,— The first three Gospels are commonly called “the synoptics” because they take a common view of the life-story of Jesus Christ. As we have just seen, they do not entirely agree; still, they have so much in common that they naturally go together. It is well, therefore, to study them together. Matthew has come to be the favorite Gospel, the one most read and best known. Familiar quotations of incidents or sayings are in the words of this Gospel in preference to either of the others, even when they are found in all three. So common is this practice that some impoverishment of the evangelical records has resulted, and we really do not gain the full advantage of the varieties of narration. It would be a clear gain, therefore, if the less systematic Bible readers would leave Matthew for a time and turn their attention to Mark or Luke.
Each Gospel has its own special advantages to offer the student. Mark is best for the narratives, and that on two grounds. (1) Mark is the earliest Gospel. As the others are largely founded on it, we are nearer the source when we read this Gospel. Where they differ, other things being equal, it is natural and reasonable to prefer the primitive account. (2) Mark is most graphic. The narratives in the second Gospel are usually the most full and explicit. St. Mark has a love for detail and an eye for color; or, if we are not to attribute the interesting character of his Gospel entirely to the writer, St. Mark’s close contact with St. Peter has enabled him to convey some of the vivid impressions that the incidents he narrates made upon an eyewitness.
Matthew and Luke have the advantage over Mark of preserving more of the teachings of Jesus, but with a difference. In Luke these teachings are more often given in connection with the incidents out of which they arose. These incidents often throw light on the meaning of the words spoken by our Lord. The occurrence of the teachings in what we may call their original setting points to the probability that St. Luke has preserved them in their original form. This fact may lead us to give a certain preference to Luke over Matthew. On the other hand, Matthew has reported the teachings of Jesus with the greatest fullness. This, then, gives a certain advantage to Matthew.
Putting these facts together,— Mark’s graphic accounts of the facts, Luke’s association of the teaching with the incidents, Matthew’s copious rendering of the sayings of Jesus,— we can see how fortunate it is that we have the three parallel accounts, and how desirable it is that we should give due attention to each instead of attaching ourselves too exclusively to any one favorite. This applies to the common matter in the three Gospels. But each Gospel has its own special contributions to offer. Luke has one large section in particular peculiar to himself —that which includes the parable of the Prodigal Son. Lastly, as each writer has his own aims and manifests to some extent his own sympathies, each gives a specific form and tone to his narrative.
Mark is objective, dealing with facts, but he evidently delights in setting forth the glorious power of Jesus, whom at the outset he acknowledges to be the Son of God (1:1). In particular he shows Christ’s mastery over the powers of evil in the cure of demoniacs. Luke delights to dwell on the tenderness of the Healer, the compassion of the Saviour, the all-comprehensiveness of the Redeemer. Matthew has his Jewish readers in mind, as he points to the fulfilment of prophecy. With him the prophet character of Jesus as the great Teacher is especially precious. Thus each has his own aspect of the Gospel to bring before us, and each must be studied if we are to obtain a full view of the whole subject.
4. The Fourth Gospel.— li is evident even to the most superficial reader that the Gospel according to St. John stands by itself. For the most part it covers different ground from that of the synoptics, narrating incidents that occur at Jerusalem, while they almost confine themselves to the Galilean ministry. The form of the language and the spirit pervading the Gospel are also peculiar and characteristic. In the historical portions the Gospel is interesting for its minuteness of detail, its careful notes of time and place, its very dramatic portraiture. Let it be compared with the synoptics where they cover the same ground, as is occasionally, though rarely, the case, and these features of the fourth Gospel will be at once apparent. Take, for instance, the narrative of the feeding of the multitude with the loaves and fishes, and the superior fullness and dramatic vividness of John will be seen in contrast with the other Gospel accounts of the same incident. In its discourses this Gospel has other very remarkable traits. It was once thought by some to give so different a version of the teachings of Jesus from that of the synoptics that the two could not possibly be reconciled. But a more careful and critical examination of the book has led to a much more general acceptation of the conviction that, in its ideas and in the essence of the teaching of Jesus it records, this Gospel is not at variance with the earlier accounts. In the form of language, however, it certainly does stand by itself, and this quite as much in the discourses as in the narratives. Indeed, the same peculiar style that characterizes the narratives is found in the discourses. This is exactly the style of St. John’s three epistles. It is found in the speeches of Christ y it is found in the speeches of John the Baptist; it is found in the comments by the evangelist. For example, in John 3:10-21 we cannot well determine where the words of Jesus end and where the comment of the evangelist comes in; the style is just the same in both parts. Then, in verses 27-36 we have an equal difficulty in determining where John the Baptist’s words end and where the evangelist’s begin; here, too, the style is just the same as that of the earlier passage. If we turn to 1Jn 5:11,
We must conclude that St. John has given his reminiscences of Jesus and the Baptist in his own words. No doubt he preserves much of the original language as well as the essential thought, for we often meet in the fourth Gospel with those piercing words that proclaim themselves none other than the utterances of One who “spake as never man spake.’’ But the whole is viewed through the mind and experience of the apostle who best knew the heart and soul of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus that he thus conveys to us are the most profound and precious. We go to the fourth Gospel for an introduction to the inner shrine of the glorious revelation in Christ.
5. The Teachings of Jesus,— These characteristics of the fourth Gospel lead us on to a consideration of the teachings of our Lord in themselves. As in coming to the study of the Gospels we have to remind ourselves that we are dealing with the most important part of the Bible, so now, in considering the Gospel accounts of the teachings of Jesus, we must acknowledge that we are sitting at the feet of the supreme Teacher. The fact, of course, is admitted at once by every Christian. But what should be the inevitable inference from it is commonly neglected with singular fatuity. Surely, with such a Teacher, the very least we should do is not to interrupt Him. Yet until recently it was rare to meet with a candid examination of the teachings of Jesus by themselves. They have usually been mingled with other Biblical statements, as though all were on a level, and then they have been read in the light— it would be more accurate to say the darkness— of subsequent ecclesiastical theology. Thus it has been very difficult to know what Jesus Christ actually taught. But now we must learn to avoid this lamentable confusion. Not only must all later theology be laid aside for the time being, even the apostolic teaching must be postponed, while we ask plainly, What did Jesus say? Our theology is for the most part based on the writings of St. Paul. When we come to consider those writings it will be seen that serious attention is due to them as affording the deepest and richest exposition of the apostolic teaching. The church suffered grievously for centuries, owing to her neglect of these great epistles of the inspired apostle. But it has been too much the custom to come to the Gospels with a mind saturated with Pauline ideas and only to read them through the mind of St. Paul. This is the mistake we must now learn to avoid. To many the study of the actual teachings of Jesus, with a rigorous exclusion of all other elements, comes as a perfect revelation. It is astonishing that it should be so. But the mischievous habits of Biblical study that prevailed in the past are to be held responsible for the singular fact that some people in the nineteenth century seem to have made a new discovery for themselves in coming to know what Jesus taught.
Having reached what we believe to be the actual “truth as it is in Jesus” we are prepared to look at other truth as that also comes before us in the Christian revelation. In regard to this matter there are two considerations that need attention. First, we have no reason to assume that there is no Christian truth besides that which we have here. Jesus laid the foundation for His kingdom. He left it for His apostles to raise the walls and build the crowning pinnacles. Even their work was His work, for He was with them, and the Spirit He gave them was their inspiration. Still, this apostolic work was subsequent to the earthly life of our Lord, and could not have been included in the ministry that preceded His death and resurrection— the two events on which the chief ideas of St. Paul’s Gospel depend. Second, in considering subsequent teaching we must value it according to its agreement with this fundamental teaching of Jesus. Every writer must be explained in accordance with his own position and ideas. But the standard of judgment for the appreciation of all Christian teachers must be the ideas of the supreme Teacher. Thus the utterances of Christ in the Gospels occupy quite a place by themselves. As in the case of the earliest stage of the Biblical revelation, they must not be mixed up with the ideas that come in at subsequent stages. But then, though other ideas are to be admitted later, this must never be, as with the Old Testament revelation to supersede the earlier ideas. In the case of the New Testament the early ideas are the supreme ideas, because they are the ideas of Jesus Christ. These can never be superseded. Whatever comes afterward, through the apostles, must be accepted as supplement and comment, very valuable and a genuine part of the Christian revelation, but still second in importance to the direct teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
6. The Order of the Teaching.— It is well, as far as possible, to study the teaching of Jesus in the order in which it came from Him. This chronological arrangement we have found to be desirable in other cases.
Thus we are able to trace the development of ideas. Our Lord’s ministry was so very short that we must not expect to find in it the same moving on of thought that is usual with teachings which cover a longer space of time; and we cannot always be sure of the right chronological order, since the evangelists do not all keep to the same order. Some advance in teaching, however, we may discover. At first Jesus simply took up the Baptist’s message, announcing the advent of the kingdom and calling to repentance. Then He declared that the kingdom had come. From these general declarations in His preaching He proceeded to teaching, in which He described the nature of the kingdom and the laws and principles that belong to it. In all the earlier teaching He said very little about Himself.
Gradually He made Himself more known. At first He was not recognized by the people, or even directly confessed by His disciples, as the Messiah. The crisis at Caesarea is signalized by St. Peter’s confession on behalf of his brother disciples as well as for himself.
Still the great truth is not declared to the people. The Messiahship is first publicly acknowledged by Bartimasus, and a little later Jesus makes His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, thus permitting His followers to hail Him as the Christ, a truth which He personally admits to the high priest at His trial. The occasion of St. Peter’s great confession is seized by Jesus to make an important announcement. Up till then He had said nothing about His death. From this time He began to speak of it and to prepare His disciples for the approaching horror (Mark 8:31). From this time, also, He began to impress on His disciples the doctrine of the Christian cross, of the necessity of renunciation of self and the bearing of the cross by all who would come after Him (Mark 8:34).
We do not meet with such distinct marks of the development of the teaching of Jesus in the fourth Gospel. There it appears as though the full truth of the nature and mission of Jesus as the Son of God and the Christ had been declared quite early— one of the indications that St. John gives us the teachings of Jesus in the form of his own later reflections. Still, the difference from the synoptics in this respect is not so glaring as it has been represented. The early declarations of the Messiahship are not in public. Jesus admits to the woman of Samaria that He is the Christ (John 4:26), but this is in a private conversation, and though He is publicly acknowledged a little later it is by Samaritans (John 4:42). Mark records an early acknowledgment by demoniacs; John records a similar acknowledgment by Samaritans. With John, also, as with the synoptics, Jesus makes no references to His death in the earlier part of His career. It is in John that a crisis is marked, where Jesus gives the hard teaching about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, which the evangelist tells us is followed by the falling off of many of His disciples (vi, 66). Thus even in this Gospel we have some hints of the progress of teaching through successive stages. We shall best understand the teaching of Jesus if we endeavor to trace it out in this order of development.
7. Specific Ideas,— There is yet another way in which it is desirable to study our Lord’s teaching. This is to trace out His lessons on separate truths. Thus we can gather up all He says on the being and character of God— His teaching on the spirituality of God, on the Fatherhood of God. With regard to this greatest of all subjects, we must recognize how much of the deepest teaching of Jesus comes to us in His own person and life. He who has seen Jesus has seen the Father; therefore a study of the character of Jesus will lead to some understanding of His revelation of God. Then, we can study the teaching of Jesus on His own divine and human natures, and on His mission as this is set forth in His discourses and as it is illustrated and confirmed in His life. Similarly, we can inquire what He teaches on the doctrine of redemption. It is important to know exactly what Jesus said about the significance of His death and the ransom He was to pay for the deliverance of men and women. The teaching of Jesus on the kingdom of God is a distinct branch of study of very great importance, as showing both the inwardness of this kingdom and yet its essentially social character. The ethics of the Sermon on the Mount and of teachings of Jesus even more powerful in example than in words, the warnings of future judgment, the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and other topics, all invite separate, discriminating study.
8. The Parables.—So much of the teaching of Jesus is given in the form of parable that it becomes somewhat important for us to have a clear conception of the nature of this charming creation and of the right way to interpret it. A parable is always a word-picture in which truth is represented in the form of visible events; but sometimes this is of the most direct kind, without any secondary meaning. For example, the parable of the Good Samaritan is a story of what might have actually happened, and it teaches its lesson by way of direct illustration. The first part of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is much of the same character, and though it is not all to be taken as representing what occurs in the form set forth, still it gives an imaginary conversation in the realm of the dead, with no secondary meaning. But most of the parables are not of this nature. Most of them describe supposed occurrences in the external world to symbolize what takes place in another sphere. They have a literal meaning, but this is only to suggest an analogous process in mental or spiritual regions. Thus the story of the Prodigal Son holds together by itself as a perfect picture of a possible occurrence in the human world; but it is given to suggest another picture just like it, but depicting the relations between God and man. In interpreting these parables two important principles should be borne in mind.
(1) The parable contains an argument from analogy.
It is more than an illustration. There is a close logical connection between the story and its lesson. It contains an appeal to known events as a proof that the unknown must be of a certain character, because they are essentially alike. We see something happening in the visible world. It has a parallel in what is happening in the spiritual world. Therefore the latter movement may be expected to take a course similar to the former. “We are always making religion unnatural; Jesus shows how natural it is. We expect unreasonable things in religion; Jesus reminds us of what is reasonable in our present experience, and argues that the same should be looked for in the realm of which as yet we know less. Thus He repeatedly begins a parable by an appeal to nature or custom or reason.
’’What man of you, having a hundred sheep,” would not do such and such things? “What woman, having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece,” etc. It is as much as to say, “You would not expect a certain unnatural or unreasonable thing to take place in the world of common experience; then why do you look for it in the other realm? ’’ It is of the essence of a parable, therefore, that it should be natural and reasonable. Most of our Lord’s parables narrate occurrences that may actually have happened, some, perhaps, such as the parable of the Sower, things actually taking place under the very eyes of the speaker and His audience.
“Behold, a sower went forth to sow”; such a man might have been seen at work on the plain of Gennesaret, with the very varieties of soil that Jesus describes in the parable. Teaching such as this is vivid, realistic, coming straight home to the listener.
It is true the spiritual world is not entirely analogous to the world in which we live; it is higher and better. This, however, only gives the more force to the argument of the parables. It makes the reasoning a fortiori. If certain results are got amid the imperfections of earth, much more may we look for them in the perfection of heaven. This mode of argument is seen in the parable of the Unjust Judge. If even such a man will be induced to give attention to a poor woman’s complaint on the ground of her persistent pleading, how much more shall the just Judge and Father of us all attend to His children’s cries!
(2) The parable is designed to teach one primary lesson. This is part of the difference between the parable and the allegory. The latter is longer and more elaborate; in its sinuous course it throws out a wealth of illustrations picturing a variety of ideas. The briefer parable is usually directed to one specific end. Accordingly, the key to its interpretation will be found in the discovery of this leading aim. It is generally a mistake to endeavor to derive a number of different lessons from any of our Lord’s parables. We should be prepared to allow that many features are added merely to give color to the whole picture or to fill in the background, in order that the main lesson may be thrown up in relief. For example, in the story of the Prodigal Son we have no ground for supposing that the “best robe”’ represents the “imputed righteousness of Christ,” any more than that the “fatted calf” represents some other element of the evangelical “plan of salvation.”
It is there, in all probability, simply in order to heighten the effect of the description of the joyousness of the welcome home. In the parable of the Wedding-Feast, on the other hand, so much prominence is given to the absence of a wedding-garment that it is evidently to be taken as a significant part of the subject. Sometimes the parable itself will reveal its own salient points and thus lead us to see what specific purpose it is intended to serve at other times we can discover this from the context, the previous conversation by leading up to it showing what the parable is intended to teach.
9. The Aphorisms.— Next to the parable the aphorism is the most frequent form in which our Lord presents His teaching to us. He would concentrate His ideas in short, pregnant sentences. The Beatitudes afford a familiar example of this kind of teaching. Like the parables, these proverbial utterances arrest attention and hold well to the memory. Like the parables, too, they tend to stimulate thought, and they require thought in order to be properly understood. They are essentially seed-thoughts. Evidently it was not the object of Jesus Christ to force His teaching upon unwilling listeners, or even to put it within the reach of the careless and indifferent. It is not well for us to receive truth without any effort on our own part. The truth which is of value to us is that which grows up for us in silent meditation, often but slowly and painfully. We must take some trouble with the great seed thoughts of Christ. They need pains for the right understanding of them, and they are worth effort and patience.
Some of these aphoristic sayings are very puzzling at the first hearing of them. “If any man cometh unto Me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” That is a hard saying; so is this: “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye would say unto this sycamine-tree, Be thou rooted up, and be thou planted in the sea y and it would have obeyed you.” In reading such sayings we must allow for the freedom of the Oriental style, which is not bound down to the dull level of our Western prose. But this will not explain everything. It seems to have been the custom of Jesus Christ to state in an extreme way what He found it very hard to get people to appreciate in the least degree, in order that they might be forced to look at it, knowing that His hearers would always lag behind the truth in its due proportion.
“We must not suppose that because these and the like sayings of our Lord are difficult, and call for much thought in the understanding of them, they must be reserved for very intellectual people. The common people heard Him gladly; and He thanked God that the greatest mysteries were hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed to babes. Sympathy with the spirit of Christ is the secret of understanding His teaching. But this sympathy must induce a careful, thoughtful study of His words if their true meaning is to be discovered; and it will do so where it is genuine and deep.
10. The Conversations,— Much of the teaching of Christ was conveyed in conversation rather than in set discourse. Jesus did not only preach sermons; He talked with people, answering questions and putting questions of His own to those who approached Him. This is very apparent in the earlier part of John, but also to some extent in the later part of that Gospel, although it is supposed to consist’ more of long discourses than the other Gospels. Accordingly, we must have the whole situation before us, in order that we may understand the conversational teachings of Jesus. For this reason we cannot do justice to those teachings by merely studying extracts of the words spoken by our Lord. In losing the dramatic scene we may miss the point of these words. The teaching of Jesus in the interview with Nicodemus or at Jacobus well can only be appreciated when we have the whole scene in view.
Similarly, the controversies with scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees bring out important ideas in our Lord’s teaching, which can only be seen aright as they appear in the dialogue. For this reason we must always study the teachings of Jesus in connection with the Gospel history, in spite of the fact that the truths He taught are eternal in their nature and as applicable to ourselves to-day as they were to the men and women of the first century. For commentaries on the Gospels, see “The Cambridge Bible”; Casseirs “Commentary for Schools”; Gould, “St. Mark”; Westcott, “St. John”; Godet, Meyer, Lange, Morison. See also Bruce, “The Miracles,” “The Training of the Twelve,” and “The Kingdom of God “; Horton, Weiss, on “The Teaching of Jesus.”