troversy no longer turns on our Lord's attitude to the law or the theocratic hopes. His denunciations of pride, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, worldliness, are never mentioned. “Even the question of His Messiahship falls into the background, lost sight of in His claim to a yet higher dignity. The objections urged against Him by the Jews are all of a kind which suggests a later age, when the broad lines of Christian theology had been definitely laid down. "He makes Himself equal with God." "Can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" "Art Thou greater than our father Abraham?” "We were never in bondage to any man, and how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?" These sayings, and many others like them, take us into the thick of the conflict which arose afterwards, when Judaism and Christianity confronted each other as powerful rivals. They echo the objections that were continually urged in the course of that struggle. Christianity seemed to impugn the monotheistic idea by raising Jesus to an equality with God. It assailed the racial privileges of the Jews by its insistence on faith in Christ as the one condition of salvation. Above all, it came into collision with Judaism through its sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The conflict between Jesus and the Jews in the fourth gospel comes to a head in the great eucharistic discussion, a discussion which was plainly impossible in our Lord's lifetime, before the sacraIment was yet instituted. It belongs to a later age, when the Supper had become the central object of the Jewish attack on Christianity. "The real nature of the controversy is still more apparent when we take account of certain details which are made prominent in it. For example, we are struck repeatedly with the author's evident intention to defend the work of Jesus from possible misrepresentations. He is aware of various objections which might be made, or have actually been made, to the facts of the gospel history, and goes out of his way again and again in order to answer them. Thus he is careful to assert the publicity of our Lord's mission, and subordinates the Galilean teaching to the more conspicuous work in the capital. He shows that the rejection of a Messiah from Nazareth has its ground in an empty prejudice. He lays emphasis on Pilate's declaration that he cannot condemn Jesus as a malefactor. He is manifestly perplexed by the episode of Judas Iscariot. Why did one of the Lord's own followers betray Him, and how could the All-Knowing One admit the traitor into His company of disciples? The twofold difficulty is met, on the one hand, by assigning the action of Judas to a direct impulse from Satan, and, on the other hand, by the bold theory that Jesus fore-knew and permitted the betrayal. A like solution is given to the problem of the comparative failure of the Lord's appeal during His lifetime; this result also was foreseen and even designed. The evangelist notices in passing even the more trivial criticisms to which the person and work of Christ seem liable. "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him?" "Hath not the scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem?" The supreme difficulty of the cross is fully recognized, and the effort to overcome it leads to the peculiar Johannine view of the death of Christ as a self-determined act, necessary to His entrance into glory. "The criticism which he pre-supposes, in these instances and many others that might be adduced, is all of one well-marked character. It turns on difficulties that would present themselves most readily to Jewish opponents of Christianity. The wider Gentile world was content to offer a general hostility to the new religion, and did not trouble to inquire too curiously into its origin. The Jews alone were in a position to attempt any detailed criticism. They were acquainted with the facts of the life of Jesus, and had been discussing them in schools and synagogues ever since the claims of this new Messiah had first been pressed on them. The objections touched upon in the fourth gospel were precisely those on which Jewish malignity would fasten; many of them reappear in the Talmudic writings and in the arguments from Jewish sources. Thus, "He was an unlettered man from an obscure village.' "His claims were at variance with the clear indications of Old Testament prophecy." "His supposed miracles were performed in a remote province among an ignorant, easily deluded peasantry." "He made no impression during His lifetime, and if He attracted a few followers it was only from the credulous multitude." "One of His own disciples was so doubtful of Him as eventually to betray Him; and He Himself, who laid claim to supernatural knowledge, had chosen the traitor to be of His company." "He was condemned as an evildoer, not only by the Sanhedrin, but by the Roman judge, who was presumably impartial." These were the stock arguments of the Jewish opposition, and they betray their Jewish origin alike by the detailed knowledge on which they are based and by the personal enmity to Jesus which inspires them. At the same time they are arguments due to later reflection, and could not have become current until a date long subsequent to our Lord's death. When we find them recognized in the gospel, we can only conclude that in the evangelist's own age and neighborhood there was a Jewish community which offered a powerful hostility to the Christian church. The gospel, at least in one of its aspects, is the Christian reply to this Jewish polemic."-Scott, "The Fourth Gospel." ADDITIONAL READING REFERENCES. The teacher should read the entire chapter in Scott's Fourth Gospel, from which the above quotation is taken; especially pp. 77-86, which discuss the peculiar attitude of this gospel towards John the Baptist. CHAPTER XII. AN EXTRAORDINARY RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT. THE STORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. PURPOSE OF THE LESSON. To review the facts regarding the origin of the New Testament books; to bring out clearly the value of these facts in the practical use of this Bible; and finally to deepen the sense of wonder at the religious movement of which the New Testament was the product. DISCUSSING THE LESSON. Question 1 in the pupil's book may serve to launch the class into the work of the day. Suppose some uneducated person should ask you the meaning of this verse (Matt. 16:28); suppose that you do not know the meaning; but you have access to a good library, where you can obtain any needful information. At any rate you have your copy of THE STORY OF THE BIBLE. How will you proceed? Probably many pupils will answer, "Why, find out what the words mean." Bring out, then, the fact that it is quite possible to know the meaning of each separate word and still not understand what the verse means. Bring out the real difficulty which the ordinary reader finds in this verse. What event is predicted, and when are we told this event is to occur? Did it occur, as predicted? Has it occurred yet? Now proceed to show that the difficulty may be removed by discovering the point of view of the writer of the verse. Who wrote this book which we call Matthew? Did Jesus himself write it? What was the universal belief of the early Christians regarding the second coming of Jesus? How would this belief influence their memory of the words of Jesus? As a general principle, then, how will you proceed to explain any verse in the Bible? If the pupils cannot make their way to this conclusion, aided by questions, do not give it to them, but let the problem rest, for the time being. The chapters on the Story of the Old Testament should help them to see the point. Take up the matter of the chronological arrangement of the New Testament books. (Question 2.) How are these divided among the four groups mentioned in question 1? Make clear that this grouping is only approximately chronological. Primarily, it is a classification in accordance with the character of the books, yet each group has a fairly distinct place in the chronological scheme. In connection with question 3, seek for enthusiasm, as for precious gold. If the pupils have difficulty in selecting one book in any group as their favorite, it may safely be inferred that they as yet feel only a languid interest in that group of books, and to that extent the work of the preceding Sundays must be pronounced a failure. On the other hand, even though most of the chapters have failed to strike fire, if a pupil has come to feel a fresh and genuine interest in even a single book in the entire New Testament, the work has been a success, for that pupil will have caught the point of view. |