[ p. 106 ]
The development of the religious views of Jesus from the earliest years to the opening of his public ministry is a subject which has increasingly been claiming attention. What kind of life did Jesus live in the home in Nazareth? How was he different from other boys? Did his religion develop gradually, year by year, or was it a result of a sudden revelation which came to him at the time of baptism?
Our information is exceedingly meager. But even if no information at all were available for these early years, there would still be profit and help in filling out, as best we could, the development which preceded his remarkable ministry.
“Joseph withdrew into the district of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth” (Matt. 2: 22, 23).
“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers, James, and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” (Matt. 13: 55, 56).
Jesus did not live his boyhood years in Jerusalem, where the emphasis upon legalism and ceremonial was much stronger than in Galilee, but in Nazareth, where there was considerable freedom of thought. Jesus’ parents were not of rabbinic or priestly occupation; they rather held to the great utterances of the old prophets.
[ p. 107 ]
Jesus’ early schooling was probably of the usual type. Under the tutoring of the local rabbi, he memorized portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, learned to read the Hebrew text and recite the Aramaic translation. He also learned to recite commentary and interpretation. Most of his knowledge of geography and history would be attached in some way to this study of Scripture and its application.
What kind of a home did Jesus have? Were his brothers older or was he himself the oldest? These questions are hard to answer. Roman Catholics hold to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, concluding that all these brothers and sisters were children of Joseph by a former marriage. To Protestant Christians this view seems decidedly unnatural.
But whether we think of him as the oldest, or the youngest, or of intermediate age, one thing is fairly certain—he grew up in a good-sized home.
Was the father in the home kind and gentle in all his ways? Or was he, like many another father, at times somewhat harsh and severe? Did the father understand the boy Jesus, and enter into sympathy with his ideals?
No mere superficial answer to these questions will do. The older view was that Jesus must have experienced in his home the beauty of a perfect human fatherhood. Otherwise he would not have chosen the term “father” to describe the character of God.
But modern personal experience should be the main guide in answering these questions. The religion of Jesus will have vital significance and power for us in the proportion that his life and teaching find response in our own natures. Thus if anyone thinks that a young person sometimes develops particular strength of character through the necessity of exercising patience and self-control toward his own family, he will think twice before deciding that Jesus had no problems at home.
How was Jesus treated by his brothers and sisters? What kind of experience in his home would best enable him sympathetically to understand the problems of other young people? [ p. 108 ] There is a statement in John 7: 5 (cf. Mk. 3: 31), that “his brothers did not believe on him” during his ministry. If this situation existed in the early days in the home, it would afford the boy Jesus many opportunities for the development of self-control.
Jesus’ parents were newcomers in Nazareth, according to the statement of Matthew 2: 22. The story of Luke in regard to the census and the trip to Bethlehem also indicates that his parents were settlers, or colonists, in Nazareth. They had left their Judean home for as definite reasons as those which prompted our American parents to move westward. Just what the reasons were may perhaps never be known, but the fact remains that Jesus belonged to a family of aggressive, courageous, industrious folk.
The city or town of Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament or in any pre-Christian writing. Very possibly it was a growing, pioneer settlement, like many American frontier towns. It is a well-known fact that Galilee was a rather uncivilized, or at least unsettled, country in the last centuries before Christ. It was Herod the Great who drove out the robber bands from the country and made it a safe place in which to dwell.
The location and landscape of Nazareth include several features which are of great significance in relation to the Gospel of Jesus. To be sure, anyone who wishes may answer that personality can develop quite independently of physical environment, but modern social studies lend interest to the inquiry into the physical environment of Jesus’ boyhood.
Nazareth is almost completely surrounded by the hills in which it nestles. From his home in Nazareth, wherever the home was located, Jesus could climb in a few minutes to a ridge from which he could view the snows of Mt. Hermon, 10,000 feet high. The glistening whiteness lasts through the hottest days of summer. There can be little doubt that Jesus, in time of difficulty or spiritual conflict, found the same sense of the infinite God which many a great soul of modern times has [ p. 109 ] found in contemplation of the everlasting whiteness of lofty mountains.
Likewise, in the course of a few minutes Jesus could come out from the seclusion of Nazareth to the extensive plain of Esdraelon. Here Jesus saw, as often as he wished, the caravans of the nations passing on their way from Damascus to Egypt; the rich and varied civilizations of Asia and of Egypt in their intercourse with one another found this to be their easiest and best line of travel. Frequently Jesus must have wondered at the peculiar customs and manners of the people passing by. In maturer years he must even have had occasion to talk with these men who had come from the far countries of the world.
A few miles away, moreover, was the city of Scythopolis, the capital of Decapolis. Here the Greek language was spoken, and here the highly developed Greek civilization, which is now being uncovered by modern excavation, was to be found. Sepphoris was also near. No doubt, Joseph, and perhaps Jesus, worked in the rebuilding of this city which had been destroyed by the Romans.
Not far from Nazareth, the modern tourist can catch a glimpse of the Mediterranean Sea, fifteen or twenty miles distant. So it was also in Jesus’ day. A little glimpse of the blue waters of the sea would speak to him of the greatness of God’s world.
It is not surprising that in the country about Nazareth with its variegated scenic panorama the youth Jesus should find so many natural illustrations of spiritual truth.
“When Jesus was twelve years of age, they made the usual journey to Jerusalem. And when they had completed the visit, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, and his parents did not know it. Supposing him to be in the company, they went a day’s journey and then they looked for him: [ p. 110 ] and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem.
“After three days, they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking questions. All who listened to him were astonished at his intelligence and his answers. When they saw him, they were surprised; and his mother said to him, ‘My son, why have you treated us in this way? Your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.’ And he said to them, ‘Why did you search for me? Did you not know that I must be in my father’s house?’ ” (Lk. 2:42-49).
The story of Jesus in the Temple at twelve years of age has often been understood in an unnatural way. In reality, the narrative opens the door to a glimpse of the growing and expanding soul of Jesus.
When the parents left Jerusalem, as was customary, the men were in one part of the caravan, and the women in another. It is easy to understand how Joseph would think that Jesus was with Mary; while Mary would think that he was with Joseph. Twelve years was about the age when a boy would make the transition from the company of the women to the companionship of the men. At the close of the day, when the caravan halted and the discovery was made, it would be impossible to go back the same night. In fact, it would take all the following day to reach Jerusalem. The next day would be the third day. It was on this day, presumably in the morning, that Jesus was found.
The statement of the narrative that the teachers were surprised at Jesus’ intelligence should not be understood in any magical sense. Many a boy of twelve surprises his elders by his intelligence. How much more would this be true of Jesus!
Jesus’ question, “Did you not know that I could not be anywhere else than in the father’s house?” is a not unusual reference to the temple as the “father’s house” and to the fact that [ p. 111 ] this would be the logical place for Jesus to stay and await the return of his parents.
The narrative indicates Jesus’ peculiar personal interest in the temple and in the teachings of the rabbis. He had evidently, even at this early age, turned his attention more than other boys to serious thoughts of God and his will.
Of particular interest is the use of the term “father.” Whatever be our view of the story in Luke, the probability is that Jesus began to use this word very early in life. When he began his public ministry, he was apparently already thoroughly accustomed to speaking of God as his father. The word becomes a keynote in his religion, from the earliest years to the last hour on the cross, when he commended his spirit to the Father’s care (Lk. 23: 46).
“Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And as he was coming up out of the water, he perceived the heavens opened, and the spirit descending as a dove; and a voice came out of heaven, ‘You are my beloved son. I am well pleased with you’” (Mk. 1: 9-11).
Why did Jesus go to be baptized? The question has raised different answers in different ages. One of the earliest answers is found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The statement is that Jesus did not himself feel any sense of sin which must be washed away in baptism; but that his brothers persuaded him that he ought to be baptized along with the others; to this urging he yielded. This answer has little meaning for us.
The question, however, still persists. Did not baptism signify primarily the washing away of sin, as an introduction to the new way of life? Was not this the preaching and message of The Baptist?
The usual modern answer is that baptism would be understood [ p. 112 ] as a consecration to a life of service, rather than as cleansing from guilt. On this basis, Jesus’ reason for going to his baptism was a decision on his part to enter upon an active career in distinction from the secluded life of the carpenter shop at Nazareth.
A variation of this interpretation is that Jesus heard of the reformation which John the Baptist had instituted, and that he was so completely in favor of John’s program that he decided to respond, even though he felt no sense of personal shortcoming. This view is perhaps the most satisfactory one for many modern minds. The baptism signified a reconsecration.
To some modern readers a further question presents itself. Is it perhaps possible that Jesus had some sense of not having lived up to the Father’s will for him? It is not necessary to suppose that Jesus had ever yielded to any temptation. One may still hold, if he wishes, that Jesus was sinless, and yet feel that Jesus fell short of his own ideal. There is a significant passage in Mark io: 18. Jesus asks “Why do you call me good?” Some great souls who feel the perfection of Jesus’ character think also that a perfect soul is sometimes conscious of its own insufficiency.
Jesus always defined righteousness in terms of positive action. He thought of sin as failure to use the talent intrusted by the Father to each of his children (Matt. 25: 25). There is deep suggestion in the thought that Jesus himself may have felt, before his ministry, that he had not as yet attained the Father’s plan for him. Baptism would cleanse his soul of any sense of regret or guilt, as he gave himself to a renewed consecration and yielded himself completely to the Father’s will.
The central experience in the incident of the baptism was the voice which he heard: “You are a favored son. I am pleased with you. I have chosen you.” It is noticeable that Luke speaks of the dove as having a bodily form. Matthew indicates that a voice was heard by others than Jesus; for it speaks in the third person, “This is my beloved son.” Mark, the earliest of [ p. 113 ] the Gospels, gives Jesus’ own experience. The voice was a voice directly to his own soul—“You are my beloved son.”
The significance of the vision and the voice and the descent of the Spirit is unmistakable. Jesus had come to his baptism without particular consciousness of his important mission. It was at baptism that the Spirit of God suddenly filled him with the divine fullness. Here it was that he came to sudden and complete consciousness that the Father had chosen him for a particular mission. The voice and the revelation overwhelmed him. He knew then in no uncertain way that the Father had called. In the struggle which ensued in his soul he could not return to Nazareth. The Spirit drove him into the wilderness. There he endeavored to make clear to himself what the voice meant, and what kind of mission he was called to undertake.
“And Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit returned from the Jordan and was led by the power of the Spirit through the wilderness for forty days, and was tempted by the devil.
“And he ate nothing during the time: and when the time was past, he became hungry.
“Then the devil said to him, If you are a son of God, command this stone to turn into a piece of bread. And Jesus answered, The Scripture says, Man shall not live by bread alone [Deut. 8: 3].
“Then he led him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth, in a moment of time. And the devil said to him, I will give you all this power and glory: For it has been placed in my hands, and I give it to anyone I wish; if you will worship me, it shall all be yours. And Jesus replied, The Scripture says, Thou shalt worship the Lord, thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve [Deut. 6: 13].“Then he led him to Jerusalem and placed him on [ p. 114 ] the corner of the temple, and said to him, If you are a son of God, throw yourself down from here: For the Scripture says, He will give his angels command concerning thee, to guard thee. . . . On their hands they shall bear thee up, that thou mayest not strike thy foot against a stone [Psa. 91: 11, 12]. And Jesus replied, The Scripture says, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord, thy God, [Deut. 6: 16].
“And when the devil had tried out every temptation, he left him for a while” (Lk. 4: 1-13).
The order of the temptations is not the same in Matthew and Luke. Matthew has the visit to the temple second, and the vision of the kingdoms of the world third. The Gospel of Matthew was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and it is probable that the author changed the order to that of a natural climax for his day. The worldly power would be the largest conception for him, as for us. But in the earlier source which Luke used, it is probable that Jerusalem and the temple still appeared as the great and glorious climax of all things.
The temptations of Jesus have always been the subject of extended study and thought. There are today three widely accepted interpretations of them.
There is, first, the popular, uncritical understanding of them. Secondly, there is the interpretation which follows in general the line of Wendt’s chapter in his Teaching of Jesus. There is, thirdly, the recent scholarly view, which connects the temptations closely with the messianic hopes of the day.
The three lines of approach may serve as commentaries, supplementing each other, and helping in an effort to penetrate to the heart of Jesus’ religion.
(1) The popular view of the first temptation is that Jesus was tempted to use his miraculous power for the gratification of his own personal desires. Turning stones into bread is a symbol of the common failing of mankind to use God-given talents and faculties for personal gain and physical wants. [ p. 115 ] Jesus in particular possessed remarkable powers which he was perhaps tempted to use in the interests of personal popularity, and other earthly and material satisfactions.
The answer which Jesus found in his Scripture was effective and powerful. Bread alone does not bring contentment. Selfishness never attains its objective of personal satisfaction and complete happiness. There are higher values in life which give it its glory and its nobility. It is to these higher values that men should devote their talents, and “all these other things shall be added” (Matt. 6: 33).
The second temptation lends itself easily to a similar popular interpretation. Jesus was tempted to devote his energies to acquiring popularity for the purpose of gaining political, national, and international power. He could lead the people and let them set him up as king, as they had done in the case of the Maccabees and of many of their popular heroes in the past.
Jesus’ answer was to turn again to his Scripture, and quote the words of Deuteronomy 6: 13, that loyalty to God is more important than all selfish advantage. If it is necessary to bow down to the devil to gain earthly prestige, it would be far better never to have any worldly position or power.
The third temptation, as popularly understood, expresses a doubt on Jesus’ part as to whether God had really called him to a ministry of service. He was tempted as so many young folks of today are tempted, to apply some material test to settle a spiritual question. Often in modern times an earthquake is taken by great numbers as the proof of God’s hand in human affairs; and at the same time the same earthquake is taken by others as proof that God does not care what happens to his children. Often the death of a friend, or the recovery of some one, is made a test or proof of God’s goodness, or is made a personal basis for decision in some religious situation.
Jesus found in his Scripture the answer that God’s call and God’s plan should not be tested by any external standard. He decided that he should enter upon his ministry of service with [ p. 116 ] perfect trust that the Father would take care of him and speak to him in his own good time.
(2) The temptations are treated by Wendt in a way that is full of suggestion. He indicates that Jesus was not very certain of God’s call at the time of baptism and that the temptations reflect certain doubts which arose in his mind. Jesus’ first doubt, Wendt contends, would be concerned with his humble place as a carpenter’s son from Nazareth. How could a man who had to earn his daily bread be God’s chosen Messiah. There were so many brilliant leaders at Jerusalem who had wealth and leisure time for teaching. How could Jesus live without food? Would God choose a poor man to be his revealer?
Jesus, after long personal thought, met the doubt by his decision that bread and material goods are not the basis of acceptance with God. “Man shall not live by bread alone” meant to Jesus that one who had scarcely enough to eat might nevertheless be called of God to a great work.
The temptation to win the nations of the world was the reaction from the first temptation, and the cure for it. In the vision of the glory of worldly power he detected the reason and basis for his first temptation. It was only because of the natural tendency to desire worldly recognition that his poverty presented any handicap. Jesus resolved that he would not seek worldly advancement or glory; and in this resolution, his humble origin no longer presented any difficulty in the way of his complete devotion and response to God’s call.
It was the same doubt connected with his humble origin which led to the thought that he must make some test to determine whether God had called him. This is the explanation of the temptation to throw himself from the parapet of the temple. If God saved him, in a public demonstration, it would offset the disadvantage of his poverty.
(3) The recent scholarly attitude toward the temptations usually connects them with the messianic hope of the Jews in Jesus’ day. There were several differing ideas of the Coming One. Some hoped for a Messiah who would provide bread and [ p. 117 ] material blessings for the Jews. Others thought primarily of the political power which the Messiah would attain. Still others were looking for a miracle worker, who would compel loyalty and obedience by means of marvelous and supernatural works.
Thus the first temptation reveals a question in Jesus’ mind as to whether he should promise the people that, in the new day, “each man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree” (I Macc. 14: 12). Jesus may often have thought of the method which Caesar had used in Rome for gaining publicity. The free distribution of bread in Rome was very successful in gaining the good will of the populace.
Jesus definitely and deliberately turned away from any thought of setting up any program for establishing a kingdom upon this basis. This decision had a double aspect. It meant, on the one side, that Jesus abandoned any idea that God intended him to be a Messiah who should turn stones into bread. It meant that Jesus’ idea was that the blessings of the kingdom were spiritual and not physical. On the other hand, there was also the inference that Jesus would never seek to gain followers or popularity by promises of material blessings. In a word, Jesus refused to yield in any way to this widespread messianic hope.
The second temptation to seek political power among the nations of the world corresponded again exactly to a popular messianic expectation. The Jews were hoping for a priest of the house of David, who would “restore the Kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6).
In turning aside from this temptation, Jesus was rejecting the most influential ideas of his time. Again and again leaders had arisen who promised the Jews independence and political power. Jesus decided not only that this was a hopeless and suicidal program for his people, in the face of the Roman imperial administration, but also that he would not, in his ministry, make any appeal on the basis of political revolution.
The third temptation corresponded also to a very popular messianic expectation. Other messiahs promised to show marvelous [ p. 118 ] works to their followers. As in the modern days some emotional religious leaders promise that on a certain day the heavens will be opened or the world will come to an end, so, in the old days, similar wild promises were made. A familiar example is that of Theudas (Acts 5: 36), who gathered a large following by promising that he would miraculously divide the waters of the Jordan, as in the days of Moses. It is easy to see how such methods succeeded for a while in gaining a following.
Jesus made up his mind not to cater to any such expectations or methods. He would go to Galilee doing good and preaching the fatherhood of God and the nearness of his kingdom. He would leave it to God whether his mission would be attended by any marvelous results or not.
In rejecting all these three messianic hopes of his day, Jesus was in fact rejecting any deliberate messianic career. These three hopes were the only outspoken ones. Possibly Jesus did not feel at this time that the work he was called to do was definitely that of Messiah. He knew that he had been called; he was more than sure, after these temptations, that he should devote himself completely to the ministry of bringing the good news of the Father’s Kingdom to the people of Galilee. But he avoids using the name Messiah until much later; in fact, he does not allow anyone to say that he is Messiah until the last weeks of his ministry. By that time his own preaching and the will of God for his people had become so well known that it could not be confused by the older established views of what the Messiah should do and be.
The statement that the devil left him for a while suggests the thought that Jesus, again and again through his ministry, had to contend with these same popular demands that he provide bread (Mark 6: 41, 54; John 6: 26), or that he allow himself to be made king (John 6: 15; Lk. 19: 38), or that he perform some miracle to compel belief (Matt. 12: 38).
Jesus came back from his experience in the wilderness to tell the people of Galilee about the love of the heavenly Father. He was convinced that God cared not alone for the more privileged [ p. 119 ] classes of the city of Jerusalem, but also for the poor and the neglected and the discouraged. He went into the little towns of his native Galilee, striving to bring the people into closer communion with the Father whom he knew so well. Coming into a village, he would find a small group of people and begin to talk to them. As Harnack says: “The tendency to exaggerate the apocalyptic and eschatological element in our Lord’s message, and to subordinate to this the purely religious and ethical elements, will ever find its refutation” in the sayings of Jesus preserved in the earliest sources. These sayings are “the authority for that which formed the central theme of the message of our Lord—that is the revelation of the knowledge of God and the moral call.” [1]
Read the sayings in the following chapter in the light of all the historical information reviewed up to this point. Picture Jesus pleading with his fellow countrymen to renew their hope in the goodness of God and to enter upon that higher level of moral character which befits them as children of God and which will lead them above the petty difficulties of the daily round of life, into that higher existence which is the kingdom of God on earth.
Bosworth, Life and Teaching of Jesus , pp. 49-80.
Bundy, The Religion of Jesus , pp. 38-61.
Case, Jesus pp. 160-264.
Deissmann, The Religion of Jesus , pp. 15-42.
Glover, The Jesus of History , pp. 1-62.
Kent, Life and Teaching of Jesus , pp. 43-69.
McCown, The Genesis of the Social Gospel , pp. 187-244.
Wendt, Teaching of Jesus , Vol. I, pp. 90-105.
The Sayings of Jesus , p. 250. ↩︎