diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-04-16 14:21:03 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-04-16 14:21:03 -0700 |
| commit | 65310444f6b1aab94db853ae8211437cfe48e8e6 (patch) | |
| tree | 5d9d723dc2d73bfa335f957de04d55a6ad2c2fa2 /75886-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '75886-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 75886-h/75886-h.htm | 7220 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 75886-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 89527 bytes |
2 files changed, 7220 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/75886-h/75886-h.htm b/75886-h/75886-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ff0c7ab --- /dev/null +++ b/75886-h/75886-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,7220 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> + <title>The Mystery of the Kingdom of God | Project Gutenberg</title> + <meta name="author" content="Albert Schweitzer"> + <meta name="publisher" content="Actonian Press"> + <meta name="generator" content="BBEdit 9.6"> + <style> + +#pg-header div, #pg-footer div { + all: initial; + display: block; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + margin-left: 2em; +} +#pg-footer li { + all: initial; + display: block; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + text-indent: -0.6em; +} +#pg-footer #project-gutenberg-license { + font-size: 110%; + margin-top: 0; + margin-bottom: 0; + text-align: center; +} +#pg-header-heading { + all: inherit; + text-align: center; + font-size: 120%; + font-weight:bold; +} +#pg-footer-heading { + all: inherit; + text-align: center; + font-size: 120%; + font-weight: normal; + margin-top: 0; + margin-bottom: 0; +} +#pg-header #pg-machine-header p { + text-indent: -4em; + margin-left: 4em; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 0; + font-size: medium +} +#pg-header #pg-header-authlist { + all: initial; + margin-top: 0; + margin-bottom: 0; +} +#pg-header #pg-machine-header strong { + font-weight: normal; +} +#pg-header #pg-start-separator, #pg-footer #pg-end-separator { + margin-bottom: 3em; + margin-left: 0; + margin-right: auto; + margin-top: 2em; + text-align: center +} + + h2 {margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: center} + h4 {margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: center} + h3 {margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left; font-style: italic} + .drop { text-indent: 0pt} + .drop:first-letter { font-size:xx-large} + +.tei { + margin: 0; + padding: 0; + font-size: 100%; + font-weight: normal; + font-style: normal + } +body.tei { + margin: 4ex 10%; + text-align: justify + } +div.tei { + margin: 2em 0 + } +p.tei { + margin: 0 0 1em 0; + text-indent: 0 + } +blockquote.tei { + margin: 2em 4em + } +hr.doublepage { + margin: 4em 0; + height: 5px + } +hr.page { + margin: 4em 0; + height: 2px + } +ul.tei-index { + list-style-type: none + } +dl.tei { + margin: 1em 0 + } +span.tei-pb { + position: absolute; + left: 1%; + width: 8%; + font-style: normal + } +table.tei { + border-collapse: collapse + } +:link { + border: none + } +:visited { + border: none + } + </style> +<!-- +Version created for Project Gutenberg April 2025 + + p {text-indent: 2em; margin-bottom: 0em; margin-top: 0em; padding-left: -2em;} + +--> +</head> +<body class="tei"> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75886 ***</div> +<div class="tei" style="margin-bottom: 5.00em; margin-top: 5.00em"> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 173%">THE MYSTERY OF</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.73em"><span style="font-size: 173%">THE KINGDOM OF GOD</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 120%">THE SECRET OF</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 120%">JESUS’ MESSIAHSHIP AND PASSION</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 120%">BY</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 144%">ALBERT SCHWEITZER</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">Author of “The Quest of the Historical Jesus”</p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.44em"><span style="font-size: 144%">Translated With an Introduction By</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.20em"><span style="font-size: 120%">WALTER LOWRIE</span></p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">NEW YORK</p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">DODD, MEAD AND COMPANY</p> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.00em">1914</p> +</div> +<div class="tei" style="text-align: center"> +<img alt="Cover Art" src="images/cover.jpg" id="img_images_cover.jpg"> +</div> +<hr class="page"> +<p class="chapter"></p> +<p style="text-align: center; line-height: 0">DEDICATED</p> +<p style="line-height: 0; text-align: center">WITH SINCERE RESPECT</p> +<p style="line-height: 0; text-align: center">AND DEVOTION</p> +<p style="line-height: 0; text-align: center">TO</p> +<p style="line-height: 0; text-align: center"><b>DR. H. J. HOLTZMANN</b></p> +<p style="line-height: 0; text-align: center">BY</p> +<p style="line-height: 0; text-align: center">HIS GRATEFUL PUPIL</p> +<p style="line-height: 0; text-align: center">ALBERT SCHWEITZER</p> + +<hr class="page"> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page003">[pg 003]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg003"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_p" class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"> +<span style="font-size: 173%">PREFACE</span></h2> + +<p class="drop tei">THE attempt to write a life of Jesus, commencing not at +the beginning but in the middle, with the thought of the +Passion, must of necessity sometime be made. Strange +that it has not been made earlier, for it is in the air!</p> + +<p>The fact is that all presentations of the life of Jesus +are satisfactory up to a certain point,—the inception of +the thought of the Passion. There, however, the +connection fails. Not one of them succeeds in rendering +intelligible why Jesus now suddenly counts his death necessary, +and in what sense he conceives it as a saving act. In order +to establish this connection one must try the experiment +of making the thought of the Passion the point of +departure, for the sake of rendering the former and latter +periods of the life of Jesus comprehensible. If we do not +understand the idea of the Passion, may not that be due +to the fact that we have formed an erroneous notion of +the first period of the life of Jesus and so have precluded +for ourselves in advance all possibility of attaining insight +into the genesis of the Passion idea?</p> + +<p>The last years of research have revealed on +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page004">[pg 004]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg004"></a> +what slight grounds our historical conception of the life of +Jesus really rests. It cannot be concealed that we are +confronted by a difficult antinomy. Either Jesus really took +himself to be the Messiah, or (as a new tendency of the +study now seems to suggest) this dignity was first ascribed +to him by the early Church. In either case the “Life of +Jesus” remains equally enigmatical.</p> + + +<p>If Jesus really regarded himself as Messiah, how +comes it that he acted as if he were not Messiah? How is +it to be explained that his office and dignity seem to have +nothing to do with his public activity? How are we to +account for the fact that only after his public activity was +ended (not to reckon the last few days at Jerusalem) did +he disclose to his Disciples who he was, and at the same +time enjoined upon them strict silence with regard to this +<i>secret?</i> It explains nothing to suggest that such conduct +was prescribed by motives of prudence or by pedagogical +considerations. In the Synoptical accounts where is there +even the slightest hint that Jesus wished to educate the +Disciples and the people up to a knowledge of his +messiahship?</p> + +<p>The more one thinks about it the more clearly one +recognises how little the assumption that Jesus took +himself to be the Messiah +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page005">[pg 005]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg005"></a> +suffices to explain his “life,” +inasmuch as no connection whatever results between his +selfconsciousness and his public activity. It may sound banal +to ask the question, but it is one which cannot on that +account be avoided, why Jesus never tried through +instruction to raise the people up to the new ethical +conception of messiahship. The attempt would not have been so +hopeless as one commonly assumes, for at that time there +was a deep spiritual movement going on in Israel. Why +did Jesus maintain persistent silence about his conception +of messiahship?</p> + +<p>On the other hand, if one assumes that he did not take +himself to be the Messiah, it must be explained how he +came to be made Messiah after his death. Certainly it +was not on the ground of his public activity, for this had +nothing to do with his messiahship. But then again, what +was the significance of the revelation of the secret of his +messiahship to the Twelve and the confession before the +high-priest? It is a mere act of violence to declare these +scenes unhistorical. If one resolves upon such aggression, +what is there then left of the whole Gospel tradition?</p> + +<p>And withal one should not forget, that if Jesus did not +take himself to be the Messiah, this means the death +blow to the Christian +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page006">[pg 006]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg006"></a> +faith. The judgment of the early +Church is not binding upon us. The Christian religion is +founded upon the messianic consciousness of Jesus, +whereby he himself in a signal manner sharply +distinguished his own person from the rank of the other +preachers of religious morality. If now he did not take +himself to be the Messiah, then the whole of Christianity +rests—to use honestly a much perverted and abused +word—upon a “value judgment” formed by the adherents of +Jesus of Nazareth after his death!</p> + +<p>Let us not forget that we are dealing here with an +antinomy from which only one conclusion can be drawn, +namely, that what has hitherto been accounted the +“historical” conception of the messianic consciousness of Jesus +is false, because it does not explain the history. Only that +conception is historical which makes it intelligible how +Jesus could take himself to be the Messiah without finding +himself obliged to make this consciousness of his tell as +a factor in his public ministry for the Kingdom of +God,—rather, how he was actually compelled to make the +messianic dignity of his person a secret! Why was his +messiahship a secret of Jesus? To explain this means to +understand his life.</p> + +<p>This new conception of the life of Jesus has +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page007">[pg 007]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg007"></a> +grown out of a perception of the nature of this antinomy. How far +it is capable of solving the problem may be determined +by the result of further discussion. I publish this new view +as a <i>sketch,</i> since it belongs of necessity within the frame +of this work on the Lord’s Supper. I hope, however, from +the criticism of its general lines to reach greater clearness +with regard to many exegetical details before I can think +of giving these thoughts definitive shape in an elaborated +“life of Jesus.”</p> + +<p>I have generally been able only to suggest the literary +foundation, as comports with the sketchy character of this +presentation. Any one, however, who is thoroughly +familiar with this subject will readily perceive that behind +many an assertion here made there lurks more detailed +study of Synoptic texts than appears at the first glance.</p> + +<p>For the Synoptic question especially, the new +conception of the life of Jesus is of great importance. From this +point of view the composition of the Synoptists appears +much simpler and clearer. The artificial redaction with +which scholars have felt themselves compelled to operate +is very much reduced. The Sermon on the Mount, the +commission to the Twelve, and the eulogy of the Baptist +are not “composite speeches,” but were for the most +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page008">[pg 008]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg008"></a> +part delivered as they have been handed down to us. Also the +form of the prophecy of the Passion and the Resurrection +is not to be ascribed to the early Church, but Jesus did +actually speak to his Disciples in these words about his +future. This very simplification of the literary problem +and the fact that the credibility of the Gospel tradition is +thereby enhanced is of great weight for the new +interpretation of the life of Jesus.</p> + +<p>This simplification rests, however, not upon a naïve +attitude towards the Gospel accounts, but is brought +about by insight into the laws whereby the early +Christian conception and estimate of the person of Jesus +conditioned the representation of his life and work. Here is +a question which hitherto has not been treated perhaps +systematically enough.</p> + +<p>On the one hand it is indeed certain that the early +Church had a significant influence upon the representation +of the public activity of Jesus. But on the other hand we +have again in the very nature of the early Christian faith +justification for the presumption that the Church did not +alter the main lines of the account, and above all that it +did not “fabricate facts” in the life of Jesus. For in fact +the early Church maintained an attitude of indifference +towards the life of Jesus as such! +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page009">[pg 009]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg009"></a> +The early Christian +faith had not the least interest in this earthly life, because +the messiahship of Jesus was grounded upon his +resurrection, not upon his earthly ministry, and the disciples +looking forward expectantly to the coming of the Messiah in +glory were interested in the earthly life of Jesus of +Nazareth only in so far as it served to illustrate his sayings. +There was absolutely no such thing as an early Christian +conception of the life of Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels +contain nothing of the sort. They string together the +narratives of the events of his public ministry without +trying to make them intelligible in their sequence and +connection, or to enable us to perceive the “development” of +Jesus. Then in the course of time, as the eschatological +expectation waned, as the emphasis upon the earthly +appearing of Jesus as the Messiah began to preponderate, +and thus led to a particular view (a theory) of the life +of Jesus, the accounts of his public ministry had already +assumed so fixed a form that they could not be affected +by this process. The Fourth Gospel furnishes a historical +picture of the life of Jesus, but it stands in much the same +relation to the Synoptic account of the public ministry of +Jesus as does Chronicles to the books of Samuel and +Kings. The +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page010">[pg 010]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg010"></a> +difference between the Fourth Gospel and the +Synoptics consists precisely in the fact that the former +furnishes a “life of Jesus” whereas the Synoptics give an +account of his public ministry.</p> + + +<p>The faith of the early Church influenced by immanent +laws the mode in which the public ministry of Jesus was +represented, just as the Deuteronomic reform affected +men’s conception of the course of events during the +period of the judges and the Kings. It was a case of +inevitable and unconscious shifting of the perspective. The +new view here presented takes due account of this +shifting of the perspective, and from this reckoning it results +that the influence which the belief of the early Christian +community exerted upon the Synoptical accounts does not +go nearly so deep as we have hitherto been inclined to +suppose.</p> + +<p><i>Strassburg, August, 1901.</i></p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page011">[pg 011]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg011"></a></p> +<hr class="page"> +<p class="tei" style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 3.46em; margin-top: 3.46em"> +<span style="font-size: 173%; text-align: center">TABLE OF CONTENTS</span></p> +<ul class="tei tei-index"> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_p">Author’s Preface [3]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_i">Translator’s Introduction [17]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_12">Footnotes</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_1" style="font-size: 130%">CHAPTER I</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_1" style="font-size: 90%">THE MODERN “HISTORICAL” SOLUTION</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_1_1">1. Summary account of it [59]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_1_2">2. The four assumptions upon which it is based [63]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_1_3">3. The two contrasted periods (first assumption) [64]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_1_4">4. The influence of the Pauline theory of the atonement upon the formulation of the Synoptical prediction of the Passion (second assumption) [70]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_1_5">5. The Kingdom of God as an ethical entity in the Passion Idea (third assumption) [73]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_1_6">6. The form of the Prediction of the Passion (fourth assumption) [80]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_1_7">7. Résumé [81]</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_2" style="font-size: 130%">CHAPTER II</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_2" style="font-size: 90%">THE “DEVELOPMENT” OF JESUS</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_2_1">1. The Kingdom of God as an ethical and as an eschatological fact [84]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_2_2">2. The eschatological character of the charge to the Twelve [87]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_2_3">3. The new view [92]</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_3" style="font-size: 130%">CHAPTER III</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_3" style="font-size: 90%">THE PREACHING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_3_1">1. The new morality as repentance [94]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_3_2">2. The ethics of Jesus and modern ethics [99]</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_4" style="font-size: 130%">CHAPTER IV</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_4" style="font-size: 90%">THE SECRET OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_4_1">1. The parables of the secret of the Kingdom of God [106]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_4_2">2. The secret of the Kingdom of God in the address to the people after the mission of the Twelve [110]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_4_3">3. The secret of the Kingdom of God in the light of the Prophetic and Jewish expectation [112]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_4_4">4. The secret of the Kingdom of God and the assumption of a fortunate Galilean period [115]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_4_5">5. The secret of the Kingdom of God and the universalism of Jesus [117]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_4_6">6. The secret of the Kingdom of God and Jesus’ attitude towards the Law and the State [119]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_4_7">7. The modern element in Jesus’ eschatology [120]</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_5" style="font-size: 130%">CHAPTER V</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_5">The Secret of the Kingdom of God in the Thought of the Passion [124]</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_6" style="font-size: 130%">CHAPTER VI</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_6" style="font-size: 90%">THE CHARACTER ASCRIBED TO JESUS ON THE GROUND OF HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_6_1">1. The problem and the facts [127]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_6_2">2. Jesus is Elijah through his solidarity with the Son of Man [135]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_6_3">3. Jesus is Elijah through the signs which proceed from Him [139]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_6_4">4. The victory over demons and the secret of the Kingdom of God [143]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_6_5">5. Jesus and the Baptist [145]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_6_6">6. The Baptist and Jesus [147]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_6_7">7. The blind man at Jericho and the ovation at the entrance of Jesus to Jerusalem [156]</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_7" style="font-size: 130%">CHAPTER VII</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_7" style="font-size:90%">AFTER THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE LITERARY AND HISTORICAL PROBLEMS</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_7_1">1. The voyage on the lake after the return of the Twelve [164]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_7_2">2. The supper by the seashore [168]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_7_3">3. The week at Bethsaida [174]</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_8" style="font-size: 130%; text-align: center">CHAPTER VIII</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_8" style="font-size: 90%; text-align: center">THE SECRET OF MESSIAHSHIP</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_8_1">1. From the Mount of Transfiguration to Cæsarea Philippi [180]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_8_2">2. The futuristic character of Jesus’ messiahship [185]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_8_3">3. The Son of Man and the futuristic character of Jesus’ messiahship [190]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_8_4">4. The resurrection of the dead and the futuristic character of Jesus’ messiahship [201]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_8_5">5. The betrayal by Judas—the last disclosure of the secret of messiahship [214]</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_9" style="font-size: 130%; text-align: center">CHAPTER IX</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_9" style="font-size: 90%; text-align: center">THE SECRET OF THE PASSION</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_9_1">1. The pre-messianic affliction [219]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_9_2">2. The idea of the Passion in the first period [223]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_9_3">3. The “Temptation” and the divine omnipotence [226]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_9_4">4. The idea of the Passion in the second period [230]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_9_5">5. Isaiah 40-66: the secret of the Passion foretold in the Scripture [236]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_9_6">6. The “human” element in the secret of the Passion [240]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_9_7">7. The idea of the Passion in the primitive Church. The shifting of the perspective [242]</a></li> +<li style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1em"><a href="#mbp_toc_10" style="font-size: 130%">CHAPTER X</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_10">Summary of the Life of Jesus [253]</a></li> +<li><a href="#mbp_toc_11">Postscript [274]</a></li> +</ul> + + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<h1 style="font-size: 150%; text-align: center">THE MYSTERY OF<br> +THE KINGDOM OF GOD</h1> + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page017">[pg 017]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg017"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_i">AN INTRODUCTION</h2> +<h4>BY THE TRANSLATOR</h4> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_i_1">1. An Account of Schweitzer’s Work and Its Reception.</h3> + +<p class="drop">THE work which is here translated was published in +1901 as the <i>second</i> part of a treatise entitled <i>Das +Abendmahl.</i> The full title reads: <i>The Lord’s Supper in +connection with the Life of Jesus and the History of Early +Christianity.</i> This second part was issued separately +and bore also the following sub-title: <i>Das Messianitäts +und Leidensgeheimnis. Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu.</i></p> + +<p>It implies no disparagement of Schweitzer’s novel and +important study of the Lord’s Supper that this second +part is here separated from the first and published by +itself in English. This part is really independent. It has +moreover a much broader scope and appeals to a far wider +interest than does the treatise as a whole. There is reason +to fear that, appearing as a part of a study of the Lord’s +Supper and under that title, it might be ignored by many +of the persons who most would desire to read it. The scant +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page018">[pg 018]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg018"></a> +attention accorded at first to Schweitzer’s work in +Germany may be ascribed in part to that very cause, and +there appears to be no other reason to account for the fact +that the “Sketch” has not yet been publicly noticed in +England or America, so far as the translator is aware.</p> + +<p>It will not be denied, even by those who are least +inclined to agree with the views of the Author, that this first +work of the young Strassburg student did not deserve the +oblivion which seemed to threaten it for some years after +its appearance. It is manifest now that Schweitzer’s theory, +to say the least of it, must be <i>reckoned</i> with by every one +who would seriously study the Gospels or the Life of Jesus. +Obviously it was not the weakness of the book, but rather +its strong originality, and in particular the trenchant way +in which it demolished the “liberal life of Jesus,” which +accounts for the passive hostility with which it was greeted. +In fact it contained more than could be readily digested at +once either by a liberal or a conservative mind. Most of +the New Testament students in Germany had collaborated +in the fabrication of the “liberal life of Jesus” and they +could not patiently endure to see their work destroyed. +Those among us who fancy that German +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page019">[pg 019]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg019"></a> +professors are bloodless beings who live in an atmosphere purified of +passion and prejudice, need to be informed that on the +contrary they are human, all too human. The animosities of +party and school and the jealousies of the cathedra have +been proverbial for generations. The reception accorded +to Schweitzer’s work does not seem creditable. It was met +by something like a conspiracy of silence.</p> + +<p>Schweitzer, however, <i>compelled</i> attention by the +publication in 1906 of a much larger work entitled, <i>“Von +Reimarus zu Wrede,”</i> which is a history of the study of +the life of Jesus during the last century. A work like this, +practically the only one of its sort, supplied a felt need and +could not be passed by without notice. Schweitzer’s own +view, however, though it was presented clearly in this +volume, was still not taken due account of in +Germany. Jülicher’s supercilious criticism in <i>“Neue Linien”</i> +(190—) is characteristic of the treatment it received. The +translator knows of no prominent scholar in Germany who +has cordially welcomed Schweitzer’s view, nor of any that +has thoroughly and ably opposed it. They have been +occupied there rather with Wrede’s<a id="in1-ref" href="#in1"> <sup>1</sup> </a>acute criticism of the +messianic element in the Gospels +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page020">[pg 020]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg020"></a> +and with the denial by +Drews<a id="in2-ref" href="#in2"> <sup>2</sup> </a>and others of the historical existence of Jesus. +To destructive criticism of this sort Schweitzer’s own work +is the best answer. The only work which seriously reckons +with this new point of view is a brief but magisterial book +by H. J. Holtzmann: <i>Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu,</i> +1907.</p> + +<p>Very different was the reception of Schweitzer’s latter +work in England. The interest there centred at once +upon Schweitzer’s own view. In 1907, the year after its +publication, Professor Sanday delivered a course of +lectures at Oxford and Cambridge in which he +enthusiastically accepted Schweitzer’s position with hardly a +reservation.<a id="in3-ref" href="#in3"> <sup>3</sup> </a>In 1910 this second work of Schweitzer’s +was translated into English and published under the title: +<i>The Quest of the Historical Jesus,</i> with a preface by +Professor Burkitt. By this time the interest in Schweitzer and +his theory had become a furore among the younger men in +Oxford and Cambridge. But just then there came an +emissary from Germany, Professor Ernst von Dobschütz, who +essayed to disprove Schweitzer’s theory in a course of +lectures delivered at +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page021">[pg 021]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg021"></a> +Oxford in 1909.<a id="in4-ref" href="#in4"> <sup>4</sup> </a>Whereupon +Professor Sanday, in a pathetic article in the <i>Hibbert Journal</i> +for October, 1911, retracted his support of Schweitzer’s +position. He felt that he had been over hasty in adopting +it. And so indeed it seems he was, for it appears that in +preparing his lectures he had not taken the pains to read +the “Sketch,” that is to say, Schweitzer’s first and +fundamental and most carefully reasoned argument for his view. +By the same token Canon Sanday seems to have been +over hasty in making his retraction, for he had not <i>yet</i> read the +“Sketch,”—and von Dobschütz’ criticism after all is not +very impressive.</p> + +<p>In America the whole question has been simply ignored. +It generally takes, in fact, about a decade for an important +foreign work to reach us,—except in the case of a very few +scholars who have already gained our ear. According to +this reckoning it is time the “Sketch” were translated. In +view both of the acceptance which Schweitzer’s theory has +met with in England and of the opposition made to it +there, it is high time that his most cogent and careful +statement of his position be made known. For although +Schweitzer’s position is restated in his latter work already +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page022">[pg 022]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg022"></a> +translated into English, and is there also illuminated from +various sides, particularly in its relation to Wrede’s +work—which appeared in the same year as the “Sketch” and is so +strikingly like it so far as its criticism goes and so different +in its result,—yet it cannot be adequately appreciated +without a study of the earlier work.</p> + +<p>It is known that Albert Schweitzer has for some time +been preparing to go as medical missionary to the Congo. +But in spite of his medical studies he has recently found +time to publish a brilliant “History of Pauline Study since +the Reformation.”<a id="in5-ref" href="#in5"> <sup>5</sup> </a>This is in a way a continuation of the +history of the study of the life of Jesus. Here again +Schweitzer has a view of his own: in all the complexity of +Paul’s thought he perceives a unity which is due to the +pervading eschatological outlook. Fortunately, this view +of his own, instead of being appended to the historical +study, as in the former book, is to be published separately +under the title: <i>Die Mystic des Apostles Paulus.</i> This +practical measure will insure that it shall not be +overlooked. It is to be hoped too that it will not have to wait +long for an English translation.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page023">[pg 023]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg023"></a></p> + +<p>Professor Schweitzer found time also to prepare a new +and much enlarged edition of his <i>Geschichte der +Leben-Jesu-Forschung</i> (History of the Study of the Life of +Jesus), which is the title by which he now more aptly +describes his well known work. He has brought this history +down to date, and in the short concluding chapter he +suggests a number of pregnant reflections which will later be +referred to in this introduction with the aim of conciliating +this archæological world of Jesus’ thought with our +religious estimate of his person. It must be recognised from +the outset that <i>time</i> is necessary for such an adjustment. +The perception of the eschatological character of the +Gospels is a sudden emergency: we have not yet had time +to assimilate it.</p> + +<p>At this writing Professor Schweitzer is already at work +as medical missionary in Africa. It is of interest to know +that his plan is to return after three years to Europe, and +again after an equal period; to Africa. On account of the +radical character of his critical works he was not accepted +as a fellow-worker in any of the German missions and is +labouring in conjunction with (though independently and +at his own expense) the station of the Paris Evangelical +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page024">[pg 024]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg024"></a> +Missionary Society at Lambarene in French Equatorial +Africa—the country which used to be called the French +Congo. “Schweitzer as Missionary” is the title of an +article in the <i>Hibbert Journal</i> for July 1914 based upon the +printed circular letters which he sends to his friends and +supporters. In a letter to the translator he speaks of his +efforts to mitigate the scourge of leprosy and the sleeping +sickness as an example of “practical eschatology.”</p> + + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_i_2">2. The Significance of Schweitzer’s Work.</h3> + +<p>The opportuneness of Schweitzer’s eschatological +interpretation of the life of Jesus appears the more manifest +the more one knows of the recent history of Gospel study. +To bring that out clearly is the special purpose of the +Author in his <i>Quest of the Historical Jesus,</i> particularly +in chapters I, XIX, and XX. It could not be done better. +At all events such a task is obviously beyond the scope of +this introduction. Here it need only be pointed out that +Schweitzer’s theory, striking as it is, did not spring into +being without roots in a soil prepared for it. The +eschatological question itself had been sharply brought to the fore. +Contention for and against the recognition of it as an important +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page025">[pg 025]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg025"></a> +element in the Gospels was the order of the day. +All that tended to concentrate attention upon the problem +of the personal consciousness of Jesus (as, in particular, +Baldensperger’s work),<a id="in6-ref" href="#in6"> <sup>6</sup> </a>was a direct preparation for +Schweitzer. Johannes Weiss had already stood out as the +foremost champion of eschatology in the Gospel.<a id="in7-ref" href="#in7"> <sup>7</sup> </a>His +recognition of eschatology was confined, however, to the +<i>teaching of Jesus.</i> Hence he did not avail himself of it for +the solution of the historical problems. For this reason he +cannot be regarded as an exponent—to use Schweitzer’s +phrase—of “thoroughgoing eschatology” (konsequente +Eschatologie). But the solution Schweitzer proposed was +already “in the air,” as he said himself in his preface. +That presentiment was strikingly fulfilled in the fact that +in the selfsame year Wrede published a book with a title +almost identical, which envisaged the same problems in the +same way, only that it sought to solve them by eliminating +eschatology as an intrusion in the historical narrative, thus +resulting in “thoroughgoing scepticism.” Schweitzer is +justified in insisting that his work and +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page026">[pg 026]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg026"></a> +Wrede’s cannot be +played off against each other, but constitute a combined +attack, so far as concerns the criticism of the common, liberal +life of Jesus.</p> + +<p>There is nothing audacious in Schweitzer’s +proclamation of the collapse of the liberal life of Jesus. He does +not claim to have destroyed it, he merely attests the fact +of its collapse. “The Jesus of Nazareth who appeared as +the Messiah, proclaimed the morality of the kingdom of +God, established the kingdom of heaven upon earth, and +died in order to consecrate his work,—this Jesus never +existed. It is a figure sketched by Rationalism, enlivened +by Liberalism, and dressed up by Modern Theology in the +clothes of historical science.”<a id="in8-ref" href="#in8"> <sup>8</sup> </a>This fabric did not fall +by reason of the strength of any attack from without, but +collapsed through its inherent weakness, “shattered and +cloven by the actual historical problems which one after +another emerged and would not down in spite of all the +cunning, art, artifice, and force” which was expended upon +this picture of Jesus during the last hundred years. In spite +of the protestation that this picture still stands +undemolished, no one can be found any more to write a liberal +life of Jesus. On +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page027">[pg 027]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg027"></a> +the other hand sceptical works have +multiplied so rapidly that it would be difficult to enumerate +them here. After Kalthoff<a id="in9-ref" href="#in9"> <sup>9</sup> </a>and Drews<a id="in10-ref" href="#in10"> <sup>10</sup> </a>the designation +of “thoroughgoing scepticism” can hardly be applied to +Wrede’s theory. All the books of this class owe what +appearance of strength they have, not to their inherent +worth, but to the weakness of the theory which opposes +them—the current liberal life of Jesus. Solely with a view +to maintaining the integrity of this picture it has been +found necessary from time to time to sacrifice so much of +the documentary evidence—the Synoptic Gospels or their +sources—upon which the history of Jesus reposes, that in +the end it seems not very unreasonable for Drews and +others to assume, from the admissions of their opponents, +that there is no convincing historical evidence for the +existence of Jesus, and that the real task of the scholar is +to show how such a figure was invented.</p> + +<p>“It is extraordinary,” says Schweitzer in the last +chapter of the new edition of his History of the Life of Jesus +Study, “how it has fared with the study of the life of +Jesus. It set out to find the historical +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page028">[pg 028]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg028"></a> +Jesus, and fancied +that when he was found he could be set, just as he is, in the +midst of our age as Teacher and Saviour. It loosed the +bands which fettered him to the rock of ecclesiastical +dogma, and rejoiced when life and movement returned to +the figure and the historical man Jesus was seen +approaching. He did not stay, however, but passed our age by and +returned again to his own. That is what astonished and +alarmed the theology of the last decades,—that by no +violence of misinterpretation could they succeed in keeping +him in our age, but had to let him go. He returned to his +own age with the same necessity that the freed pendulum +swings back to its original position.</p> + +<p>“The historical foundation of Christianity, as +rationalism, liberalism, and modern theology count it, exists no +longer,—which, however, is not to say that Christianity +has therefore lost its historical foundation. The work +which historical theology believed it must carry out, and +which it sees falling to pieces at the very moment when the +completion was near, is only the terra cotta veneer of the +true, indestructible, historical foundation, which is +independent of any historical +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page029">[pg 029]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg029"></a> +knowledge and proof—simply +because it is there, it exists.</p> + + +<p>“Jesus is something to our world because a mighty +stream of spiritual influence has gone forth from him and +has penetrated our age also. This fact will be neither +shaken nor confirmed by an historical knowledge.</p> + +<p>“One fancied he could be more to our time by the fact +that he entered it vitally as a man of our humanity. That, +however, is not possible. For one reason, because this Jesus +never so existed. Also, because historical knowledge, +though it can clarify spiritual life already existing, can +never awaken life. It is able to reconcile the present with +the past; to a certain degree it can transport the present +into the past; but to construct the present is not within its +power.</p> + +<p>“One cannot estimate highly enough what the study of +the life of Jesus has accomplished. It is a great and unique +demonstration of veracity and love of the truth,—one of +the most significant occurrences in the whole spiritual life +of mankind. What the modern-liberal and the popularising +investigation has done, in spite of all its errors, for the +present and for the coming state of religion can only be +measured when one takes +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page030">[pg 030]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg030"></a> +into comparison the Roman +Catholic—or more broadly the Latin—culture and +literature which has been touched little or not at all by the +influence of these spirits.</p> + +<p>“And yet the disillusion had to come. We modern +theologians are too proud of our historical learning, too +proud of our historical Jesus, too confident in our faith in +what our historical theology can spiritually contribute to +the world. The notion that by historical knowledge we can +construct a new and vigorous Christianity and let loose +spiritual forces in the world dominates us like a fixed idea +and does not permit us to perceive that all we have done +thereby is to assail, not the great religious problem itself, +but one of the problems of general culture which is +entrenched in front of it, and which we would solve as well +as we can. We thought that we had to lead our age as it +were through a by-path, through the historical Jesus, in +order that it might come to Jesus who is present spiritual +power. The by-path is now barred by real history.</p> + +<p>“We were in danger of putting ourselves between men +and the Gospels and not leaving the individual any longer +alone with the sayings of Jesus.</p> + +<p>“We were in danger, too, of presenting to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page031">[pg 031]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg031"></a> +them a Jesus +that was too little, because we had forced him into man’s +measure and into the mould of average human psychology. +Read through the ‘lives of Jesus’ since the sixties and +behold what they have made of the imperial words of our +Lord, what a weak and ambiguous sense they have put +upon his peremptory, other-worldly requisitions, in order +that he might not clash with our ideals of civilisation and +his other-worldliness might be brought to terms with our +this-worldliness. Many of his greatest words one finds +lying in a corner, a heap of discharged spring-bolts. We +make Jesus speak with our time another language than that +which passed his lips.</p> + +<p>“Thereby we ourselves became impotent and deprived +our own thoughts of their proper energy by transposing +them into history and making them speak to us out of +antiquity. It is nothing less than a tragedy for modern +theology that it confounds with history everything it +attempts to expound, and is actually proud of the virtuosity +with which it contrives to discover its own thoughts in the +past.</p> + +<p>“Therefore there is hopeful significance in the fact +that modern theology with its study of the life of Jesus, +however long it may resist +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page032">[pg 032]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg032"></a> +by the invention of fresh shifts +and expedients, must in the end find itself deluded in its +manufactured history, overcome by real history and by +the facts—which according to Wrede’s fine saying are +often more radical than theories.</p> + + +<p>“What is the historical Jesus to us when we keep him +clear of any admixture of the present with the past? We +have the immediate impression that his person, in spite of +all that is strange and enigmatical, has something great to +say to all ages, as long as the world endures, may views +and knowledge change never so much, and that it means +therefore to our religion also a far-reaching enrichment. +It behooves us to bring this elementary feeling to a clear +expression, so that it may not soar away in dogmatic +assertions and phrases and beguile historical science ever anew +into the hopeless undertaking of modernising Jesus by +diluting or explaining away what is historically +conditioned in his preaching, as though he would become more +to us thereby.</p> + +<p>“The whole study of the life of Jesus has in fine only +the one aim, of establishing the natural and unbiased +conception of the earliest accounts. In order to know Jesus +and to apprehend him there is need of no preparatory +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page033">[pg 033]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg033"></a> +erudition. It is also not requisite that a man comprehend +the details of Jesus’ public ministry and be able to +construct with them a ‘life of Jesus.’ His nature, and that +which he is and wills, appears in certain lapidary +expressions of his and forces itself upon us. One <i>knows</i> him +without knowing much about him, and apprehends the +eschatological note even if he attain no clear conception +of the details. For this is the characteristic thing about +Jesus, that he looks beyond the perfection and blessedness +of the individual to the perfection and blessedness of the +world and of an elect humanity. His will and his hope is +fixed upon the Kingdom of God.”</p> + +<p>It is much to be wondered at that conservative scholars +have not generally recognised the strong constructive +consequences of Schweitzer’s theory, in particular the proof +it incidentally affords of the historical worth of the +Synoptic Gospels. Schweitzer rehabilitates the credit of +S. Mark’s Gospel simply by showing that no important +parts of it need be discarded on the ground that they are +inconsistent with the sketch which he draws of the history +of Jesus. When it is objected to him that he bases his view +upon “the weakest passages,” it is time we make clear to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page034">[pg 034]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg034"></a> +ourselves that “strong” and “weak” in this connection +mean no more than <i>consistent</i> or <i>inconsistent</i> with the +<i>assumptions</i> of the modern “liberal life of Jesus.” It is +only a roundabout way of begging the question. Generally +speaking, such a document as Mark, antecedent to any +theory we may attempt to apply, must be presumed to be +of pretty equal value throughout. That theory which, +without artifice or violence, best accords with the greatest +number of facts recorded, and so best preserves the credit +of the documents upon which it seeks to found itself, is +presumably the right theory. Schweitzer’s view, as he +himself says in the Preface, greatly simplifies and clarifies +the Synoptic problem. It is no longer necessary to attribute +so much to “the editor’s hand.” The Sermon on the +Mount, the Charge to the Twelve, and the Eulogy over +the Baptist are not collections of scattered sayings, but +were in the main delivered as they have come down to +us. Especially important is the recognition that even for +constructing the history of Jesus Mark by itself does not +suffice: the discourses in Matthew are invaluable +indications.</p> + +<p>Nor is this the only positive and comforting element +in Schweitzer’s view. In the Postscript he has himself +laid stress upon the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page035">[pg 035]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg035"></a> +aim of his work: “to impress upon +the modern age and upon modern theology the figure of +Jesus in its overwhelming heroic greatness.” And this he +has accomplished in unexpected ways. The figure of Jesus +which we have striven so hard to bring into nearness and +sympathy through our psychological analysis has eluded +our grasp, and under the hands of the historian and +archæologist it has receded inexorably into the remote +past and into a corner of Galilee. It looks to us strange +and even petty in its remote Galilean surroundings. Now +that figure, by the force of an elemental energy, is seen to +break the shackles which would bind it to a particular +time and place and become—not modern, indeed, +but—universal.</p> + +<p>One may easily be so much absorbed with the +difficulties in the way of accepting Schweitzer’s construction as to +ignore the light which it sheds upon some of the major +difficulties of the traditional view with which we have +long wrestled in vain. One may mention at least eight +obscure points which are illuminated for the first time +by the eschatological view of the Gospel history. +1. Jesus’ use of the title “Son of Man,”—commonly in the third +person and with a futuristic sense, as denoting a dignity and +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page036">[pg 036]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg036"></a> +power which were <i>not yet</i> his. Jesus was the Messiah +designate. 2. The position of John the Baptist: it was +Jesus alone that discovered in him the character of Elijah +“the Coming One” (cf. Jn 1<sup>21</sup> ). 3. The conception of +the Kingdom of God as a <i>gift,</i> to be received passively as +by a little child—and yet as a thing that “violent men” +must wrest to themselves “by force.” 4. The relation of +Jesus’ messianic expectation to that which was current +among the people. Jesus moralised the popular +eschatological ideal by combining it with the preaching of the +Prophets. That Jesus opposed a purely moral ideal to a +popular political agitation is doubly a fiction. 5. The +significance of the Mission of the Twelve and its connection +with the popular excitement which drew five thousand +men into the desert by the seashore. 6. The significance +of the Transfiguration, coming <i>before</i> the Confession of +Peter, and explaining how the knowledge of Jesus’ +Messiahship was given by divine revelation. 7. The character +of the secret which Judas possessed and was in a position +to betray. Our notion that during the last days in +Jerusalem every one knew of Jesus’ claim to be the Christ is +plainly contrary to the record. The famous disputes +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page037">[pg 037]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg037"></a> +of those days would have taken a very different form if the +question which agitated all minds was, Is he the Christ? +or is he not? 8. Jesus’ notion of the <i>necessity</i> of his death, +his resolution to die at Jerusalem, and his conception that +he was giving his life as “a ransom for <i>many.”</i></p> + +<p>Unquestionably it is no easy matter to assimilate so +novel and striking a view as that of Schweitzer. To bring +it into relation with the presuppositions of our religious +view in general involves demolition and reconstruction—a +labor heavy and grievous to the soul. The mind +instinctively recoils from such a labour and is fain to protect +itself by a general repudiation and denial. Moreover the +Author has presented his view with a naked simplicity +which, while it renders it easier to understand and more +difficult to confute, makes it also, one must confess, more +difficult to accept. We are not inclined to accept opinions +in the face of a display of force, and as it were at the +muzzle of a gun—even when the gun is loaded with logic. +Practically we must first contrive to see how the opinions +may be made acceptable. This task the Author has not +unreasonably left to us,—although a careful study of his +work will reveal many suggestions helpful to this end. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page038">[pg 038]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg038"></a> +The translator has read this little book not once but many times +and through a course of years, with ever increasing +appreciation of its worth—not only in view of its logical +force but of its <i>acceptability.</i> On the other hand, many of +us have felt that the liberal life of Jesus was becoming +increasingly more <i>unacceptable.</i></p> + + +<p>Canon Sanday confesses<a id="in11-ref" href="#in11"> <sup>11</sup> </a>that he recoils from +Schweitzer’s view chiefly on account of his “tendency to +push things to extremes at the dictates of logical +consistency.” It is <i>too</i> “thoroughgoing.” It seems indeed as +though the Author were inclined to press this word to +an extreme, proposing to explain <i>all</i> the words and acts +of Jesus with reference to his eschatological outlook. But +that is only a threat. What he <i>has</i> done falls very far +short of it, and it is upon <i>that</i> we have to pass judgment. +<i>That,</i> in fact, is “thoroughgoing” enough to justify the +term even if it went no further. The principle of +“thorough” might very well apply to the construction of the +history as a whole without implying that every trait of +Jesus’ life and teaching was coloured by it and that he +himself was so obsessed by a single idea that he was +unable to see things as they are. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page039">[pg 039]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg039"></a> +This is precisely what the +Gospels do not permit us to believe. It is manifest that +Jesus had a peculiarly acute sensibility to his surroundings, +whether it were nature or human society, and responded +feelingly, spontaneously. His sense of right and wrong +was so clearly intuitive that he could deal sovereignly with +the Law. Schweitzer himself furnishes suggestions which +tend to render even the word “Interimsethik” acceptable. +Jesus’ moral teaching was oriented towards the coming +Kingdom. It was “penance” in preparation for the +Kingdom of God. But it was not for all this an arbitrary +penance: like the ethics of the Prophets it was the +prescription of righteousness. In one sense at least, it was not of +merely transitory importance. From the expectation of +the approaching Kingdom it received a sharpness of +emphasis which it could not otherwise have had,—but it was +a <i>true</i> emphasis. It described the conduct appropriate to +man in this present world <i>so long as this world shall +last</i>—a conduct which is justified here by the expectation of +a better world to come, “beyond good and evil” if you +will.</p> + +<p>“Thoroughgoing eschatology” is surely not +incompatible with the recognition of a deeper +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page040">[pg 040]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg040"></a> +intuition in Jesus +which is necessary to explain the intensity of this very +eschatology itself. It would be a rigorous extreme indeed +which would exclude the recognition of Jesus’ +God-consciousness—his consciousness of God as Father—as the +primary and all-controlling fact of his religious experience. +Nothing is more obvious than that out of that +consciousness he acted and spoke <i>immediately.</i> And when his acts +were influenced and his speech coloured by the +eschatological outlook, what was that ultimately but the +consciousness of God’s <i>nearness?</i> How could the expectation of a +divine world be so constant and so vivid without the +feeling that it is in a sense locally near, imminent, impending, +ready to break in, indeed actually intruding upon this +present world, as it were “the finger of God” touching +us here? Intuitional feeling, presentiment, insight, does +not readily distinguish between nearness in time and in +space. Jesus’ eschatology was an expression of his +God-consciousness—the most eminent expression of it.</p> + +<p>Eschatology in the strict sense, with all its apocalyptic +features, has long ago passed out of our view of the world. +Schweitzer shows us with what justification the Church +discarded it. But the feeling that was behind +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page041">[pg 041]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg041"></a> +it remains, and +still constitutes the fundamental experience of religion. +It is the feeling of a divine environment, close to us, +unspeakably close, imminent, intruding even upon the +every-day world.</p> + +<blockquote><div><br> +“This is the finger of God, <br> +The flash of the will that can,<br> +Existent behind all laws,<br> +That made them, and lo! they are.” +<br><br></div></blockquote> + +<p>Intuitional feeling is not especially inclined to express +the sense of God in terms of time. Space is the category +more familiar to it. Wordsworth finds terms to express +what is so intangible.</p> + +<blockquote><div><br> +“Those obstinate questionings <br> +Of sense and outward things, <br> +Fallings from us, vanishings; <br> +Blank misgivings of a creature <br> +Moving about in worlds not realised <br> +High instincts, before which our mortal nature <br> +Did tremble like a guilty thing surprised.” +<br><br></div></blockquote> + +<p>Apocalyptic eschatology no one could even wish to +revive. But this does not mean that Biblical +eschatology—the expectation of the great Event—must be dissolved in +the modern hope of the gradual amelioration of the +world in the course of historical evolution. We cannot but +feel how great a breach that would constitute between +our thought and the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page042">[pg 042]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg042"></a> +mind of Jesus. Schweitzer remarks +upon the heavy dose of “resignation” which such a view +implies. Strange that we do not more often realise this! +Does our optimism blind us to the fact that we shall not +partake in “the far off divine event”—except our spirit +survive the bodily death? <i>There</i>—in the hope of life +beyond death—is the expectation which we substitute for +apocalyptic eschatology,—a substitution so natural that +it came about without observation. S. Paul lived in the +expectation of the coming of the Lord, but he evidently +felt no sense of incongruity when he expressed the feeling +that “to depart and be with Christ is very far +better”—he was referring to the natural death of the body and +the hope of life immediately beyond it. This is the hope +which has ever since characterised the Christian Church. +To dwell upon that hope, to set our “affections upon things +above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of +God”—that is “heavenly mindedness.” With respect to the +feeling at the base of it, it is not so very different from +apocalyptical eschatology. In this view Christian ethics +still remains “conditional”—you may call it <i>Interimsethik</i> +if you like. The conduct it requires of us is conditioned +by the hope of a future +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page043">[pg 043]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg043"></a> +life and is absurd under any other +supposition. “The practice of the presence of God” is the +most fundamentally important religious exercise. But if +we succeed in persuading ourselves that here and now we +have the only kingdom of God we shall ever know; if all +our interest and effort is absorbed in realising a kingdom +of God upon earth; then not only have we need of +“resignation,” but we cannot avoid feeling the breach between +our thought and activity and that of Jesus. We are puzzled +to distinguish between worldly and heavenly mindedness +because even our religious interest is focussed upon this +earth, as the sphere not only of our moral duty but of +our ultimate hope—the gradual evolution of a perfect +human society. That is what we have made of the +Kingdom of God, interpreting it uneschatologically. Is not this +after all a more credulous hope than that which expects +a divine intervention, a “regeneration” of heaven and +earth, which shall prepare the fit abode for the perfect +society? And does it not strike at the very roots of the +religious sentiment when we distract the mind from its +natural interest and curiosity about the Beyond? Our +personal fate is not so much involved in the far off +amelioration of human society as in something +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page044">[pg 044]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg044"></a> +much nearer, very +near and imminent, the estate just beyond death. It is not +altogether without reason that in Christian dogmatics the +name of eschatology has been applied to this topic. The +earlier type of eschatology Jesus himself has rendered +forevermore impossible. It is likely that the first objection +<i>we</i> feel to apocalyptic eschatology lies in the fact that it +was expressed in terms of an erroneous cosmology and +is therefore incompatible with our modern view of the +world. But as a matter of fact apocalyptic eschatology +vanished from the vital creed of the Church long before +the cosmology upon which it was founded was proved to +be false. It was Jesus who brought it to an end. Another +sort of eschatology promptly took its place—another +heavenly hope, which was substantially not apocalyptic. +Yet this doctrine too—the early Christian notion of the +soul and of heaven—was necessarily founded upon the +opinions of ancient science. The doctrine of the soul and +the doctrine of heaven, being less directly affected by the +findings of modern science, have been more slow to change +in conformity with our changed view of the world than +has, for example, the doctrine of creation. But in their +old form they are none the less incompatible +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page045">[pg 045]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg045"></a> +with our +modern thought; and for this reason we feel forced to +put <i>every</i> sort of eschatology aside, we are no longer able +to place the heavenly hope, and the heavenly mindedness +which it prompts, in the central position which belongs to +them. That is to say, we urgently need to express the +Christian doctrine of the soul in terms of the highest +modern psychology and to express our heavenly hope in +terms of a modern cosmology. We need a new cosmology! +That may seem to express an unpractical and fantastic +desire. But it will not so seem to any one who knows what +his theory of the soul and his grandiose cosmology meant +practically and religiously to Gustav Theodor Fechner,<a id="in12-ref" href="#in12"> <sup>12</sup> </a> +or who has experienced what this may mean for the +orientation of his own personal religion. The old view of the +world has passed away: we have been too slothful and +cowardly to take full possession of the new. There is really +nothing in the modern view of the world which effectually +precludes us from directing our hope and orienting our +life towards the Beyond, as did Jesus in his way, and as +the early Church did in its way. From the moment that +Jesus passed into the invisible and was there felt and +recognised as the correspondent +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page046">[pg 046]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg046"></a> +of our religious faculty +we find that spatial terms better express the substance of +our heavenly mindedness than do temporal. We “seek +the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the +right hand of God.” To recognise that our “citizenship +is in heaven” is not to render ourselves inept for the +performance of our duty upon earth. Rather it needs to be +reflected whether, without the detachment, without the +superiority to earthly circumstance, happy or untoward, +which comes from setting our “mind on the things that +are above,” we possess any fulcrum for doing a real work +upon the world.</p> + +<p>The eschatological interpretation of the Gospels does +not thrust Jesus so far from us as we are prone to think: +rather calls us to approach nearer to him, to share again +more closely “the mind which was in Christ Jesus” and +which in one form or another has been at all times the +chief inspiration of the Church.</p> + +<p>In his “Concluding Reflections” Schweitzer says: +“Every full view of life, cosmic philosophy, +<i>Weltanschauung</i> (the German word it is impossible to translate) +contains side by side elements which are conditioned by +the age as well as others which are unconditioned, for it +consists in the very fact that a penetrating <i>will</i> has +pervaded and +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page047">[pg 047]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg047"></a> +constituted the conceptual material furnished +it by history. This latter is subjected to change. Hence +there is no <i>Weltanschauung,</i> however great and profound +it may be, which does not contain perishable material. But +the will itself is timeless. It reveals the unsearchable and +primary nature of a person and determines also the final +and fundamental definition of his <i>Weltanschauung.</i> May +the conceptual material alter never so much, with +consequent diversity between the new <i>Weltanschauung</i> and the +old, yet these in reality only lie just so far apart as the +wills which constitute them diverge in direction. The +differences which are determined by the alteration of the +conceptual material are in the last analysis merely +secondary in importance, however emphatically they may make +themselves felt; for the same will, however different be +the conceptual material in which it manifests itself, always +creates <i>Weltanschauungen</i> which in their nature +correspond with one another and coincide.</p> + +<p>“Since the time when man attained the conditions +precedent to such an apprehension and judgment of things +as we might call in our sense a <i>Weltanschauung</i>—that is, +since the individual learned to take into consideration the +totality of being, the world as a +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page048">[pg 048]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg048"></a> +whole, and to reflect as +a knowing and willing subject upon the reciprocal relations +of a passive and active sort which subsist between himself +and the All—no far-reaching development has really +occurred in the spiritual life of humanity. The problems of +the Greeks turn up again in the most modern philosophy. +The scepticism of to-day is essentially the same as that +which came to expression in ancient thought.</p> + +<p>“The primitive, late-Jewish metaphysic in which Jesus +expressed his <i>Weltanschauung</i> aggravates exceedingly the +difficulty of translating his ideas into the formulas of our +time. The task is quite impossible so long as one tries to +accomplish it by distinguishing in detail between the +permanent and the transitory. And what results as the +consequence of this procedure is so lacking in force and +conclusiveness that the enrichment it contributes to our +religion is rather apparent than real.</p> + +<p>“In truth there can be no question of making +distinction between transitory and permanent, but only of +transposing the original constitutive thought of that +<i>Weltanschauung</i> into terms familiar to us. How would the Will +of Jesus—apprehended in its immediateness, in its +definiteness and in its whole +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page049">[pg 049]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg049"></a> +compass—how would it vitalise +our thought material and construct from it a +<i>Weltanschauung</i> of so moral and so mighty a sort that it could be +counted the modern equivalent of that which he created +in terms of the late-Jewish metaphysics and eschatology?</p> + +<p>“If one tries, as has been done hitherto almost +invariably, to reconcile Jesus’ <i>Weltanschauung</i> with ours any +way it will go—which can be accomplished only by paring +away all that is characteristic—this procedure strikes also +at the will which is manifested in these conceptions.</p> + +<p>“It loses its originality and is no longer able to exert +an elemental influence upon us. Hence it is that the Jesus +of modern theology is so extraordinarily lifeless. Left in +his eschatological world he is greater and, for all the +strangeness, he affects us more elementally, more mightily +than the modern Jesus.</p> + +<p>“Jesus’ deed consists in the fact that his original and +profound moral nature took possession of the late-Jewish +eschatology and so gives expression, in the thought +material of the age, to the hope and the will which are intent +upon the ethical consummation of the world. All attempts +to avert one’s vision from this <i>Weltanschauung</i> as a whole +and to make Jesus’ significance for us to consist in +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page050">[pg 050]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg050"></a> +his revelation of the “fatherhood of God,” the “brotherhood +of man,” and so forth, must therefore of necessity lead to +a narrow and peculiarly insipid conception of his religion. +In reality he is an authority for us, not in the sphere of +knowledge, but only in the matter of the will. His destined +rôle can only consist in this, that he as a mighty spirit +quickens the motives of willing and hoping which we and +our fellowmen bear within us and brings them to such a +height of intensity and clarity as we could not have +attained if we were left to ourselves and did not stand under +the impression of his personality, and that he thus +conforms our <i>Weltanschauung</i> to his own in its very nature, +in spite of all the diversity of thought material, and +awakens in it the energies which are active in his.</p> + +<p>“The last and deepest knowledge of things comes from +the will. Hence the movement of thought which strives to +frame the final synthesis of observations and knowledge +in order to construct a <i>Weltanschauung</i> is determined in +its direction by the will, which constitutes the primary and +the inexplicable ultimate essence of the persons and ages +in question.</p> + +<p>“If our age and our religion have not apprehended the +greatness of Jesus and have +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page051">[pg 051]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg051"></a> +been frightened back by the +eschatological colour of his thought, this was due only in +part to the fact that they could not accommodate +themselves to the strangeness of it all. The decisive reason was +another. They lacked the strong and clear stamp of a will +and a hope directed towards the moral consummation of +the world, which are decisive for Jesus and for his +<i>Weltanschauung.</i> They were devoid of eschatology,—using the +word here in its broadest and most general sense. They +found in themselves no equivalents for the thoughts of +Jesus, and were therefore not in a position to transpose +his <i>Weltanschauung</i> from the late-Jewish terms of thought +into their own.</p> + +<p>“There was no answering chord of sympathy. Hence +the historical Jesus had to remain strange to them to a +very great extent, and that not only with respect to his +thought material but also with respect to his very nature. +His ethical enthusiasm and the immediateness and might +which characterised his thought seems to them excessive +because they know nothing that corresponds to it in their +own thought and experience. So they were constantly +intent upon making out of the “enthusiast” a modern man +and theologian duly observant of metes and bounds +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page052">[pg 052]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg052"></a> +in all his doings. Conservative theology, like the older +orthodoxy to which it is akin, was not able to do anything with +the historical Jesus, because it likewise makes far too little +of the great moral ideas which in his eschatology were +struggling for life and practical expression.</p> + +<p>“It was therefore the lack of an inward tuning to the +same pitch of will and hope and desire which made it +impossible to attain a real knowledge of the historical +Jesus and a comprehensive religious relationship with him. +Between him and a generation which was lacking in all +immediateness and in all enthusiasm directed towards the +final aims of humanity and of being, there could be no +lively and far-reaching fellowship. For all its progress +in historical perception it really remained more estranged +from him than was the rationalism of the eighteenth and +the beginning of the nineteenth century, which was brought +closer to him by its enthusiastic faith in the possibility of +rapid progress towards the moral perfection of +humanity.”</p> + +<p>I marvel that Schweitzer in his “Concluding +Reflections” can dwell so insistently upon one side of Jesus’ +eschatology and ignore so completely the other. Jesus’ +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page053">[pg 053]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg053"></a> +eschatology, the white light of his conception of the +Kingdom of God, has come to us through the medium of history +refracted in two rays of different colour and of different +direction. One represents more specifically the +other-worldly side of Jesus’ preaching, the hope of eternal +blessedness beyond death,—which the dogmatic +theologians are pleased to call “eschatology,” as though our +modern idea really reflected Jesus’ conception in its +totality. Commonly this is what we understand by the +“Kingdom of Heaven.” To denominate the other ray, +Schweitzer has appropriated (with as questionable a +right) the “Kingdom of God.” He means to indicate by +this simply the moral development of humanity, here and +under present terrestrial conditions. We readily +understand what he means, because that is what <i>we</i> mean +commonly by “the kingdom of God upon earth.” We are +convinced that the progress of mankind in true worldly +culture and civilisation constitutes a high moral aim which +we dare not relinquish; but we have all experienced the +difficulty of reconciling this secular enthusiasm with the +other-worldliness of Jesus. Schweitzer helps us in a +measure to surmount this difficulty. He also makes it in a +measure clear to us <i>how</i> (for the fact itself was +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page054">[pg 054]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg054"></a> +patent) this +enthusiasm for the progress of humanity has been +reinforced by Jesus’ preaching. But it is a mistake to expect +of this one coloured ray that it can ever give back to us +the whole white light of Jesus’ inspiration. We can not +return again to Jesus’ conception. History stands in the +way—real history, not written narrative. Nor shall we +ever be able to combine again in one white light the +“broken lights” which have come to us from his teaching. +But we have the two rays, and in their separateness they +are both familiar to us. Our eyes bear better the coloured +light. Celestial blue denotes the heavenly hope; red will +do for this earth and our passionate hopes for its +betterment. But why behave as if we had only one colour and +all of Jesus’ light must be forced into that? Schweitzer +ignores the heavenly hope (the thought of life beyond +death) as though it were no longer open to the modern +man. One may get a notion of what it still may mean to +the modern scientific mind from Gustav Theodor +Fechner’s <i>Büchlein vom Leben nach dem Tode,</i> or more +largely from his <i>Zend-Avesta,</i> or his <i>Tagesansicht.</i> +Though to be sure it can mean nothing to one who is +bound by a materialistic philosophy. At all events it is +certain that Jesus’ will and aspiration can be +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page055">[pg 055]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg055"></a> +much more readily and fully expressed in these terms than in the +terms of ethical and social progress here below. To +translate his thought into these terms requires no elaborate +effort. The first generation of his disciples did it without +knowing what they did. Schweitzer himself observes in +another place that our modern faith in the final but slow +perfection of the world “requires a larger dose of +resignation” than most people are aware. And how can any +perfection upon this earth be final, since none can be +eternal?</p> + +<p>We are all of us feeling after a solution of our modern +difficulties. Schweitzer’s effort after a tolerable +accommodation is poignantly personal like ours—and like ours it +is tentative. It is too early to hope for complete +satisfaction. Yet his efforts obviously tend in the same direction +as ours. Schweitzer perceives that “in the last resort our +relation with Jesus is a mystical one.” For the sake of +this acknowledgment, as well as for other reasons which +will be evident, I am fain to conclude this Introduction +with Schweitzer’s own words—the words with which he +concludes his latest book:</p> + +<p>“In the last resort our relationship to Jesus is of a +mystical sort. No personality of the past can be installed +in the present +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page056">[pg 056]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg056"></a> +by historical reflection or by affirmations +about his authoritative significance. We get into relation +with him only when we are brought together in the +recognition of a common will, experience a clarification, +enrichment, and quickening of our will by his, and find ourselves +again in him. In this sense every deeper relationship +between men is of a mystical sort. Our religion, therefore, +so far as it proves itself specifically Christian, is not so +much ‘Jesus-cult’ as Jesus-mystic.</p> + +<p>“It is only thus that Jesus creates fellowship among us. +It is not as a symbol that he does it, nor anything of the +sort. In so far as we with one another and with him are of +one will, to place the Kingdom of God above all, and to +serve in behalf of this faith and hope, so far is there +fellowship between him and us and the men of all generations +who lived and live in the same thought.</p> + +<p>“From this it will be manifest also in what way the +free and the confined movements of religion which now +go side by side will come together in unity. False +compromises are of no avail. All concessions by which the +free conception seeks to approach the confined can only +result in ambiguity and inconsequence. The differences lie +in the thought +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page057">[pg 057]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg057"></a> +material which is presupposed on either +side. All efforts after an agreement in this sphere are +hopeless. These differences appear so prominent because there +is a lack of elementary and vital religiousness. Two +threads of water wind along side by side through the +boulders and gravel of a great stream bed. It is of no +avail that one seeks here and there to clear out of the +way the masses that are piled up between them, in order +that they may flow on in one bed. But when the water +rises and overflows the boulders they find themselves +together as a matter of course. So will the confined and the +free spirit of religion come together when will and hope +are directed again towards the Kingdom of God, and the +fellowship with the spirit of Jesus becomes in them +something elemental and mighty, and they are thereby brought +so near together in the essence of their <i>Weltanschauung</i> +and religion that the differences of thought material still +exist indeed, but sink beneath the surface, as the boulders +are covered by the rising flood and in the end barely +glimmer out of the depths.</p> + +<p>“The names by which Jesus was called in the thought +material of late Judaism—Messiah, Son of Man, and Son +of God—have +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page058">[pg 058]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg058"></a> +become to us historical parables. Even +when he applied these titles to himself, this was an +historically conditioned expression of his apprehension of +himself as a commander and ruler. We find no +designation that might express his nature for us.</p> + +<p>“Unknown and nameless he comes to us, as he +approached those men on the seashore that knew not who +he was. He says the same word: But do thou follow me! +and he sets before us the tasks which we in our +generation must accomplish. He commands. And to those that +obey him, wise and unwise, he will reveal himself in what +may be given them to experience in his fellowship of peace +and activity, conflict and suffering, and as an unutterable +secret they shall come to know who he is. ...</p> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_12">FOOTNOTES</h2> + + +<p><a href="#in1-ref" id="in1">1</a> <i>Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien,</i> 1901. +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in2-ref" id="in2">2</a> <i>Christusmythe.</i> +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in3-ref" id="in3">3</a> <i>The Life of Christ in Recent Research,</i> 1907. +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in4-ref" id="in4">4</a> <i>Eschatology of the Gospels,</i> 1910. +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in5-ref" id="in5">5</a> <i>Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung,</i> 1911. +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in6-ref" id="in6">6</a> <i>Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu,</i> 1st ed., 1888. +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in7-ref" id="in7">7</a> <i>Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes,</i> 2d ed., 1900; also <i>Das +älteste Evangelium,</i> 1903. +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in8-ref" id="in8">8</a> <i>Quest of the Historical Jesus,</i> cap. XX. +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in9-ref" id="in9">9</a> <i>Das Christus-Problem,</i> 1902. +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in10-ref" id="in10">10</a> <i>Op. cit.</i> +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in11-ref" id="in11">11</a> <i>Hibbert Journal,</i> Oct., 1911, p. 84. +</p> + + +<p><a href="#in12-ref" id="in12">12</a> <i>Vide The Living Word</i> by Elwood Worcester, 1908. +</p> + +<p class="chapter"></p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page059">[pg 059]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg059"></a></p> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_1">CHAPTER I</h2> +<h4>THE MODERN “HISTORICAL” SOLUTION</h4> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_1_1">1. Summary Account of It.</h3> + +<p class="drop">THE Synoptical texts do not explain how the idea of +the Passion forced itself upon Jesus and what it meant +to him. The speeches of Peter and Paul viewed the +Passion in the aspect of a divine necessity which was +prophesied by the Scripture. The Pauline theory likewise has +nothing to do with history.</p> + +<p>Therefore the idea of the Passion as it is developed +here in connection with an account of Jesus’ life is not +directly furnished by the texts but is deduced from them +by implication. One is left here to the unavoidable +necessity of formulating a theory, the truth of which can only +be judged by the measure of clearness and order which it +introduces into the Synoptic accounts.</p> + +<p>All of the theoretical constructions which have an +outspoken historical interest coincide in an alleged solution +which we denominate the modern-historical. What is +historical about it is the interest which prompts +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page060">[pg 060]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg060"></a> +the endeavour to explain history. The modern factor in it is the +psychological sympathy of comprehension by the help of which +one endeavours to show how, under the impression of +particular experiences, the idea of the Passion forced itself +upon Jesus and was given by him a religious significance. +This solution is based upon the following considerations:</p> + +<p>For Jesus there could be no question of constituting a +ground for the forgiveness of sins. That he already +assumed, as the petition in the Lord’s Prayer shows,—it +flowed indeed quite naturally from the pardoning +father-love of God. Now the thought of the ransom +(Mk 10<sup>45</sup> ) recalls the Pauline theory of the atonement with +its juridical character. This, indeed, has reference to the +forgiveness of sins. It is therefore to be presumed that +the juridical notion of the atonement, like the thought of +the forgiveness of sins, was strange to Jesus, since it is +not suggested by anything in the whole character of his +teaching. Consequently the expressions about the +significance of his Passion are in their traditional form +influenced somehow or another by Pauline conceptions.</p> + +<p>If one takes due account of this influence, the historical +saying (Mk 10<sup>45</sup>) contains the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page061">[pg 061]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg061"></a> +notion of serving +through sacrifice. This thought is here expressed in its +highest potency. We stand upon the border where the +heightened conception of service leads to that of sacrifice +and atonement. The value of this sacrifice for others +consists in the fact that this suffering death which Jesus +underwent is at the same time the inaugural act through +which the new morality of the Kingdom of God receives +emphatic sanction and the new condition contemplated in +the idea of the Kingdom is itself realised. This deed is the +efficient first factor in a chain of transformations the +supernatural conclusion of which is his “coming again” +in glory, where the New Covenant which he sealed with +his blood is fulfilled in him.</p> + +<p>Therewith it is also explained why the determination +to encounter suffering and death could and must suggest +itself. The realisation of the Kingdom of God was Jesus’ +mission. This he had undertaken to effect at first within +narrow limits during his Galilean ministry. Through his +preaching of the new morality grounded upon faith in the +divine Father, and under the influence of the power which +proceeded from him, the beginnings of this Kingdom +developed. It was a happy, successful period—the “Galilean spring +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page062">[pg 062]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg062"></a> +time,” Keim called it. The climax of this period +was reached with the mission of the Disciples. Through +their preaching the glorious seed was to be strewn abroad +everywhere. As they upon their return announced to him +their success he broke out with the cry of exultation which +accounted the victory already present (Mt 11<sup>25-27</sup>).</p> + +<p>Then came the time of defeat. The opposition was +contrived and carried out from Jerusalem (Mk 7<sup>1</sup>). Before +this the sympathy of the people delivered him from the +consequences of occasional friction with the officials. Now, +however, as the opposition was systematically pursued, +even his followers fell away from him. It was ominous +that the discussion about ceremonial purification brought +to light the contradiction in which Jesus found himself +with the legal tradition (Mk 7<sup>1-23</sup>). Before spring had +again returned to the land he had been obliged to leave +Galilee. Far away in the north, in quiet and solitary +retirement, he collected his energies in the effort perfectly +to understand himself.</p> + +<p>For the realisation of the Kingdom there remained but +one way still open to him,—namely, conflict with the +power which opposed his work. He resolved to carry this +conflict into the capital itself. There fate should decide. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page063">[pg 063]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg063"></a> +Perhaps the victory would fall to him. But, even if it +should turn out that in the course of earthly events the +fate of death awaited him inevitably, so long as he trod +the path which his office prescribed, this very suffering of +death must signify in God’s plan the performance by +which his work was to be crowned. It was then God’s will +that the moral state appropriate to the Kingdom of God +should be inaugurated by the highest moral deed of the +Messiah. With this thought he set out for +Jerusalem—in order to remain Messiah.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_1_2">2. The Four Assumptions of the Modern-Historical +Solution.</h3> + +<p>1. The life of Jesus falls into two contrasted epochs. +The first was fortunate, the second brought disillusion +and ill success.</p> + +<p>2. The form of the Synoptical Passion-idea in +Mk 10<sup>45</sup> (his giving himself a ransom for many) and in +the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Mk 14<sup>24</sup>: his +blood given for many) is somehow or another influenced +by the Pauline theory of the atonement.</p> + +<p>3. The conception of the Kingdom of God as a +self-fulfilling ethical society in which service is the highest law +dominated the idea of the Passion.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page064">[pg 064]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg064"></a></p> + +<p>4. If Jesus’ Passion was the inaugural act of the new +morality of the Kingdom of God, the success of it +depended upon the Disciples being led to understand it in +this sense and to act in accordance with it. The +Passion-idea was a reflection.</p> + +<p>Are these assumptions, considered individually, +justified?</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_1_3">3. The Two Contrasted Periods. (First Assumption.) </h3> + +<p>The period of ill success is dated from the time +following the mission of the Twelve. What are the events of the +supposedly fortunate period? We pass over the vexatious +discussion with the Pharisees about the healing of the +paralytic (Mk 2<sup>1-12</sup>), over the question of fasting +(Mk 2<sup>18-22</sup>), and that of the observance of the +Sabbath (Mk 2<sup>23</sup>-[3<sup>6</sup>]). Already in Mk 3<sup>6</sup> it has come to +the point of a murderous attack. Jesus has to renounce +his family because they wish to fetch him home by force +as one who is mentally incompetent (Mk 3<sup>20-22</sup>, Mk 3<sup>31-35</sup>). +At Nazareth he is rejected (Mk 6<sup>1-6</sup>).</p> + +<p>In the same period occurs the attack which shocked him +most profoundly. The Pharisees discredited him with the +people by +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page065">[pg 065]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg065"></a> +charging that he was in league with the devil +(Mk 3<sup>22-30</sup>). How deeply this saying wounded him +may be seen from his reference to it in the commission to +the Twelve. He prepared his Disciples for a similar +experience. “If they have called the master of the house +Beelzebub, how much more those of his household” +(Mt 10<sup>25</sup>).</p> + +<p>Such are the well known events of the “successful +period”! But they are nothing in comparison with those +which he hints at when he is sending out the Twelve. In +general terms he has already pronounced those blessed +who are reproached and persecuted for his sake +(Mt 5<sup>11, 12</sup>). Now he leads his Disciples to expect +oppression and distress (Mt 10<sup>17-25</sup>). Faithfulness to him +involves the endurance of enmity (Mt 10<sup>22</sup>), the +severance of the dearest ties (Mt 10<sup>37</sup>), and the bearing of +the cross (Mt 10<sup>38</sup>). The Galilean period is to be +regarded as a <i>happy</i> one: the commission to the Twelve is +<i>pessimistic</i> in tone. How does that agree?</p> + +<p>The hints also which he drops at that time in the +presence of the people point to bitter catastrophes. What must +have occurred in Chorazin, in Capernaum, and in +Bethsaida that he calls down upon them the wrath of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page066">[pg 066]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg066"></a> +the Day of Judgment, in which it shall be more tolerable for Tyre +and Sidon than for them (Mt 11<sup>20-24</sup>)!</p> + +<p>Because this gloomy tone accords ill with the happy +Galilean period, there is an obvious temptation to regard +the Matthean speeches of the time of the Apostles’ +mission as compositions which include fragments belonging +to a later period. Where, however, could Jesus have +spoken such words? So long as he remained in the north +after the flight he made no speeches, and the utterances +of the Jerusalem days have their own peculiar character, +so that it is hard to know where to introduce references +to Galilean occurrences and warnings to the Disciples in +prospect of their journey.</p> + +<p>Moreover, it is a fact that nothing is related about +conspicuous successes in the first period. The successes first +begin with the mission of the Twelve. Jesus celebrates the +great moment of their return with words of enthusiasm +(Mt 11<sup>25-27</sup>). Are we to suppose now that in the sequel +the Pharisees triumphed over him completely and the +people deserted him? Of such a retrogression of his cause +the texts, however, record nothing. The discussion about +ceremonial purification (Mt 7<sup>1-23</sup>) does not furnish +what was expected +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page067">[pg 067]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg067"></a> +of it. Jesus had already at an earlier +time come into much hotter conflict with the theologians +of the capital (Mk 3<sup>22-30</sup>). In the question about the +laws of purification it was not he that was worsted.</p> + +<p>Jesus’ defeat has been inferred from the fact that the +“flight” to the north followed this scene (Mk 7<sup>24</sup> ff[.]). +But the accounts do not in the least represent this +departure as a flight, nor do they account for this journey to +the north as a result of the previous controversy; rather +it is <i>we</i> who interpolate a fictitious causal connection in +the chronological sequence of the narrative. If Jesus +immediately before this was supported by the popular favour +and now leaves the region, we have a fact before us which +stands unexplained in the texts. That it was a flight is an +unprovable conjecture.</p> + +<p>No importance need be attached to the fact that +subsequently Jesus again appears on two occasions surrounded +by a multitude (Mk 8<sup>1-9</sup>: feeding of the 4000; and +Mk 8<sup>34</sup> ff[.]: the scenes before and after the +Transfiguration). This fact might perhaps be attributed to a literary +reconstruction of the respective accounts,—as may be +considered established, for example, in the case of the +<i>doublette</i> of the feeding of the multitude.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page068">[pg 068]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg068"></a></p> + +<p>Decisive, however, is the reception which the +Passover caravan accorded to Jesus as he overtook it at +Jericho. This ovation was not accorded to the man who +had lost ground before the Pharisees in his own country +and among his own people and at last had been forced +to flee, but to the celebrated prophet emerging from his +retirement. If this Galilean populace supported him now +by their acclaim and enabled him to terrorise the +magistrates in the capital for several days—for his purification +of the Temple was nothing else but that—and to expose +the scribes with his dry irony, is it possible that they did +it for the man who a few weeks before had to yield to +these theologians in his own land?</p> + +<p>If one insists upon speaking of a successful period, it is +the <i>second</i> that must be so denominated. For wherever +Jesus appears in public after the return of the Twelve he +is accompanied by a devoted multitude—in Galilee, from +the Jordan to Jerusalem, and in the capital itself. The +surly Jewish populace is an invention of the Fourth +Evangelist. Then, too, the illegality of his secret arrest +and hasty conviction shows what the Council feared from +the popular favour in behalf of Jesus. That was the only +“ill[ ]success” of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page069">[pg 069]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg069"></a> +the second period. It was indeed a fatal one.</p> + +<p>The first and successful Galilean period is therefore +in reality a time of humiliation and ill[ ]success. There is a +double reason for regarding it nevertheless as a “happy” +time. In the first place there is an æsthetic element in it, +which Keim in particular strongly emphasises. A series of +parables drawn from nature, as well as the wonderful +speech against worldly care (Mt 6<sup>25-34</sup>), seem hardly +intelligible except as the reflection of a glad and cheerful +sense for the beauty of nature.</p> + +<p>With this is associated, in the second place, an <i>historical +postulate.</i> In the first period no trace is discoverable of the +idea of the Passion: the second is dominated by it. Hence +the first was successful, the second unsuccessful,—for +otherwise there is no way of accounting, psychologically +or historically, for the change.</p> + +<p>The historical facts speak differently. In the real period +of ill[ ]success the resolution to suffer did not come to light. +In the successful second period, on the other hand, Jesus +disclosed to his Disciples that he must be put to death by +the scribes. Thus the relation was the reverse. +Herewith modern-historical psychology finds itself before an +enigma.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page070">[pg 070]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg070"></a></p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_1_4">4. The Influence of the Pauline Theory of the Atonement +upon the Formulation of the Synoptical Prediction +of the Passion. (Second Assumption.)</h3> + +<p>No proof can be brought to support the contention that +the Passion passages in the Synoptic Gospels are +influenced by Pauline conceptions. Here again we have a sort +of postulate. For if the juridical character of Mk 10<sup>45</sup> +and Mk 14<sup>24</sup> cannot be set down to the account of the +Pauline medium, one must assume that Jesus’ own notion +of the Passion contained this bold conception of +atonement. The modern-historical solution, however, is not +adapted to that alternative.</p> + +<p>As a matter of fact it is demonstrable that no Pauline +influence can be discerned here. According to Paul, Jesus +said at the Last Supper: My body for <i>you</i> (1 Cor. 11<sup>24</sup>). +In the same manner Luke has: My body which is given +for <i>you;</i> the blood which is shed for <i>you</i> (Lk 22<sup>19, 20</sup>). +Both the older Synoptists invariably write instead of this: +for <i>many.</i> Mk 10<sup>45</sup> = Mt 20<sup>28</sup>: to give his life a +ransom for <i>many.</i> Mk 14<sup>24</sup> = Mt 26<sup>28</sup>: my blood of the +covenant which is shed for <i>many</i>. In the one case the +persons who are to benefit by the Passion are definitely +determined: they +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page071">[pg 071]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg071"></a> +are the Disciples. In the other case it +is a question of an indefinite number.</p> + +<p>Nothing is accomplished by the argument that it comes +in the end substantially to the same thing. Why, according +to the older Synoptists, did Jesus speak of the <i>many,</i> +according to Paul, of <i>his own?</i> The sole explanation lies in +the fact that Paul wrote from the standpoint of the +Church after the death of Jesus. From this point of view +the saving efficacy of Jesus’ death is applied to a +determinate community, to those, namely, who believe on him. +The Disciples represent this community of believers in the +historical sayings of Jesus, because from the standpoint +of the Church, founded as it was upon belief in the +Messiah, one could not conceive that Jesus’ words about his +Passion could have any other reference but to the +believers.</p> + +<p>The early Synoptic “for many” is uttered, however, +from the <i>historical standpoint.</i> That is to say, it is +appropriate to the time when Jesus did not yet require belief +in his messiahship, when consequently the number of +persons whom his death is to benefit is left indeterminate. Of +only one thing is he certain, that it is greater than the +circle of his Disciples: hence he said, “for many.” Had +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page072">[pg 072]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg072"></a> +he used the expression, “for you,” which Paul thought it +natural to attribute to him, the Disciples must have +concluded from it that he was dying for them alone, inasmuch +as they could not then have the feeling that they were +representatives of a future community of believers, +according to the conception which was so obvious to Paul +and the Church.</p> + + +<p>Inasmuch as this <i>“for many”</i> has held its place, in spite +of the fact that Paul, writing from the churchly point of +view, felt instinctively the necessity of substituting <i>“for +you”</i> (though he thereby coined an expression which is +historically impossible), one is not justified in assuming +any sort of Pauline influence upon the traditional form +of the early Synoptic Passion-idea. The bold theory of +the atonement in the Synoptists is therefore historical. +Any softening of it, such as the modern-historical solution +must assume, is without justification.</p> + +<p>Hence in the interpretation of Jesus’ saying the first +requisite is to do justice to the expression “for many.” +Because they have not done this, all expositions of the +significance of Jesus’ death—from Paul to Ritschl—are +unhistorical. One has but to substitute, for the community +of believers with which they deal, the indeterminate and +unqualified +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page073">[pg 073]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg073"></a> +“many” of the historical saying, and their +interpretation become simply meaningless. That +interpretation alone is historical which renders it +intelligible why, according to Jesus, the atonement accomplished +by his death is to redound to the benefit of a number which +is intentionally left indeterminate.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_1_5">5. The Kingdom of God as an Ethical Entity in the +Passion Idea. (Third Assumption.)</h3> + +<p>(a). Mk 10<sup>41-45</sup>. Service as the ethical conduct +prescribed in expectation of the coming Kingdom.</p> + +<p>The sons of Zebedee had advanced the claim to sit on +either side of the Lord in his glory, i. e. when he should +reign as Messiah upon his throne. The other Disciples +object to this. Jesus calls them together and speaks to +them about serving and ruling in connection with the +Kingdom of God.</p> + +<p>In this saying one is accustomed to find the ethical +conception of the Kingdom of God. There is to be a +revaluation of all values. The greatest in the Kingdom of heaven +is he who becomes least, like a child (Mt 18<sup>4</sup>), and +the ruler is he who serves. Self-humiliation and the +meekness of service, such is the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page074">[pg 074]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg074"></a> +new morality of the Kingdom +of God which comes into force through Jesus’ service +unto death.</p> + +<p>With this, however, the fact is ignored that the +Kingdom in which one reigns is thought of as a future thing, +whereas the serving applies to the present! In our ethical +fashion of viewing the matter, serving and reigning +coincide logically and chronologically. With Jesus, however, +it is not at all a question of a purely ethical exchange of +the notions of serving and ruling; rather it is a contrast +which develops in a chronological sequence. There is a +sharp distinction made between the present and the future +æon. He who is one day to count among the greatest in +the Kingdom of God must <i>now</i> be as a child! He who +advances a claim to a position of rule therein must <i>now</i> +serve! The more lowly the position of humble service +which one <i>now</i> assumes, in the time when the earthly +rulers exercise authority by force, so much the more lofty +will be his station as ruler when earthly force is done away +and the Kingdom of God dawns. Hence he especially must +humble himself even unto death who is to come as the +Son of Man upon the clouds of heaven to judge and to +rule the world. Before he mounts his throne he drinks +the cup of suffering, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page075">[pg 075]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg075"></a> +which they also must taste who +would reign with him!</p> + +<p>So soon as one pays due attention to this “now and +then” in Jesus’ speech, the trivial parallelism of phrase +is replaced by a real and effective climax. The descending +stages of service correspond to the ascending stages of +rule.</p> + + +<p>1. Whosoever would become great <i>among you,</i> shall +be <i>your</i> servant—Mk 10<sup>43</sup>.</p> + +<p>2. Whosoever <i>of you</i> would be first, shall be +bondservant of <i>all</i> (others)—Mk 10<sup>44</sup>.</p> + +<p>3. Therefore the Son of Man expected the post of +highest rule because he was not come to be served but +to serve, in giving his life a ransom for <i>many</i>—Mk 10<sup>45</sup>.</p> + +<p>The climax is a double one. The service of the +Disciples extended only to <i>their</i> circle: the service of Jesus +to an unlimited number, namely, to all such as were to +benefit by his suffering and death. In the case of the +Disciples it was merely a question of unselfish <i>subjection:</i> in +the case of Jesus it meant the bitter <i>suffering of death.</i> +Both count as serving, inasmuch as they establish a claim +to a position of rule in the Kingdom.</p> + +<p>The ordinary explanation does not satisfy the early +Synoptic text but only that of Lk 22<sup>24-27</sup>. This text +has torn the narrative from +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page076">[pg 076]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg076"></a> +its proper connection, so +that it appears as a dispute among the Disciples “which +of them is accounted to be the greatest.”</p> + +<p>With this, the “now and then” is eliminated from the +situation, and it is only a question of a purely ethical +inversion of the ideas of ruling and serving. Accordingly, +Jesus’ speech, too, runs on in a lifeless parallelism. He +that is greater among you, let him become as the younger, +and he that is chief, as he that doth serve (Lk 22<sup>26</sup>). +Instead of exemplifying by his own sacrifice of himself +unto death for the great generality of men the conduct +required of those who would reign with him, he speaks +only of his serviceable character as displayed towards the +Disciples: But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth +(Lk 22<sup>27</sup>). By this he means a serving that is at the same +time ruling. In the case of the two older Synoptists, +however, it is not at all a question of the proclamation of the +new morality of the Kingdom of God, where serving is +ruling; rather it is a question of the significance of humility +and service in <i>expectation of the Kingdom of God.</i> Service +is the fundamental law of <i>interim-ethics.</i></p> + +<p>This thought is much deeper and more vital than the +modern play upon words which we attribute to the Lord. +Only through lowliness +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page077">[pg 077]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg077"></a> +and childlikeness in this æon is +one worthily prepared to reign in the Kingdom of God. +Only he who is here morally purified and ennobled through +suffering can be great there. Hence suffering is for Jesus +the moral means of acquiring and confirming the +messianic authority to which he is designated.</p> + +<p>Earthly rule, because it depends upon force, is an +emanation of the power of ungodliness. Authority in the +Kingdom of God, where the power of this world is +destroyed, signifies emanation from the divine power. Only +he can be the bearer of such authority who has kept +himself free from the contamination of earthly rule. To allot +it to such as have prepared themselves through suffering +is God’s affair and his alone (Mk 10<sup>39, 40</sup>).</p> + +<p>But if service does not represent the morality of the +Kingdom of God, Jesus’ conception of the Passion does +not deal with the corresponding notion of the Kingdom +as a self-developing ethical society, but rather with a +super-moral entity, namely, the Kingdom of God in its +eschatological aspect.</p> + +<p>(b). The idea of the Passion and the Eschatological +Expectation.</p> + +<p>The investigation of the accounts of the Lord’s Supper +[in the first part of this work] revealed a close connection +between the eschatological +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page078">[pg 078]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg078"></a> +conclusion (Mk 14<sup>25</sup>) and +the expression about the blood shed for many (Mk 14<sup>24</sup>). +The other passages about the Passion suggest a similar +connection.</p> + + +<p>After Jesus with his “Yes” had himself pronounced the +verdict of death he speaks of his “coming again” upon +the clouds of heaven. Hereby, according to Mark’s text, +he associates the two events in a single thought. +Mk 14<sup>62</sup>: I am, and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at +the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds +of Heaven. This logical connection is already weakened +by Matthew, as in the case of the word about the cup. +He substitutes for the “and” an expression which denotes +a temporal sequence merely. Mt 26<sup>64</sup>: Thou hast +said: <i>nevertheless</i> I say unto you, <i>henceforth</i> shall ye, etc. +The eschatological reference is lacking in Luke: he has +omitted it also from the word about the cup.</p> + +<p>A close connection between the thought of the Passion +and eschatology is implied also in Jesus’ saying about +the path of suffering which his followers must tread +(Mk 8<sup>34</sup>- 9<sup>1</sup>). Whosoever shall be ashamed of Jesus when +he suffers reproach and persecution in this adulterous and +sinful world, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed +when he cometh in the glory +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page079">[pg 079]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg079"></a> +of his Father with the holy +angels. For this generation shall not sink into the grave +until they see the Kingdom of God come with power!</p> + +<p>This connection must have appeared extremely +prominent to the hearers. After the departure from Cæsarea +Philippi, under the impression of the secret of the Passion, +which filled them with a sense of sadness and fear +(Mk 9<sup>30-32</sup>),—the Disciples dispute which of them shall +receive the highest place in the Kingdom. In the house at +Capernaum Jesus had to rebuke them (Mk 9<sup>33-37</sup>). +That was after he had spoken for the second time about +his Passion.</p> + +<p>On the way to Jerusalem the same scene was +reenacted in closest conjunction with the third prediction of +the Passion. (Mk 10<sup>32-41</sup>). The sons of Zebedee +advance their claim to the seats upon the throne. This is +not in the least a case of childish misunderstanding on the +part of his followers, for Jesus in fact treats their +suggestion with perfect seriousness. The eschatological +expectation must accordingly have been thrown into such +strong relief for the Disciples by Jesus’ prediction of his +Passion that they necessarily reasoned within themselves +about the position they should occupy in the coming +Kingdom.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page080">[pg 080]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg080"></a></p> + +<p>The modern-historical solution eliminates the +eschatological conception of the Kingdom of God from the +Passion, reducing it to the notion of an apotheosis, “the +coming <i>again,”</i> as it is called. This expression is entirely +false. Jesus never spoke of his coming <i>again</i> but only of +his <i>coming</i> or of the <i>advent</i> of the Son of Man. We use the +expression “coming again” because we connect death and +glory by contrast, as though the new situation were +conditioned merely upon a victorious transfiguration of Jesus. +Our view makes him say: “I shall die, but I shall be +glorified through my coming again.” As a matter of fact, +however, he said: “I must suffer <i>and</i> the Son of Man shall +appear upon the clouds of heaven.” But that for his +hearers meant much more than an apotheosis—for with the +appearing of the Son of Man dawned the eschatological +Kingdom. Jesus therefore sets his death in temporal-causal +connection with the eschatological dawning of the +Kingdom. The <i>eschatological</i> notion of the Kingdom, not the +<i>modern-ethical</i> notion, dominates his idea of the Passion.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_1_6">6. The Form of the Prediction of the Passion. +(Fourth Assumption.)</h3> + +<p>If the modern historical solution be correct +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page081">[pg 081]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg081"></a> +in its conception, Jesus must have communicated the thought of +the Passion to his Disciples in the form of an ethical +<i>reflection.</i> If they were to comprehend the approaching +catastrophe as the inauguration of the new morality, and +were to derive from it incentive to a change of conduct, +then he must have familiarised them with the character of +this event from the very beginning, as soon as ever he +announced it.</p> + +<p>As a matter of fact, however, he imparted to them the +thought of the Passion, not in the form of an <i>ethical +reflection,</i> but as a <i>secret,</i> without further explanation. It +is dominated by a “must,” the expression for +incomprehensible divine necessity. The fact that the Passion-idea +was a secret stands opposed to the modern-historical +solution.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_1_7">7. Résumé.</h3> + +<p>1. The assumption of a fortunate Galilean period +which was followed by a time of defeat is historically +untenable.</p> + +<p>2. Pauline influence cannot have conditioned the form +of the early Synoptic sayings about the Passion.</p> + +<p>3. Not the ethical but the hyper-ethical, the +eschatological, notion of the Kingdom +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page082">[pg 082]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg082"></a> +dominates the Passion as +Jesus conceived it.</p> + +<p>4. The utterances of the Passion-idea did not occur +in the form of an ethical reflection but it was a question +of an incomprehensible secret which the Disciples had +not the least need to understand and in fact did not.</p> + +<p>Such is the situation with regard to the four pillars +of the modern-historical solution. With them the whole +structure collapses. It is after all a lifeless thought! The +feeble modernity of it is visible in the fact that it does +not get beyond a sort of representative significance of +Jesus’ death. Jesus effects by his offering of himself +nothing absolutely new, since throughout his whole public +ministry he assumes that the Kingdom of God is already +present as a dispensation of the forgiveness of sin or as +the morally developing society. With his very appearance +upon earth it is there. The performance of atonement, +however, requires a <i>real</i> significance in Jesus’ death.</p> + +<p>Herein lies the weakness of the modern dogmatic in +contrast with the old. Paul, Anselm, and Luther know +of an absolutely new situation which follows in time the +death of Jesus +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page083">[pg 083]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg083"></a> +and results as a consequence of it. Modern +theology talks all around the subject; it has nothing +specific to say, however, but involves itself in the cloud of its +own assumptions. Both accounts, indeed, are unhistorical. +Religiously considered, only the modern view is +justifiable. The old dogmatic, however, is in this point the more +historical, for it postulates at all events a real effect of +the death of Jesus, as the Synoptical passages require.</p> + +<p>In what, however, does this absolutely new thing +consist which is there made to depend upon the death of +Jesus? The Synoptic sayings give but one answer to this: +the eschatological realisation of the Kingdom! The +coming of the Kingdom of God with power is dependent upon +the atonement which Jesus performs. That is substantially +the secret of the Passion.</p> + +<p>How is that to be understood? Only the history of +Jesus can throw light upon it. <i>In place of the +modern-historical solution we advance now the +eschatological-historical.</i></p> + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page084">[pg 084]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg084"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_2">CHAPTER II</h2> +<h4>THE “DEVELOPMENT” OF JESUS</h4> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_2_1">1. The Kingdom of God as an Ethical and +as an Eschatological Fact.</h3> + +<p class="drop">THE concurrence in Jesus of an ethical with an +eschatological line of thought has always constituted one of the +most difficult problems of New Testament study. How +can two such different views of the world, in part +diametrically opposed to one another, be united in <i>one</i> process +of thought?</p> + +<p>The attempt has been made to evade the problem, +with the just feeling that the two views cannot be united. +Critical spirits like T. Colani <i>(Jesus-Christ et les croyance +messianique de son temps.</i> 1864, pp. 94 ff., 169 ff.) and +G. Volkmar <i>(Die Evangelien.</i> 1870, pp. 530 ff.) went to +the length of eliminating altogether eschatology from the +field of Jesus’ thought. All expressions of that sort were +accordingly to be charged to the account of the +eschatological expectation of a later time. This procedure is +frustrated by the stubbornness of the texts: the +eschatological sayings belong precisely to the best attested +passages. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page085">[pg 085]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg085"></a> +The excision of them is an act of violence.</p> + +<p>No more successful has been the attempt to evade the +problem by <i>sublimating</i> the eschatology, as though Jesus +had translated the realistic conceptions of his time into +spiritual terms by using them in a figurative sense. The +work of Eric Haupt <i>(Die eschatologischen Aussagen +Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien,</i> 1895) is based upon +this thought. But there is nothing to justify us in assuming +that Jesus attached to his words a non-natural sense, +whereas his hearers, in accordance with the prevailing +view, must have understood them realistically. Not only +are we at a loss for a rational explanation of such a +method on Jesus’ part, but he himself gives not the +slightest hint of it.</p> + +<p>So the problem remains as urgent as ever, how the +juxtaposition of two discordant views of the world is to +be explained. The sole solution seems to lie in the +assumption of a gradual development. Jesus may have +entertained at first a purely ethical view, looking for the +realisation of the Kingdom of God through the spread +and perfection of the moral-religious society which he was +undertaking to establish. When, however, the opposition +of the world put the organic completion of the Kingdom +in doubt, the eschatological +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page086">[pg 086]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg086"></a> +conception forced itself upon +him. By the course of events he was brought to the pass +where the fulfilment of the religious-ethical ideal, which +hitherto he had regarded as the terminus of a continuous +moral development, could be expected only as the result +of a cosmic catastrophe in which God’s omnipotence +should bring to its conclusion the work which he had +undertaken.</p> + +<p>Thus a complete revolution is supposed to have +occurred in Jesus’ thought. But the problem is veiled rather +than solved by disposing the terms of the contrast in +chronological sequence. The acceptance of the +eschatological notion, if it is to be rendered intelligible in this +fashion, signifies nothing less than a total breach with the +past, a break at which all development ceases. For the +eschatological thought, if it be taken seriously, abrogates +the ethical train of thought. It accepts no subordinate +place. To such a position of impotence it was brought for +the first time in Christian theology as the result of +historical experience. Jesus, however, must have thought either +eschatologically or uneschatologically, but not both +together—nor in such a wise that the eschatological was +superadded to supplement the uneschatological.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page087">[pg 087]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg087"></a></p> + +<p>It has been proved that in the thought of the Passion +it is only the eschatological idea of the Kingdom of God +which is in view. It has been shown likewise that the +assumption of a period of ill[ ]success after the mission of the +Twelve is without historical justification. This, however, +constitutes the indispensable presumption for every such +development as has been assumed on the part of Jesus. +Therefore the eschatological notion cannot have been +forced upon Jesus by outward experiences, but it must +from the beginning, even in the first Galilean period, have +lain at the base of his preaching!</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_2_2">2. The Eschatological Character of the +Charge to the Twelve.</h3> + +<p>“The Kingdom of God is at hand” (Mt 10<sup>7</sup>)—this +word which Jesus commissions his Disciples to proclaim +is a summary expression of all his previous preaching. +They are to carry it now throughout the cities of Israel. +The charge of Jesus to the Twelve furnishes no means of +determining in what sense this proclamation is meant.</p> + +<p>If the common conception is right about the significance +of this mission of the Twelve, the words with which he +dismisses them present an extraordinary riddle. Full of hope +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page088">[pg 088]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg088"></a> +and with the joy of productive effort he goes about +to extend the scope of his activity for the founding of the +Kingdom of God. The commission to the Twelve ought +therefore to contain instruction about the missionary +propaganda they were to carry out in this sense. One must +hence expect that he would direct them how they should +preach about the new relation to God and the new +morality of the Kingdom.</p> + +<p>The commission, however, is anything but a summary +of the “teaching of Jesus.” It does not in the least +contemplate instruction of a thoroughgoing kind, rather what is +in question is a flying proclamation throughout Israel. +The one errand of the Apostles as teachers is to cry out +everywhere the warning of the nearness of the Kingdom +of God—to the intent that all may be warned and given +opportunity to repent. In this, however, no time is to be +lost; therefore they are not to linger in a town where men +are unsusceptible to their message, but to hasten on in +order that they may pass through all the cities of Israel +before the appearing of the Son of Man takes place. But +“the coming of the Son of Man” signifies—<i>the dawning +of the Kingdom of God with power.</i></p> + +<p>When they persecute you in this city flee +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page089">[pg 089]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg089"></a> +unto another, +for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through +the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come (Mt 10<sup>23</sup>). +If one so understands the com[m]ission to the +Twelve as to suppose that Jesus would say through his +Disciples that the time is now come for the realisation of +the Kingdom by a new moral behaviour, that +eschatological saying lies like an erratic boulder in the midst of a +flowery meadow. If, however, one conceives of the +embassage eschatologically, the saying acquires a great +context: it is a rock in the midst of a wild mountain +landscape. One cannot affirm of this saying that it has been +interpolated here by a later age; rather with compelling +force it fixes the presence of eschatological conceptions +in the days of the mission of the Twelve.</p> + +<p>The one and only article of instruction that is required +is the call to repentance. Whosoever believes in the +nearness of the Kingdom, repents. Hence Jesus gives the +Disciples authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out and +to heal the sick (Mt 10<sup>1</sup>). By these signs they are to +perceive that the power of ungodliness is coming to an +end and the morning-glow of the Kingdom of God already +dawns. That belongs to their errand as teachers, for +whosoever fails to believe their +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page090">[pg 090]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg090"></a> +signs, and thereupon brings +forth no works of repentance unto the Kingdom of +God,—that man is damned. Thus have C[h]orazin, Bethsaida, and +Capernaum come into condemnation. Faith and +repentance were made easy for them by the signs and wonders +with which they were favoured beyond others—and yet +they did not come to themselves, as even pagan cities like +Tyre and Sidon would have done (Mt 11<sup>20-24</sup>). This +saying addressed to the people shows what significance +Jesus ascribed to the signs in view of the eschatological +embassage.</p> + +<p>Thus the Disciples were to preach <i>the Kingdom, +Repentance, and the Judgment.</i> Inasmuch, however, as the +event they proclaimed was so near that it might at any +moment surprise them, they must be prepared for what +precedes it, namely, for the final insurrection of the power +of this world. How they are to comport themselves in the +face of this emergency so as not to be confounded—here +is the point upon which Jesus’ parting words of +instruction bear! In the general tumult of spirits all ties will be +dissolved. Faction will divide even the family (Mt 10<sup>34-36</sup>). +Whosoever would be loyal to the Kingdom of +God must be ready to tear from out his heart those who were dearest +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page091">[pg 091]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg091"></a> +to him, to endure reproach, and to bear the +cross (Mt 10<sup>37, 38</sup>). The secular authority will bring +upon them severe persecution (Mt 10<sup>17-31</sup>). Men will +call them to account and subject them to torture in order +to move them to denial of their cause. Brother shall +deliver up brother to death, and the father his child; and +children shall rise up against parents and cause them to +be put to death. Only he who remains steadfast in the +midst of this general tumult, and confesses Jesus before +men, shall be saved in the Day of Judgment, when he +intervenes with God in their behalf (Mt 10<sup>32, 33</sup>).</p> + +<p>In the commission to the Twelve Jesus imparts +instruction about the woes of the approaching Kingdom. In the +descriptive portions of it there may be much perhaps that +betrays the colouring of a later time. By this concession, +however, the character of the speech as a whole is not +prejudiced. The question at issue is not about a course +of conduct which they are to maintain <i>after his death.</i> For +such instruction not a single historical word can be +adduced. The woes precede the dawning of the Kingdom. +Therefore the victorious proclamation of the nearness of +the Kingdom must accommodate itself to the woes. Hence +this juxtaposition of optimism +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page092">[pg 092]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg092"></a> +and pessimism which the +current interpretation finds so unaccountable. It is the +sign manual of every eschatological <i>Weltanschauung.</i></p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_2_3">3. The New View.</h3> + +<p>The idea of Passion is dominated <i>only</i> by the +eschatological conception of the Kingdom. In the charge to the +Twelve the question is <i>only</i> about the eschatological—not +about the ethical-nearness of the Kingdom. From this it +follows, for one thing, that Jesus’ ministry counted <i>only</i> +upon the eschatological realisation of the Kingdom. Then, +however, it is evident that the relation of his ethical +thoughts to the eschatological view can have suffered no +alteration by reason of outward events but must have +been the same from beginning to end.</p> + +<p>In what relation, however, did his ethics and his +eschatology stand to each other? So long as one starts with +the ethics and seeks to comprehend the eschatology as +something adventitious, there appears to be no organic +connection between the two, since the ethics of Jesus, as +we are accustomed to conceive it, is not in the least +accommodated to the eschatology but stands upon a much +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page093">[pg 093]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg093"></a> +higher level. One must therefore take the opposite course +and see if the ethical proclamation in essence is not +conditioned by the eschatological view of the world.</p> + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page094">[pg 094]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg094"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_3">CHAPTER III</h2> + +<h4>THE PREACHING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD</h4> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_3_1">1. The New Morality as Repentance.</h3> + +<p class="drop">IF the thought of the eschatological realisation of the +Kingdom is the fundamental factor in Jesus’ preaching, +his whole theory of ethics must come under the +conception of <i>repentance</i> as a preparation for the coming of the +Kingdom. This conception seems to us too narrow a one +to apply to the whole extent of this moral-religious +proclamation. This is due to the fact that the word +repentance as we use it has rather a negative significance, laying +emphasis as it does chiefly upon foregoing guilt. It is a +far richer conception, however, which the Synoptists +express by the word repentance (<i>μετάνοια</i>). It is not merely +a recovery which stands in retrospective relation with a +sinful condition in the past, but also—and this is its +predominant character—<i>it is a moral renewal in prospect +of the accomplishment of universal perfection in the +future.</i></p> + +<p>Thus “the repentance in expectation of the Kingdom” +comprises all positive ethical requirements. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page095">[pg 095]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg095"></a> +In this sense +it is the lively echo of the “repentance” of the early +prophets. For what Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah +mean by repentance is moral renovation in prospect of the +Day of the Lord. Thus Isaiah says: “Wash you, make +you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before +mine eyes; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge +the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isai. 1<sup>16, 17</sup>). It +is precisely this Old Testament conception of repentance, +with its emphasis upon the new moral life, which one must +have in mind in order to understand aright the +Synoptical repentance. Both have a forward vision, both are +dominated by the thought of a condition of perfection +which God will bring to pass through the Judgment. This, +in the Prophetic view, is the Day of the Lord; in the +Synoptic it is the dawn of the Kingdom.</p> + +<p>The ethics of the Sermon on the Mount is therefore +repentance. The new morality, which detects the spirit +beneath the letter of the Law, makes one meet for the +Kingdom of God. Only the righteous can enter into the +Kingdom of God—in that conviction all were agreed. +Whosoever, therefore, preached the nearness of the +Kingdom must also teach the righteousness pertaining to the +Kingdom. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page096">[pg 096]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg096"></a> +Hence Jesus proclaimed the new righteousness +which is higher than the Law and the Prophets,—for they +extend only up to the Baptist. Since the days of the Baptist, +however, one stands immediately within the pre-messianic +period.</p> + +<p>The Day of Judgment puts this moral transformation +to the proof: only he who has done the will of the +heavenly Father can enter into the Kingdom (Mt 7<sup>21</sup>). +The claim that one is a follower of Jesus, or has even +wrought signs and wonders in his name, is of no avail as +a substitute for this new righteousness (Mt 7<sup>22, 23</sup>). +Hence the Sermon on the Mount concludes with the +admonition to build, in expectation of the momentous event, +a firmly founded structure capable of resisting storm and +tempest (Mt 7<sup>24-27</sup>).</p> + +<p>The Beatitudes (Mt 5<sup>3-12</sup>) come under the same +point of view. They define the moral disposition which +justifies admission into the Kingdom. This is the +explanation of the use of the present and the future tense in the +same sentence. Blessed are the meek, those that hunger +and thirst after righteousness, the merciful, the pure in +heart, the peacemakers, the poor in spirit, those that +endure persecution for righteousness’ sake, because such +character and conduct is their security +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page097">[pg 097]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg097"></a> +that with the +appearing of the Kingdom of God they will be found to +belong to it.</p> + +<p>A series of parables illustrates the same thought. Thus +the parables of the treasure in the field and of the pearl +of great price (Mt 13<sup>44-46</sup>) show how one must stake +all upon the hope of the Kingdom when the prospect of +it is held out to him, and must sacrifice all other goods +for the sake of acquiring this highest good that is +proposed to him.</p> + +<p>Thus already in the ethics of the Galilean period we +find the “now and then” which accounts for the estimate +put upon serving (Mk 10<sup>45</sup>). <i>As repentance unto the +Kingdom of God the ethics also of the Sermon on the +Mount is interim-ethics.</i> In this we perceive that the moral +instruction of Jesus remained the same from the first day +of his public appearance unto his latest utterances, for +the lowliness and serviceableness which he recommended +to his Disciples on the way to Jerusalem correspond +exactly to the new moral conduct which he developed in the +Sermon on the Mount: they make one meet for the +Kingdom of God. Only, they constitute a climax in the +attainment of the new righteousness, inasmuch as they render +one meet not merely for entrance into the Kingdom but +for bearing rule in it.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page098">[pg 098]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg098"></a></p> + +<p>We encounter again the <i>Leitmotiv</i> of the Sermon on +the Mount in the epilogue to the great parables uttered +in Jerusalem. Nothing but the maintenance of the new +morality in all relations of life guarantees entrance into +the Kingdom. Hence Jesus can say to the Pharisee who +agrees to the summary of this new morality as it is +expressed in the commandment of love: Thou art not far +from the Kingdom of God (Mk 12<sup>34</sup>). That does not +mean that the Pharisee by such a disposition of mind has +already well nigh risen to the height of the “morality of +the Kingdom.” For if the double commandment of love +constituted the morality of the <i>Kingdom,</i> Jesus must have +said to him (since he entirely agreed to these +commandments): Thou belongest to the Kingdom. The “not far” +must in fact be understood in a purely chronological sense, +not as denoting some small measure of perfection which +the man still lacks. He is not far from the Kingdom of +God because he possesses the moral quality which will +identify him as a member of the same when after a short +space it appears. The “not far” contains therefore the +same mixture of present and future tense which we have +remarked in the Beatitudes.</p> + +<p>Reasoning from our ethical point of view +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page099">[pg 099]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg099"></a> +we are +inclined to apply the conception of reward to this relation +between membership in the Kingdom and the new +morality. This, however, does not completely render the +thought of Jesus, which had to do above all with the +<i>immediateness</i> of the transition from the condition of +moral renewal into the super-moral perfection of the +Kingdom of God. Whosoever at the dawning of the Kingdom +is in possession of a character morally renovated, he will +be found a member of the same. This is the adequate +expression for the relation of morality to the coming +Kingdom of God.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_3_2">2. The Ethics of Jesus and Modern Ethics.</h3> + +<p>The depth of Jesus’ religious ethics encourages us to +expect that we can find our own modern-ethical +consciousness reflected in it. With respect to its eternal inward +truth it is indeed independent of history and unconditioned +by it, since it already contains the highest ethical thoughts +of all times. Nevertheless there exists a great difference +between Jesus’ sentiment and ours. Modern ethics is +“unconditional,” since it creates of itself the new ethical +situation,—the presumption being that this situation will evolve +unto final perfection. Ethics is here an end in itself, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page100">[pg 100]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg100"></a> +inasmuch as the moral perfection of mankind comes to the +same thing as the perfection of the Kingdom of God. That +is Kant’s thought. This self-sufficiency of ethics (which +however, exacts a certain resignation in view of the +distant consummation) shows that the modern-Christian +theory is permeated by Hellenistic-rationalistic ideas and +has undergone a development of two millenniums.</p> + +<p>The ethics of Jesus on the other hand is “conditional,” +in the sense that it stands in indissoluble connection with +the expectation of a state of perfection which is to be +supernaturally brought about. Thereby its Jewish origin +is revealed, and its immediate connection with the +Prophetic ethics, in which the moral conduct of the people +was conditioned by a definite expectation. Hence, if any +parallel at all may be adduced in explanation of the ethics +of Jesus, it can be only the Prophetic, never the modern. +For in proportion as the latter enters into it the mode of +conception becomes unhistorical, Jesus’ ethics being treated +as self-sufficient, whereas in fact it is oriented entirely by +the expected supernatural consummation.</p> + +<p>So there has been created the insoluble +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page101">[pg 101]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg101"></a> +problem, that a +person thoroughly modern so far as his ethics is concerned +should incidentally give utterance to eschatological +expressions. But if we once perceive the conditional +character of Jesus’ ethics, and seriously consider its connection +with the ethics of the Prophets, it is immediately clear +that all conceptions of the Kingdom as a growth out of +small beginnings, all notions about an ethics of the +Kingdom, or about the development of it, have been foisted +upon Jesus by our modern consciousness—simply because +we could not readily familiarise ourselves with the thought +that the ethics of Jesus is conditional.</p> + +<p>We make him conceive of the Kingdom of God as if +its historical realisation represented a narrow opening +through which it had to squeeze before attaining the full +stature which belongs to it. That is a modern conception. +For Jesus and the Prophets, however, it was a thing +impossible. In the immediateness of their ethical view there +is no place for a morality of the Kingdom of God or for +a development of the Kingdom—it lies beyond the borders +of good and evil; it will be brought about by a cosmic +catastrophe through which evil is to be completely +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page102">[pg 102]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg102"></a> +overcome. Hence all moral criteria are to be abolished. <i>The +Kingdom of God is super-moral.</i></p> + +<p>To this height of hyper-ethical idealism the modern +consciousness is no longer capable of soaring. History has +aged us too much for that. But for the historical +understanding of the ethics of Jesus it is the indispensable +assumption.</p> + +<p>In addition to this, when we think of the Kingdom, our +thought stretches forward to the coming generations +which are to realise it in ever increasing measure. Jesus’ +glance is directed backward. For him the Kingdom is +composed of the generations which have already gone down +to the grave and which are now to be awakened unto a +state of perfection. How should there be for him any +ethics of sexual relations, when he explains to the +Sadducees that in the Kingdom of God after the great +Resurrection there will be no longer any sexual relations at all, +“but they will be like the angels of heaven” (Mk 12<sup>25</sup>)?</p> + +<p>Every ethical form of Jesus, be it never so perfect, +leads therefore only up to the frontier of the Kingdom of +God, while every trace of a path disappears so soon as +one advances upon the new territory. There one needs it +no more.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page103">[pg 103]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg103"></a></p> + +<p>We have a prejudice against this conception of +conditional ethics. It is an unjustified prejudice if it is due to +a suspicion that Jesus’ ethics is thereby disparaged. +Exactly the opposite is the case. For this conditionality +springs from an absolute ethical idealism, which +postulates for the expected state of perfection conditions of +existence which are themselves ethical. In our +unconditional and self-sufficing ethics we, however, assume that +the conflict between good and evil must go on forever, +as belonging constantly to the nature of the ethical. Ethics +and theology do not stand for us in the same lively +relationship as they do with Jesus. The vividness of the colours +of the absolute ethical idealism has been faded by history. +So, to render the ethics of Jesus unconditional and +self-sufficing is not only unhistorical, but it means also the +degradation of his ethical idealism.</p> + +<p>On one point, however, our ethical sentiment is justified +in its prejudice. If ethics has to do only with the +expectation of the supernatural consummation, its actual worth is +diminished, since it is merely individual ethics and is +concerned only with the relation of each single person to the +Kingdom of God. The thought, however, that the moral community +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page104">[pg 104]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg104"></a> +which has been constituted by Jesus’ preaching +must as such be in some way the effective first stage in the +realisation of the Kingdom of God—this thought belongs +not alone to <i>our</i> ethical sentiment, but it animated also +the preaching of Jesus, for he wrought out in strong relief +the social character of his ethics. This explains the +reluctance one feels to admit that the eschatological idea of the +Kingdom of God lay at the basis of Jesus’ preaching from +beginning to end, since <i>then</i> one cannot explain how the +new moral community which he formed about himself was +in his thought organically connected with the Kingdom +which was supernaturally to appear.</p> + +<p>One glides here unintentionally into a modern line of +thought. The idea of development furnishes what we want, +allowing us to conceive of the moral community as an +initial stage which by constant growth, extensive and +intensive, is ever approaching the final stage. The gradually +widening circle represents, however, a modern way of +viewing history. It is completely foreign to Jesus. Yet even +though he cannot have made use of this explanation of +ours, the <i>fact</i> that this new community stands in an +organic relation with the final stage was for him as +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page105">[pg 105]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg105"></a> +certain as for us. But because he expected this final stage as a +purely supernatural event the connection was not to be +apprehended by human reflection, rather it was a <i>divine +secret,</i> which he illuminated only by pointing to analogies +in the processes of nature.</p> + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page106">[pg 106]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg106"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_4">CHAPTER IV</h2> + +<h4>THE SECRET OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD</h4> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_4_1">1. The Parables of the Secret of the Kingdom of God.</h3> + +<p class="drop">WE have to do here with the “secret of the Kingdom +of God” (Mk 4<sup>11</sup>), which is dealt with in the parables +of the sower, of the self-growing seed, of the grain of +mustard, and of the leaven. We commonly find in these +parables the illustration of a constant and gradually +unfolding through which the petty initial stage of a +development is connected with the glorious final stage. The seed +that is sown already contains the harvest, inasmuch as +each seed is devised for the production of plant and fruit. +They develop from the seed by natural law. So it is +likewise with the development of the Kingdom of God from +small and obscure beginnings.</p> + +<p>This attractive interpretation of the parables takes +from them, however, the character of <i>secrets,</i> for the +illustration of a steady unfolding through the processes +of nature is no secret. Hence it is that we fail to +understand what the secret is in these parables. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page107">[pg 107]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg107"></a> +We interpret +them according to our scientific knowledge of nature which +enables us to unite even such different stages as these by +the conception of development.</p> + +<p>By reason of the immediateness with which the +unschooled spirit of olden time observed the world, nature +had, however, still secrets to offer,—in the fact, namely, +that she produced two utterly distinct conditions in a +sequence, the connection of which was just as certain as +it was inexplicable. This immediateness is the note of +Jesus’ parables. The conception of development in nature +which is contemplated in the modern explanation is not +at all brought into prominence, but the exposition is rather +devised to place the two conditions so immediately side +by side that one is compelled to raise the question, How +can the final stage proceed from the initial stage?</p> + +<p>1. A man sowed seed. A great part of the seed was +lost on account of circumstances the most diverse—and +yet the produce of the corn which fell upon good ground +was so great that it restored the seed sown thirty, sixty, +even an hundred fold.</p> + +<p>The detailed interpretation of the description of this +loss, and the application to particular classes of men, as +it lies before us in +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page108">[pg 108]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg108"></a> +Mk 4<sup>13-20</sup>, is the product of a +later view which perceived no longer any secret in the +parable. Originally, however, the single points of the +description were not independent, but the seed which was +lost upon the path, or upon the stony ground, or among +the thorns, together with that which the fowls of heaven +devoured, constituted altogether a unified contrast to that +which fell upon good ground. The manner in which it was +destroyed has no importance for the parable. In spite of +the description so wonderfully wrought out, this saying of +Jesus expresses one single thought: So small, considering +all that was lost, was the sowing; and yet the harvest so +great!—Therein lies the secret.</p> + +<p>2. A man scattered seed upon the ground. He slept, +went about his affairs, and concerned himself no further +about the seed. Before he realised it the harvest stood +already in the field, and he could send his servants to +gather it in. How did it come to pass that after the seed +was sunk in the earth the ground <i>of itself</i> brought forth +the blade, the ear, and the full corn?—That is the secret.</p> + +<p>3. A grain of mustard seed was sown; from it sprouted +a great shrub, with +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page109">[pg 109]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg109"></a> +branches under which the birds of the +heaven could lodge. How did it come to pass, since the +mustard seed is so small?—That is the secret.</p> + +<p>4. A woman added a little leaven to a great mass of +dough. Afterwards the whole lump was “leaven.” How +can a little leaven leaven a whole great lump?—That is +the secret.</p> + +<p>These parables are not at all devised to be interpreted +and understood; rather they are calculated to make the +hearers observant of the fact that in the affairs of the +Kingdom of God a secret is preparing like that which they +experience in nature. They are <i>signals.</i> As the harvest +follows upon the seed-sowing, without it being possible +for any one to say how it comes about; so, as the sequel +to Jesus’ preaching, will the Kingdom of God come with +power. Small as is the circle which he gathers about +himself in comparison with the greatness of God’s Kingdom, +it is none the less certain that the Kingdom will come as a +consequence of this moral renewal, restricted as it is in +scope. It is no less confidently to be expected than that +the seed, which while he speaks is slumbering in the +ground, will bring forth a glorious harvest. Watch not +only for the harvest, but watch for the Kingdom of +God!—so speaks +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page110">[pg 110]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg110"></a> +the spiritual sower to the Galileans at the +season of the seed-sowing. They ought to have the +presentiment that the moral renewal in consequence of his +preaching stands in a necessary but inexplicable connection +with the dawning of the Kingdom of God. The same God +who through his mysterious power in nature brings the +harvest to pass will also bring to pass the Kingdom of +God.</p> + +<p>Therefore, when it was the season of the harvest, he +sent his Disciples forth to proclaim: The Kingdom of +God is at hand.</p> + + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_4_2">2. The Secret of the Kingdom of God in the Address to +the People after the Mission of the Twelve.</h3> + +<p>Jesus was alone. The Disciples carried the news of the +nearness of the Kingdom throughout the cities of Israel. +While the people thronged him there came the emissaries +of the Baptist with their question. He dismissed them with +the answer: the Kingdom stands before the door, one +needs only the language of the signs and wonders in order +to understand. Turning to the people he speaks of the +significance of the Baptist and of his office. With this he +lets drop a hint of mystery (Mt 11<sup>14</sup>, “If you are able +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page111">[pg 111]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg111"></a> +to conceive it,” Mt 11<sup>15</sup>, “he hath ears to hear, let +him hear”). John is Elijah, i. e. the personality whose +advent marks the immediate dawning of the Kingdom. +“From the days of John the Baptist until this moment the +Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and men of +violence take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law +prophesied until John; and, if ye are able to conceive it, +this is Elijah, which is to come. He that hath ears to hear, +let him hear” (Mt 11<sup>12-15</sup>).</p> + +<p>This saying resists all exegesis, for it does not in the +least contain the thought that the individuals gain access +to the Kingdom by force. What might that mean anyway? +In what sense does that come to pass from the days of the +Baptist on? The picture which Jesus employs is +unintelligible if it has to do with the entrance of individuals into +the Kingdom. It remains just as incomprehensible, +however, if it is supposed to refer to the realisation of the +Kingdom through gradual development. In the first place, +the image of an act of violence contradicts the notion of +development; in the second place, the beginning of this +compelling force must be dated not from John but from +Jesus.</p> + +<p>It is a question of the secret of the Kingdom of God,—hence +the hint: He that hath +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page112">[pg 112]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg112"></a> +ears to hear, let him hear. +This phrase occurs only in connection with the parables +of the secret of the Kingdom and as the conclusion of +apocalyptic sayings (cf. the use of the expression in the +Apocalypse: 2<sup>7, 11, 17, 29</sup>, 3<sup>6, 13, 22</sup>). Repentance and +moral renewal in prospect of the Kingdom of God are +like a pressure which is exerted in order to compel its +appearance. This movement had begun with the days of +the Baptist. The men of violence who take it by force are +they which put into practice the moral renewal. They +draw it with power down to the earth.</p> + +<p>The saying in the speech about the Baptist and the +parables of the Kingdom of God mutually explain and +supplement one another. The parables bring chiefly into +prominence the <i>incommensurateness</i> of the relation +between the moral renewal that is practised and the +consummation of the Kingdom of God, while the image in +the speech after the Mission dwells more upon the +compelling connection between the two.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_4_3">3. The Secret of the Kingdom of God in the Light +of the Prophetic and Jewish Expectation.</h3> + +<p>Jesus’ ethics is closely connected with that of the Old +Testament prophets, inasmuch as +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page113">[pg 113]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg113"></a> +both are alike +conditioned by the expectation of a state of perfection which +God is to bring about. But also the secret of the Kingdom +of God, according to which the moral renewal hastens +the supernatural coming of the Kingdom, corresponds +with the fundamental thought of the Prophets. In the +case of the Prophets, the relation between the moral +reform which they would bring about and the glorious +condition which God will bring to pass at the Day of +Judgment is not that of a mere temporal sequence, but it rests +upon a supernatural causal connection. Godless behaviour +brings nearer the Day of Judgment and of condemnation. +Therefore, God chastises the people and gives them into +the hand of their oppressors. When, however, they +determine to reform their ways, when they seek refuge in him +alone with trusting faith, when righteousness and truth +prevail among them, then will the Lord deliver them from +their oppressors, and his glory will be manifest over +Israel, to whom the heathen will do service. In that day +there will then be peace poured out over the whole world, +over nature as well as man.</p> + +<p>After the Exile this thought was still operative in the +conception of the Law. By the observance of the Law the +promised glorious +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page114">[pg 114]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg114"></a> +estate will be wrung from God. Not the +individual but the collectivity influences God through the +Law. This generic mode of thought is the primary, the +individual mode is secondary. “Israel would be redeemed +if only it observed two Sabbaths faithfully.” (Schabbath 118<i>b</i>. +Wünsche, <i>System der altsynagogalen Palästinensischen Theologie,</i> +1880, p. 299). Here we meet with the early prophetic thought in +legalistic form.</p> + +<p>In general, however, it was the individualistic view +which prevailed later. The Law, and moral conduct in +general, were only the preparation for the expected estate +of glory. The lively generic view of the Prophets was +replaced by individualistic and lifeless conception. +Eschatology became a problem of accounting and ethics became +casuistry.</p> + +<p>Jesus, however, reached back after the fundamental +conception of the prophetic period, and it is only the <i>form</i> +in which he conceives of the emergence of the final event +which bears the stamp of later Judaism. He no longer +conceives of it as an intervention of God in the history of +the nations, as did the Prophets; but rather as a final +cosmical catastrophe. His eschatology is the apocalyptic +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page115">[pg 115]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg115"></a> +of the book of Daniel, since the Kingdom is to be brought +about by the Son of Man when he appears upon the +clouds of heaven (Mk 8<sup>38</sup>- 9<sup>1</sup>).</p> + +<p><i>The secret of the Kingdom of God is therefore the +synthesis effected by a sovereign spirit between the early +prophetic ethics and the apocalyptic of the book of Daniel. </i> +Hence it is that Jesus’ eschatology was rooted in his age +and yet stands so high above it. For his contemporaries +it was a question of <i>waiting for</i> the Kingdom, of +excogitating and depicting every incident of the great catastrophe, +and of preparing for the same; while for Jesus it was a +question of <i>bringing to pass</i> the expected event through +the moral renovation. <i>Eschatological ethics is transformed +into ethical eschatology.</i></p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_4_4">4. The Secret of the Kingdom of God and the Assumption +of a Fortunate Galilean Period.</h3> + +<p>According to the secret of the Kingdom of God, the +coming of the Kingdom is not dependent upon the broad +success of Jesus’ preaching. Indeed, he expressly +emphasises the fact that the limitation of the circle which +performs the moral renovation stands in no +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page116">[pg 116]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg116"></a> +relation whatever +to the all-embracing greatness of the Kingdom which is +to come about by reason of their conduct. It suffices that +a scanty part of the seed falls upon good ground—and the +overplentiful harvest is there, through God’s power. Not +by the multitude but by the men of violence is the Kingdom +compelled to appear.</p> + +<p>Hence the secret of the Kingdom of God makes the +assumption of a fortunate Galilean period entirely +superfluous. Jesus can enjoy the expectation of the speedy +realisation of the Kingdom even when he experiences the +greatest ill[ ]success and when whole districts close +themselves against his preaching. They do not thereby delay +the coming of the Kingdom of God but only deliver +themselves to the judgment, for the Kingdom comes necessarily +by reason of the moral renewal of the circle which +gathered about Jesus.</p> + +<p>The justice of this interpretation of the secret of the +Kingdom of God is shown therefore, in the fact that it +renders unnecessary, as an explanation of Jesus’ life, an +assumption which is otherwise absolutely unavoidable but +cannot in any way be historically confirmed.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page117">[pg 117]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg117"></a></p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_4_5">5. The Secret of the Kingdom of God and the +Universalism of Jesus.</h3> + +<p>So long as the moral renewal upon the basis of Jesus’ +preaching is brought into relation with the realisation of +the Kingdom through the modern thought of evolutionary +development the factor correlative to the perfection of +the Kingdom is likewise modern, that is, “humanity as a +moral whole.” One attributes then to Jesus’ reflection +upon the growth of the new moral community which he +founded, foresight of its gradual extension till it embraces +the whole of Israel—here, however, the thought of Jesus +stops; one may not attribute to him universalistic ideas, +for the commission to the Disciples shows that he did +not reflect about a moral renewal beyond the borders of +Israel. (Mt 10<sup>5, 6</sup>): Go [not] into any way of the +Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go +rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.</p> + +<p>The preaching of the Kingdom of God is therefore +particularistic; the Kingdom itself, however, is universalistic, +“for they shall come from the east and from the west, +from the north and from the south.” The generation +which required a miracle shall experience +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page118">[pg 118]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg118"></a> +such: The Ninevites shall arise at the Day of Judgment and condemn +it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, “and +here is a greater than Jonah.” Also the Queen of the +South shall rise in judgment against the contemporaries +of Jesus, because she came from the ends of the earth to +hear the wisdom of Solomon, “and behold, a greater than +Solomon is here” (Mt 12<sup>41-42</sup>).</p> + +<p>For the modern consciousness, because it applies to +everything the rubrics of evolution, there is an insuperable +contradiction between the particularism of the preaching +of the Kingdom and the universalism of its consummation. +In the secret of the Kingdom of God, however, +particularism and universalism go together. The Kingdom is +universalistic, for it arises out of a cosmic act by which God +awakes unto glory the righteous of all times and of all +peoples. The bringing about of the Kingdom, on the other +hand, is dependent upon particularism, for it is to be +forced to approach by the moral renewal of the +contemporaries of Jesus. Salvation comes out of Israel.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page119">[pg 119]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg119"></a></p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_4_6">6. The Secret of the Kingdom of God and Jesus’ Attitude +towards the Law and the State.</h3> + +<p>Jesus did not declare himself either for the Law or +against it. He recognised it simply as an existing fact +without binding himself to it. He felt no obligation to decide +in principle whether it was to be regarded as binding or +as not binding. For him this was a question of no practical +importance. The real concern was the new morality, not +the Law. This Law was for him holy and inviolable in +so far as it pointed the way to the new morality. But +therewith it did away with itself, for in the Kingdom +which comes into being on account of the new morality +the Law is abrogated, since the accomplished condition is +super-legal and super-ethical. Up to this point it had a +right to last. Whether the Law should also be binding +upon his followers in the future was a question which did +not exist for Jesus; it was history which first proposed +this problem to the primitive Church.</p> + +<p>It was the same with regard to the State. The question +which was put to him in the Jerusalem days had for him +no practical importance. As he replied to the Pharisees’ +question, whether one should give tribute to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page120">[pg 120]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg120"></a> +Cæsar, he +had no thought of defining his attitude towards the State +or determining that of his followers. How could any one +be concerned at all about such things! The State was +simply earthly, therefore ungodly, dominination [domination]. Its +duration extended, therefore, only to the dawn of God’s +dominion. As this was near at hand, what need had one +to decide if one would be tributary to the world-power +or no? One might as well submit to it, its end was in fact +near. Give to Cæsar what is Cæsar’s and to God what is +God’s (Mk 12<sup>17</sup>)—this word is uttered with a +sovereign irony against the Pharisees, who understood so little +the signs of the time that this still appeared to them a +question of importance. They are just as foolish in the +matter of the Kingdom of God as the Sadducees with their +catch-question to which husband the seven times married +wife should belong at the resurrection; for they, too, leave +one thing out of account—the power of God +(Mk 12<sup>24</sup>).</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_4_7">7. The Modern Element in Jesus’ Eschatology.</h3> + +<p>“Let it be the maxim in every scientific investigation +for one to pursue undisturbed the due course of it with +all possible exactitude +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page121">[pg 121]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg121"></a> +and frankness, not considering what +it may collide with outside of its own field, but following +it out, so far as one can, truly and completely for itself +alone. Frequent observation has convinced me that when +one has brought this task to an end, that which in the +midst of it appeared to me for the time being very +questionable with respect to other teaching outside, if only I +closed my eyes to this questionableness and attended +merely to my task till it was finished, finally in +unexpected wise proved to be in perfect agreement with those +very teachings,—though the truth had presented itself +without the least reference to those teachings, without +partiality and prejudice for them.”(Footnote. <i>Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. +</i> Ed. Reclam, p. 129.)</p> + +<p>Kant uttered this profound word at the moment when +the correspondence of the notion of transcendental +freedom with the practical first occurred to him. The case is +the same with the relation of Jesus’ ethics to his +eschatology. It is a postulate of our Christian conviction that +the ethics of Jesus in its basic thoughts is modern. Hence +we come back again and again to the search after the +modern element in his ethics, and for this cause we force +into the background his eschatology, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page122">[pg 122]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg122"></a> +since it appears to +us unmodern. If, however, one resolves to ignore for a +moment this interest, which is so deeply grounded in our +being and so well justified, and regards the relation of +Jesus’ eschatology to his ethics simply for itself, as a +purely historical question, the investigation brings to +light the astonishing result that the latter (i. e. Jesus’ +ethics) is modern in a far higher degree than any one +hitherto has dared to hope. Jesus’ ethics is modern, not +because the eschatology can be reduced somehow to a mere +accompaniment, but precisely because the ethics is +absolutely dependent upon this eschatology! The fact is, this +eschatology itself, as it is exhibited in the secret of the +Kingdom of God, is thoroughly modern, inasmuch as it is +dominated by the thought that the Kingdom of God is +to come by reason of the religious-moral renovation which +the believers perform. <i>Every moral-religious performance +is therefore labour for the coming of the Kingdom of God.</i></p> + + +<p>As the eschatology in this ethical-eschatological +Weltanschauung gradually faded in the course of history, there +remained an ethical Weltanschauung in which the +eschatology persisted in the form of an imperishable faith in +the final triumph of the good. The +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page123">[pg 123]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg123"></a> +secret of the Kingdom +of God contains the secret of the whole Christian +Weltanschauung. The ethical eschatology of Jesus is the <i>heroic +form</i> in which the modern-Christian Weltanschauung first +entered into history!</p> + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page124">[pg 124]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg124"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_5">CHAPTER V</h2> + +<h4>THE SECRET OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD +IN THE THOUGHT OF THE PASSION</h4> + +<p class="drop">IN the last period of his life Jesus again uttered +parables of the Kingdom of God: God’s vineyard +(Mt 21<sup>33-46</sup>); the royal marriage (Mt 22<sup>1-14</sup>); the +servant watching (Mt 24<sup>42-47</sup>); the ten virgins +(Mt 25<sup>1-13</sup>); the talents (Mt 25<sup>14-30</sup>).</p> + +<p>These parables, in contrast to those about the secret +of the Kingdom, contain no secret, but rather they are +teaching parables pure and simple, from which a moral +is to be drawn. The Kingdom of God is near. Those only +will be found to belong to it who by their moral conduct +are prepared for it.</p> + +<p>The second period contains instead the <i>secret of the +Passion.</i> Jesus’ utterances, as we have seen, point to a +mysterious causal connection between the Passion and the +coming of the Kingdom, because the eschatology and the +thought of the Passion always emerge side by side, and +the Disciples’ expectation of the future is in every case +roused to the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page125">[pg 125]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg125"></a> +highest pitch by the proclamation of his +suffering.</p> + +<p><i>The secret of the Passion takes up, therefore, the secret +of the Kingdom of God and carries it further.</i> To the +moral renewal which, according to the secret of the +Kingdom of God, exercises a compelling power upon the +coming of the Kingdom, there is adjoined another factor—<i>the +redeeming death of Jesus.</i> That completes the penitence +of those who believe in the coming of the Kingdom. +Therewith Jesus comes to the aid of the men of violence who +are compelling the approach of the Kingdom. The power +which he thereby exerts is the highest conceivable—he +gives up his life.</p> + +<p>The idea of the Passion is therefore the transformation +of the secret of the Kingdom of God. Hence it is no more +designed to be understood than are the parables of the +secret of the Kingdom. In each case it is a question of a +fact which can be probed no further.</p> + +<p>The connection between the thought of the Passion and +the secret of the Kingdom of God guarantees the +continuity of Jesus’ world of thought. All constructions which +have been devised with a view to establishing this +continuity have proved insufficient to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page126">[pg 126]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg126"></a> +accomplish what was +expected of them. The acceptance of the thought of the +Passion means in all cases a complete change in his idea +of the Kingdom and in his Weltanschauung. If, however, +one places the thought of the Passion in the great +context of the secret of the Kingdom of God, the continuity +is furnished naturally. The thought of the supernatural +introduction of the Kingdom of God runs through the +whole of Jesus’ life: the idea of the Passion is merely +the fashion in which it is formulated in the second period.</p> + +<p>How comes it that the secret of the Kingdom of God +takes the form of the secret of the Passion?</p> + +<p>Why must the atonement of Jesus be added to complete +the moral renewal and the penitence of the community +which believes in the Kingdom?</p> + +<p>In what sense has the redeeming death of Jesus an +influence upon the coming of the Kingdom?</p> + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page127">[pg 127]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg127"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_6">CHAPTER VI</h2> + +<h4>THE CHARACTER ASCRIBED TO JESUS ON THE +GROUND OF HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY</h4> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_6_1">1. The Problem and the Facts.</h3> + +<p class="drop">THE experience at the Baptism signified the inception +of Jesus’ messianic consciousness. In the neighbourhood +of Cæsarea Philippi he revealed his secret to the Disciples. +It was before the High Priest that he first openly made +profession of his messianic office. Therefore the messianic +consciousness underlay all the while his preaching of the +Kingdom of God. But he does not assume on the part +of his hearers any knowledge of the position which +belonged to him. The faith which he required had nothing +to do with his person, but it was due only to the message +of the nearness of the Kingdom. It was the Fourth +Evangelist who first presented the history of Jesus as if +it concerned itself chiefly with his personality.</p> + +<p>We cannot estimate how far his real character may +have shone through his message, for such as had an +awakened understanding. One thing is certain: up to the time +of the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page128">[pg 128]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg128"></a> +mission of the Twelve no one had the faintest idea +of recognising in him the Messiah. At Cæsarea Philippi +the Disciples could only reply that the people took him for +a prophet or for Elijah the Forerunner, and they +themselves knew no better, for Peter, as Jesus himself said, +did not derive his knowledge from the Master’s ministry +in work and word, but owed it to a supernatural revelation.</p> + +<p>The Synoptical notices must be judged in accordance +with this fundamental fact. In the first place, there is a +series of Matthean passages which stand at variance with +it.</p> + +<p>Mt 9<sup>27-31</sup>: In the Galilean parallel to the healing +of the blind man at Jericho it is related that two blind +men pursued him through the whole village with the cry, +“Son of David.” What Jesus means by the warning, “See +that no man knows it,” remains indeed obscure.</p> + +<p>Mt 12<sup>23</sup>: After a miraculous healing the people +whisper to themselves whether this is not the Son of +David.</p> + +<p>Mt 14<sup>33</sup>: After their experience at sea in the boat +the Disciples fall down before him saying, “Truly thou +art the Son of God.”</p> + +<p>Mt 15<sup>22</sup>: The Canaanitish woman addresses him as +the Son of David,—whereas +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page129">[pg 129]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg129"></a> +according to Mark she +simply falls at his feet and cries for help.</p> + +<p>All of these passages are peculiar to Matthew and +belong to a secondary literary stratum. For the history +of Jesus they have no importance, but a great deal for +the history of the history of Jesus. They show us, that +is, how the later time was inclined even more and more +to depict his life in harmony with the presumption that +he not only knew himself to be the Messiah but that +others also had this impression of him.</p> + +<p>In the second place, it is a question of the speeches of +the demoniacs. According to Mk 3<sup>11</sup> the unclean spirits, +as often as they saw him, threw themselves at his feet +and addressed him as the Son of God (cf. also Mk 1<sup>24</sup>, +Mk 5<sup>7</sup>). It is true, he rebuked this cry and commanded silence. +But if we did not have the incontestably sure information +that during the whole of his Galilean ministry the people +knew no more than that he was a prophet or Elijah, we +should be forced to assume that these cries of the +demoniacs made the people somehow aware of his true +character. As it is, however, we may discern with +precision, from the fact that the demon-cries were ignored, +how very far men were from suspecting him to be the Messiah. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page130">[pg 130]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg130"></a> +Who believed the devil and the wild speech of +the possessed?</p> + +<p>In the third place, it is a question of the expression +“Son of Man.” If Jesus used it as a self-designation before +Cæsarea Philippi, that would constitute in each case a +messianic suggestion, for every one must refer this expression +of the book of Daniel to the person who was to +characterise the last time.</p> + +<p>According to Mark, Jesus twice employed this +expression as a self-designation <i>before</i> Cæsarea Philippi +(Mk 2<sup>10</sup> and 2<sup>28</sup>), and it occurs in the same sense in a series +of passages peculiar to Matthew (Mt 8<sup>20</sup>, 11<sup>19</sup>, +Mt 12<sup>32, 40</sup>, 13<sup>37, 41</sup> and 16<sup>13</sup>). In judging these +passages also one must proceed from the sure ground which +is furnished by the reply of the Disciples at Cæsarea +Philippi.</p> + +<p>Either Jesus had not used this expression up to that +time, in which case these Son of Man passages are +chronologically anticipated, and constitute a mere literary +phenomena.</p> + +<p>Or else he had used the expression. Then he must +have done so in such a way that no man could suppose that +he assumed for himself the dignity of the Son of Man +of Daniel.</p> + +<p>The problem in the second period is still harder. The +Disciples knew his secret, but they dared reveal it to no +one. But how +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page131">[pg 131]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg131"></a> +about the people? Did they now have a +presentiment of the messianic dignity of Jesus?</p> + +<p>The problem has to do therefore with three facts:</p> + +<p>1. The whole discussion in the Jerusalem days turns +in no wise upon the messianic dignity of Jesus, but has +to do rather with legal propositions and with questions of +the day. Far too little weight has been attached hitherto +to the fact that neither the people nor the scribes took up +a position towards him as the messianic personality. How +different the Jerusalem days would have been if the +question which agitated them was: Is he the Messiah—is he +not? can he be—can he not? In reality he is merely the +unofficial authority of the Galilean people, before whom +the scholars of the capital bring their questions of the +school, whether with a sincere mind, or with the perfidious +intention of destroying his authority.</p> + +<p>2. In the second period Jesus had the people about him +only for a few days,—from the crossing of the Jordan +until his death. During this time he made to them no +disclosure about his messiahship, and gave them also no hint +which they could and must understand in this sense. The +bribed witnesses know nothing of the sort to allege. What is +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page132">[pg 132]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg132"></a> +remarkable in their evidence—upon which too little +weight has been laid—consists precisely in the fact that +<i>they in no wise charge him with wishing to be the Messiah.</i> +For them his impious pretention exhausts itself in a +disrespectful word about the Temple. Let one picture to +himself what the procedure of the trial would have been if +the hired accusers had of themselves discovered messianic +hints in Jesus’ speeches!</p> + +<p>3. From this point one arrives necessarily at the +conclusion that up to the last moment he was for the people +in Jerusalem just what he was in Galilee,—the great +Prophet or the Forerunner, but in no wise the Messiah! +There are two facts, however, which do not comport with +this.</p> + +<p>The entrance into Jerusalem was—according to the +common apprehension—<i>a messianic ovation.</i> Therefore +the people must have had a presentiment of Jesus’ dignity.</p> + +<p>The High Priest put to him the question, whether he +were the Messiah. Therefore he knew of Jesus’ claim.</p> + +<p>We have here a clear question to deal with: was Jesus +regarded in the Jerusalem days as a messianic pretendant +or no? One should not obscure this question by speaking +of a more or less clear “presentment” in +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page133">[pg 133]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg133"></a> +this matter. The +“presentiment of the messiahship of Jesus” is a modern +invention. The populace would hardly be swayed hither +and yon by a dark mysterious presentiment, but rather it +must have been a question of belief or unbelief. +Whosoever held that he was the Messiah must accompany him +through fire and death—to glory. Whosoever held no such +faith, but had only a presentiment of such a pretention +on his part, must give the signal to stone the blasphemer. +There was no third course.</p> + +<p>The facts in general speak in favour of the opinion +that the people and the Pharisees in the Jerusalem days +ascribed to Jesus no messianic pretention,—no more +indeed than they did at an earlier period. Only in this case +the entrance into Jerusalem, understood as a messianic +ovation, remains an enigma, and it is likewise +unaccountable how it occurred to the High Priest to question him +about his messiahship.</p> + +<p>On the one hand the situation must be understood in +the way which is commonly assumed. Then one must +renounce every hope of an historical understanding of the +last public period of Jesus. It will not do to suppose that +at the beginning of this period (entrance into Jerusalem) +and at the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page134">[pg 134]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg134"></a> +end of it (question of the High Priest at the +trial) he was taken for the Messiah, while the Jerusalem +days which lay in the interval knew nothing of this claim +whatever.</p> + +<p>Or else—the entrance into Jerusalem and the question +of the High Priest have not been rightly and historically +understood. Was the ovation offered to the messianic +pretendant? Did the High Priest in his question give +utterance to something which all knew? Did he deduce the +claim of messiahship from Jesus’ life, activity, and +speech?—or did he perhaps learn through betrayal the +innermost secret of Jesus, which since Cæsarea Philippi was +known only to his trusted intimates?</p> + +<p>The problem of Jesus’ messiahship in all its difficulty +may be formulated as follows: How was it possible that +Jesus knew himself as the Messiah from the beginning, +and yet to the very last moment did not give in his public +preaching any intimation of his messiahship? How could +it in the long run remain hidden from the people that these +speeches were uttered out of a messianic consciousness? +<i>Jesus was a Messiah who during his public ministry would +not be one, did not need to be, and might not be, for the sake +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page135">[pg 135]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg135"></a> +of fulfilling his mission! It is thus that history puts +the problem.</i></p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_6_2">2. Jesus Is Elijah through His Solidarity with the +Son of Man.</h3> + +<p><i>What character could and must the people ascribe to +Jesus on the ground of his public ministry?</i> That is the +question with which we have now to do.</p> + +<p>The Messiah and the messianic Kingdom belong +inseparately together. Hence if Jesus had preached a +present messianic Kingdom, it would have been at the same +time incumbent upon him to indicate the Messiah,—he +would have had to begin by legitimating himself as the +Messiah before the people.</p> + +<p>The fact is, however, that he preached a future +kingdom. With this the possibility was completely excluded +that any one could suppose him to be the Messiah. <i>If the +Kingdom was future, so also was the Messiah.</i> If Jesus +nevertheless had messianic pretensions, this thought was +thoroughly remote from the people, for his preaching of +the Kingdom excluded even the least conjecture of the +sort. Hence even the cries of the demons did not avail to +put the people on the right track.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page136">[pg 136]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg136"></a></p> + +<p>Conjectures of that sort were rendered completely +impossible by the way in which Jesus spoke of the Messiah +in the third person and as a character of the future. He +intimated to the Disciples as he sent them upon their +mission that the Son of Man would appear before they +had gone through all the cities of Israel (Mt 10<sup>23</sup>). +In Mk 8<sup>38</sup> he gave promise to the people of the speedy +appearing of the Son of Man for judgment and the +coming of the Kingdom of God with power. In the same way +at Jerusalem he still spoke of the judgment which the +Son of Man will hold when he appears in his glory +surrounded by the angels (Mt 25<sup>31</sup>).</p> + +<p>Only the Disciples after the revelation of Cæsarea +Philippi, and the High Priest after the “Yes” of Jesus, +could trace a personal relation between him and the Son +of Man of whose coming he spoke,—for they knew his +secret. For his other hearers, however, <i>Jesus of Nazareth</i> +and the individual who was the subject of his discourse, +the <i>Son of Man,</i> remained two entirely distinct +personalities.</p> + +<p>Before the people Jesus merely suggested the <i>absolute +solidarity</i> between himself and the Son of Man whom he +proclaimed.</p> + +<p>It was only in this form that his own gigantic +personality obtruded in his preaching of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page137">[pg 137]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg137"></a> +the Kingdom of God. +Only he who under all conditions confesses him, the +proclaimer of the coming of the Son of Man, will be +discovered as a member of the Kingdom at the Day of +Judgment. Jesus, in fact, will intervene before God and before +the Son of Man in his behalf (Mk 8<sup>38</sup>- 9<sup>1</sup>, Mt 10<sup>32-33</sup>). +One must be ready to give up the dearest things to +follow him, for only so can one show one’s self <i>worthy +of him</i> (Mt 10<sup>37, 38</sup>). Hence Jesus is grieved when +the rich young man cannot make up his mind to give up +his riches in order to follow him (Mk 10<sup>22</sup>), for now +he cannot appear for him at the Day of Judgment to +insure that he shall be accepted as a member of the +Kingdom of God. Still, in the measureless omnipotence of God +he finds reason to hope that this rich man will nevertheless +find entrance into the Kingdom (Mk 10<sup>17-31</sup>). If this +man, therefore, because Jesus cannot intervene in his +behalf, is not sure “to inherit eternal life” (Mk 10<sup>17</sup>), +those, on the other hand who, confessing him and his +message, endure death are certain to save their life, <i>i. e.</i> to be +found as members of the Kingdom at the resurrection of +the dead (Mk 8<sup>37</sup>). Hence in the beginning of the +sermon on the mount he pronounces them blessed who +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page138">[pg 138]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg138"></a> +for +his sake suffer reviling and persecution, because thereby, +like the meek and the merciful, they are designated as +members of the Kingdom (Mt 5<sup>11</sup> f.).</p> + +<p>From Jesus’ standpoint, this absolute solidarity +between God and the Son of Man on the one hand, and +himself on the other presented no enigma, for it was based +upon his messianic selfconsciousness; he can speak thus +because he is conscious of being himself the Son of Man. +It was quite different for the people, and for the Disciples +before the revelation at Cæsarea Philippi. How can Jesus +of Nazareth, in a manner so sovereignly self-confident, +proclaim his absolute solidarity with the Son of Man? +This assertion forced the people to reflect upon his +personality. Who was this whose manifestation mightily +extended out of the pre-messianic and into the messianic +æon itself, so that God and the Son of Man receive into +the Kingdom such as had confessed him, if this confession +did not lose its value by reason of the defect of moral +worthiness, as he himself once expressly declared by way +of warning? Such importance as Jesus claimed for +himself belonged to only <i>one</i> personality,—Elijah, the mighty +Forerunner,—for his manifestation stretched out of the +present into the messianic +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page139">[pg 139]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg139"></a> +æon and bound both together. +Hence the people held that Jesus was Elijah. In this was +expressed the highest estimate which Jesus’ personality +could wring from the masses. In this case it is not a +question of one of the customary misunderstandings so +beloved of the secondary Gospel narrators, but the people +<i>could not,</i> from Jesus’ appearance and proclamation, come +to any other conclusion about him.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_6_3">3. Jesus Is Elijah through the Signs which Proceed +from Him.</h3> + +<p>In order to render intelligible the attitude of Jesus’ +contemporaries towards himself and his work, we must +rid ourselves of two false presuppositions with which we +constantly though unconsciously operate. First, the +expectation at that time was not fixed upon the Messiah but +upon the Forerunner promised by prophecy. Secondly, no +one in any way detected this Forerunner in the person of +the Baptist. Both of our presuppositions run precisely to +the contrary effect, and thereby we spoil our historical +perspective.</p> + +<p>The appearing of the Messiah in conjunction with the +great crisis which he brings about constitutes the +supernatural drama which the world awaits. But before the curtain +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page140">[pg 140]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg140"></a> +rises there must arise among the expectant sons +of men the man who is to speak the prologue of the piece; +who then, so soon as the curtain is lifted, associates +himself with the celestial personages which conduct the action +of the drama. Hence men are in expectancy first of all +not for the rising of the curtain and the appearing of the +Messiah but for the speaker of the prologue. <i>It was +important to signalise the entrance of the Forerunner upon +the stage in order to know to what hour the hand of the +world clock pointed.</i></p> + +<p>Elijah, however, had not as yet appeared, for the +Baptist had not legitimated himself as such. He lacked to this +end the display of supernatural power. Signs and wonders, +however, belonged necessarily to the epoch which +immediately preceded the Kingdom. A general pouring out of +the Spirit and prophesying, wonders in heaven and upon +earth,—all that was to occur before the Day of God +comes. So it was defined by the prophet Joel (3<sup>28</sup> [sic 2<sup>28</sup>] ff.). +Peter in his sermon at Pentecost appealed to this passage +(Acts 2<sup>17-22</sup>). One ought to recognise from the +supernatural ecstatic “tongues” that one is approaching the +end of the days. The crucified Jesus hath God raised up +to be the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page141">[pg 141]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg141"></a> +Messiah in the Resurrection, and the Kingdom +will soon dawn.</p> + +<p>This passage in Joel was therefore applied to the time +immediately preceding the messianic age, the time of +miracles, in which according to the prophecy of Malachi +the Forerunner should appear (Mal 4<sup>5-6</sup>). +Moreover, the selfsame refrain unites these two fundamental +passages of pre-messianic expectation: Mal 4<sup>5</sup> is the +same as Joel 2<sup>31</sup>—“Before the coming of the great and +terrible Day of the Lord.” <i>The Forerunner without +miracles in an unmiraculous age was therefore unthinkable.</i></p> + +<p>For the contemporaries the characteristic difference +between John and Jesus consisted precisely in the fact that +the one simply pointed to the nearness of the Kingdom of +God while the other confirmed his preaching by signs and +wonders. Men had the consciousness of entering with +Jesus upon the age of miracles. He was the Baptist,—but +the Baptist, as it were, translated into the supernatural. +After the mission of the Twelve, as his emergence and +his signs became known abroad together with the news +of the death of the Baptist, people said: The Baptist is +raised from the dead. Hence the Disciples answered him +at Cæsarea Philippi +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page142">[pg 142]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg142"></a> +that men took him for Elijah or for +the Baptist (Mk 8<sup>28</sup>). Herod as he heard of him would +not give up the notion that he was the Baptist: “The +Baptist is risen from the dead, and therefore do these +powers work in him” (Mk 6<sup>14</sup>).</p> + +<p>Also the significance which Jesus ascribed to the signs +must have led his hearers to suppose that they were in the +midst of the era of the Forerunner. Their significance +consisted, namely, in the fact that they confirmed the +nearness of the messianic Kingdom. The people ought to +believe him for the sake of the signs and repent unto the +Kingdom of God.</p> + +<p>The signs are an act of God’s grace through which he +would make men aware what hour it is. Whosoever does +not repent is damned. So it comes to pass with the +inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. But +whosoever blasphemes against the Holy Ghost and ascribes +the signs to the power of ungodliness has no forgiveness +in eternity. The scribes from Jerusalem made themselves +guilty in Galilee of this offence (Mk 3<sup>22</sup> ff.). Those, +however, who did not harden themselves held that the +Kingdom of God stands at the door and that Jesus is the +Forerunner, because they had evidently entered +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page143">[pg 143]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg143"></a> +the age of signs which the Scripture had prophesied.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_6_4">4. The Victory over Demons and the Secret +of the Kingdom of God.</h3> + +<p>For Jesus the signs signified the nearness of the +Kingdom in a sense still higher than the purely temporal, +chronological nearness. By his victory over the demons +he was conscious of <i>influencing the coming of it.</i> The +secret of the Kingdom of God plays into this conception. +The thought is contained in the parable with which he +repels the false suspicions of the Jerusalem scribes +(Mk 3<sup>23-30</sup>).</p> + +<p>The meaning of this parable is, in fact, not exhausted +by the thought that the argument that evil spirits do not undermine their +own dominion by rising up one against another. In the +concluding word we encounter unexpectedly the “now and +then” which is characteristic of the secret of the Kingdom +of God: “No one can enter into the house of the strong +man and spoil his goods, except he <i>first</i> bind the strong +man, and <i>then</i> he will spoil his house.” The casting out +of demons, therefore, signified for Jesus the binding of +the power of ungodliness and rendering it harmless. Hence +this activity, like the moral renewal in the secret of the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page144">[pg 144]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg144"></a> +Kingdom, stands in causal relation with the dawning of +the Kingdom of God. Through his conquest of the demons +Jesus is the man of violence who compels the approach +of the Kingdom. For when the power of ungodliness is +bound, then comes the moment when the dominion shall +be taken from it. In order that this may happen it must +first be rendered harmless. Hence in sending the Disciples +upon their mission Jesus not only commands them to +proclaim the nearness of the Kingdom, but he also gives them +authority over the demons (Mt 10<sup>1</sup>). In that moment +of highest eschatological expectation he sends them out as +the men of violence who are to deal the last blow. The +repentance which is to be accomplished by their preaching, +and the overcoming of the power of ungodliness in the +demoniacs, work together for the hastening of the +Kingdom.</p> + +<p>Thus the parables of the secret of the Kingdom +(Mark 4), the parable in Jesus’ apology to the Pharisees +(Mk 3<sup>23-30</sup>), and the parable in the eulogy of the Baptist +(Mt 11<sup>12-15</sup>) all express the same thought. The two +latter correspond even in the drastic image of violent +action, whence the notion of “robbery” is common to them +both (Mk 3<sup>27</sup> = Mt 11<sup>12</sup>).</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page145">[pg 145]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg145"></a></p> + +<p>For Jesus’ consciousness the healing of the demoniacs +was therefore a part of the secret of the Kingdom of God. +It sufficed for the people, however, to grasp the purely +chronological connection.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_6_5">5. Jesus and the Baptist.</h3> + +<p>We have seen above that no one could recognise Elijah +in the person of the Baptist because his ministry and +preaching without miracle did not correspond with the +Scriptural representation of the Forerunner’s time. None +thought of ascribing to him this office and dignity except—for +there was one exception—<i>Jesus!</i> He it was that +first gave the people a mysterious hint that this man was +the Forerunner: “If ye are willing to receive it, he +himself is Elijah, the coming-one” (Mt 11<sup>14</sup>). He is aware, +however, that with this he is giving utterance to an +incomprehensible secret which to his hearers remains just +as obscure as the word uttered in the same connection +about the man of violence who since the days of the +Baptist compel the Kingdom (Mt 11<sup>12</sup>). Hence he +concludes both these sayings with the oracular phrase: He +that hath ears to hear, let him hear (Mt 11<sup>15</sup>).</p> + +<p>The people, however, were very far from +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page146">[pg 146]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg146"></a> +comprehending that this Baptist who had fallen into the hands of +Herod could be the prodigious personality who was to +stand upon the threshold between the pre-messianic and the +messianic age. So the mysterious word of Jesus died upon +the air, and the people stuck to the opinion that John +was really a prophet (Mk 11<sup>32</sup>).</p> + +<p>The rulers also could reach no conclusion about the +personality of the Baptist. For this reason they were +worsted in their colloquy with Jesus when they would +challenge him for his purifying of the Temple (Mk 11<sup>33</sup>).</p> + +<p>The case was quite the same with the Disciples: they +were incapable by themselves of recognising in John the +expected Elijah. On the descent from the Mount of +Transfiguration they were assailed by scruples about the +messiahship of Jesus and about the possibility of the +resurrection of the dead which Jesus had touched upon in +his discourse. This assumed, indeed, that the messianic +era was already present, and this could not yet have +dawned, for “Elijah must first come, as the scribes +demonstrate” (Mk 9<sup>9-11</sup>). Thereupon Jesus replied to +them that John was this Elijah, even though he was +delivered into the power of men (Mk 9<sup>12, 13</sup>).</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page147">[pg 147]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg147"></a></p> + +<p>How did Jesus arrive at the conviction that the Baptist +was Elijah? It was through a necessary inference from his +own messiahship. Because he knew himself to be the +Messiah, the other must be Elijah. Between the two ideas +there was a necessary correspondence. No one could know +that the Baptist was Elijah except he derived this +cognisance from the messiahship of Jesus. No one could +arrive at the thought that John was Elijah without at +the same time being obliged to see in Jesus the Messiah. +For after the Forerunner there remained no place for a +second manifestation of the kind. No one knew that Jesus +took himself to be the Messiah. Therefore in the Baptist +men perceived a prophet and raised the question whether +Jesus were not Elijah. No one understood in their full +bearing the mysterious concluding sentences of the eulogy +over the Baptist. <i>Only for Jesus was John the promised +Elijah.</i></p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_6_6">6. The Baptist and Jesus.</h3> + +<p>What was the Baptist’s attitude to Jesus? If he had +been conscious of being the Forerunner, he must have +surmised that Jesus was the Messiah. One generally assumes +this and supposes that he as the Forerunner +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page148">[pg 148]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg148"></a> +put the question to Jesus whether he were the Messiah (Mt 11<sup>2-6</sup>). +This supposition seems to us perfectly natural because +we always represent to ourselves the two characters in +the relation of Forerunner-Messiah.</p> + +<p>In this connection, however, we forget a perfectly +obvious question. Did the Baptist feel himself to be Elijah, +the Forerunner? In no utterance before the people did +he raise such a claim. They stubbornly recognised in him +only a prophet. Also during his imprisonment he can have +claimed no such thing, for in Jerusalem the people still +held to the same opinion, that he was a prophet.</p> + +<p>If somehow or another the presentiment had prevailed +that he represented the character of Elijah, how then +could men generally get the notion that John was a +prophet, Jesus the Elijah? That this was the general view +even after the death of the Baptist, is proved by the reply +of the Disciples at Cæsarea Philippi.</p> + +<p>To view the Baptist’s query under the presumption that +the Forerunner is asking whether Jesus be the Messiah is +to put the question in a light which is completely +unjustified; for whether John took himself to be the Forerunner +is not in the least to be proven. Therefore it is also by +no means +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page149">[pg 149]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg149"></a> +made out that his question referred to the +messianic dignity. The people standing by, as they did not +take John to be the Forerunner, must have interpreted it +in a very different way,—namely, in the sense: Art thou +Elias?</p> + +<p>The fact is that the usual perspective hides a +characteristic detail in this very section, the fact, namely, that +Jesus applies again to the Baptist the same designation +which the Baptist in his question had applied to him! Art +thou the Coming One? asked the Baptist. Jesus replied: +If ye are willing to receive it, <i>he himself</i> is Elijah, the +Coming One! The designation of the “Coming One” is +therefore common to both speeches, only that we +arbitrarily refer it to the Messiah in the question of the +Baptist. This proceeding, which appears so natural in the +naïve perspective, will show itself to be unjustified so soon +as one becomes aware that it is in fact only a question of +perspective and not of any real standard. For then the +phrase “He himself” in Jesus’ reply acquires suddenly an +unsuspected significance: “<i>he himself</i> is Elijah,” the +Coming One! This reference compels us to understand by the +Coming One in the Baptist’s question, not the Messiah, +but—as in Jesus’ reply—Elias.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page150">[pg 150]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg150"></a></p> + +<p>“Art thou the expected Forerunner?”—thus the +Baptist through his disciples makes inquiry of Jesus. “If ye +are able to receive it, he himself is this Forerunner,” said +Jesus to the people after he had spoken to them about +the greatness of the Baptist.</p> + +<p>By this reference the scene now receives a far more +intense colouring. First of all, it becomes clear why Jesus +speaks about the Baptist <i>after the departure of the +messengers.</i> He feels himself obliged to lead the people up +climactically from the conception that John is a prophet +to the presentiment that he is the Forerunner, with whose +appearing the hand of the world clock nears the fateful +hour to which refers the word concerning “him who +prepares the way,” and of whom the scribes say “that he +must first come” (Mk 9<sup>11</sup>).</p> + +<p>John, in fact, with his question was backward in his +reckoning of the Messianic time. His messengers seek +information about the Forerunner at the moment when +Jesus’ confidence that the Kingdom is immediately to dawn +was at the highest pitch. He had just sent out his Disciples +and given them to expect that the appearing of the Son +of Man might surprise them on their way through the +cities of Israel. The hour is already far more +advanced—that is what Jesus would +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page151">[pg 151]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg151"></a> +give the people to understand +in his “eulogy over the Baptist,” if they can receive it.</p> + +<p>John reached this surmise about Jesus in the same way +as did the people. That is to say, as he heard <i>of the signs +and deeds of Jesus</i> (Mt 11<sup>2</sup>), there occurred to him the +thought that this might be something more than a prophet +with a call to repentance. So he sends messengers to him +in order to have assurance upon this point.</p> + +<p>Herewith, however, the proclamation of the Baptist +is put in an entirely different light. He never pointed to +the coming Messiah, <i>but to the expected Forerunner.</i> So +is to be explained the proclamation about “him that is +to come after him” (Mk 1<sup>7, 8</sup>). As applied to the +Messiah, the expressions he uses remain obscure. They denote, +that is, only a difference of degree, not a total difference in +kind, between himself and the person whom he announces. +If he were speaking of the Messiah, it would have been +impossible for him to employ these expressions, in which, +in spite of the mighty difference in rank, he still compares +the Coming One to himself. He thinks of the Forerunner +as like himself, baptising and preaching repentance unto +the Kingdom, only that he is incomparably greater and +mightier. Instead of baptising +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page152">[pg 152]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg152"></a> +with water, he will baptise +with the Holy Ghost (Mk 1<sup>8</sup>).</p> + +<p>This cannot apply to the Messiah. Since when does the +Messiah baptise? Then, too, the famous pouring out of +the Spirit does not occur within but <i>before</i> the messianic +era! Before the coming of the great Day of the Lord +he will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, and signs and +wonders shall be showed in heaven and on earth (Joel 2<sup>28</sup> ff[.]). +Before the coming of the great Day of the Lord +he will send Elijah the Prophet (Mal 4<sup>5</sup>). The Baptist +combines these two chief indications of the character of +the great events that are to precede the Last Time, and +he arrives at the conception of the Forerunner who is to +baptise with the Holy Ghost! One sees from this what a +supernatural light surrounded the figure of the Forerunner +in the current conception. Hence it is that John felt +himself so little before him.</p> + +<p>Jesus was put by this question in a difficult position. +The Baptist in asking him, Art thou the Forerunner? or +art thou not? had proposed a false alternative to which +Jesus could answer neither yes nor no. He was not willing +to entrust the secret of his messiahship to the messengers. +He therefore replied with a hint of the nearness of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page153">[pg 153]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg153"></a> +the Kingdom which was revealed in his deeds. At the +same time he thrust his own personality mightily into the +foreground. He alone can be blessed who stands by him +and who finds no occasion of stumbling in him. With this +he would say the same as he said once also to the people: +membership in the Kingdom is dependent upon one’s +attachment to him (Mk 8<sup>38</sup>).</p> + +<p>Jesus’ remarkable evasive answer to the Baptist, in +which exegesis has always believed that it must discover a +special finesse, is explained therefore simply by the +necessity of the situation. Jesus could not answer directly. +Hence he gave this obscure response. The Baptist was to +gather from it what he would and could. Besides, it was +of no importance how he understood it. Events would +soon teach him, for the time is already much further +advanced than he supposes, and the hammer is already lifted +to strike the hour.</p> + +<p>It is exceedingly difficult for us to get rid of the notion +that the Baptist and Jesus stood to one another in the +relation of Forerunner and Messiah. It is only through +intense reflection that we can reach the perception that +the two characters stand in this relation in our perspective only +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page154">[pg 154]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg154"></a> +because we assume the messiahship of Jesus; but that +in order to discover the historical relationship we must +calculate and apply the right perspective.</p> + +<p>So long as one is still prejudiced in any way by the +old perspective, one cannot do justice to the foregoing +investigation. That is, one will still have the notion that +it is a question of “the forerunner of the Forerunner” and +the Forerunner—an ingenious multiplication of the +Forerunner by himself. That is falsely expressed. A prophet +of repentance, John the Baptist, directs men’s attention +to the prediction of the mighty figure of Elijah the +Forerunner, and as he hears in prison of the signs of Jesus +he wonders if this may not be Elijah—and does not dream +that this man holds himself to be the Messiah, and that +for this reason he himself will henceforth be designated +in history as the Forerunner. That is the historical +situation.</p> + +<p>The moment the conception of history was defined by +the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah the historical +perspective was necessarily shifted. The Gospels display +this shifting in increasing measure. In the introductory +verses of Mark the quotation from Malachi about the +Forerunner who is to prepare the way (Mal 3<sup>1</sup>) is +already applied to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page155">[pg 155]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg155"></a> +John. According to Matthew, the Baptist +hears in prison of “the works of the Messiah” (Mt 11<sup>2</sup>). +If here it is only a question of the casual and +unreflecting introduction of a new mode of conception, the +Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, has made a principle +of it and consistently represents the history in line with +the presumption that because Jesus was the Messiah the +Baptist was the Forerunner and must have felt himself +to be such. The historical Baptist says: I am not the +<i>Forerunner,</i> for he is incomparably greater and mightier than +I. According to the Fourth Gospel the people could +conjecture that he was the Christ. He was obliged to say, +therefore: I am not the <i>Christ</i> (Jn 1<sup>20</sup>)!</p> + +<p>Thus has the relation been altered under the influence +of the new perspective. The person of the Baptist has +become historically unrecognisable. Finally they have +made out of him the modern doubter, who half believed +in Jesus’ messiahship, and half disbelieved. In this +apprehensive indecision, this backing and filling, is supposed to +lie, in fact, the tragedy of his existence! Now, however, +one may confidently strike him from the list of those +characters, so interesting to us moderns, who come to ruin +through a tragic +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page156">[pg 156]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg156"></a> +half-faith. Jesus spared him that. For +so long as he lived he required of no man faith in him +as the Messiah—and yet that is what he was!</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_6_7">7. The Blind Man at Jericho and the Ovation +at the Entrance to Jerusalem.</h3> + +<p>Was the entrance into Jerusalem a messianic ovation? +That depends, in the first place, upon how one interprets +the cry of the people; but then also, upon one’s notion of +the encounter between Jesus and the blind man. If it was +actually a question there of his being greeted as the Son +of David,—a greeting which he no longer repudiates, but +tacitly admits, so that the people learn to apprehend what +he takes himself to be,—the consequence is inevitable that +it was a messianic ovation.</p> + +<p>For the exact understanding of the description of +Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem, the differences in detail +between Mark and the parallels are of far reaching +importance. In Mark we have two clearly distinguishable +acclamations. The first is directed to the person of Jesus +in their midst: “Hosanna! Blessed be ‘the Coming One’ +in the name of the Lord” (Mk 11<sup>9</sup>). The second refers +to the expected coming of the Kingdom: +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page157">[pg 157]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg157"></a> +“Blessed be the +coming Kingdom of our father David. Hosanna in the +highest!” The Son of David is thus not mentioned at all!</p> + +<p>It is different in Matthew. There the people shout +“Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed be the Coming +One in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest!” +(Mt 21<sup>9</sup>). We have here therefore only the cry which +was directed to the person of Jesus; the Kingdom is not +mentioned; men acclaim instead the Son of David and, +at the same time, the Coming One.</p> + +<p>Luke’s version does not come into account, for he deals +with reminiscences from the history of the infancy +“Blessed be the king that cometh in the name of the Lord. +Peace in heaven and glory in the highest” (Lk 19<sup>38</sup>).</p> + +<p>Thus Matthew in his account interprets the Coming +One as the Son of David. We possess no direct proof that +this expression (the Coming One), which is derived from +Psalm 118<sup>25</sup> ff[.], was employed in Jesus’ time for the +Messiah. It has been shown, however, that <i>the Baptist as +well as Jesus applied it rather to the Forerunner Elijah.</i> +It is therefore unhistorical when Matthew represents the +people as acclaiming in the same +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page158">[pg 158]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg158"></a> +breath both the Coming +One and the Son of David.</p> + +<p>Mark has here, too, preserved in his detail the original +situation. The people acclaimed Jesus as the “Coming +One,” i. e. as the Forerunner, and sings an “Hosanna in +the highest” to the Kingdom which is soon to descend +upon earth. A fine distinction is made in the use of +<i>Hosanna</i> and <i>Hosanna in the highest</i> (“places” is to be +supplied). The former applies to the Forerunner present in +their midst; the latter, to the heavenly Kingdom. The +secondary character of the account in Matthew is evident +in the fact that it applies to the Son of David and to the +Coming One not only an Hosanna but likewise an +Hosanna in the highest,—whereby the Messiah is first +assumed to be on earth and then, still in heaven! Here it +becomes plain that the second Hosanna belonged +originally with the Kingdom.</p> + +<p><i>The entrance into Jerusalem, therefore, was an +ovation not to the Messiah but to the Forerunner.</i> But then +it is impossible that the people understood the scene with +the blind man as indicating that Jesus welcomed the +address “Son of David.”</p> + +<p>Here again it is a question of Synoptical detail by +which the scene is totally changed. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page159">[pg 159]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg159"></a> +The shout in the name +of the Son of David is incidental. The question is only +whether the public could and must conceive it as a form +of address. This conception is evidently that of Matthew +and Luke, <i>but by Mark it is excluded.</i></p> + +<p>According to the Matthean account, two blind men +sit by the wayside and cry, Have mercy upon us, Son of +David (Mt 20<sup>30</sup>).</p> + +<p>In Luke the cry runs: Jesus, thou Son of David, have +mercy upon me (Lk 18<sup>38</sup>). Thereupon Jesus comes to +a stand before him, converses with him, and heals him.</p> + +<p>According to Mark, the blind beggar, son of Timæus, +is sitting behind the multitude at the edge of the road. +<i>Jesus does not see him, cannot address him, but hears only +a voice, which reaches him as from the ground out of the +midst of the stir,</i> of one calling upon the Son of David +for help. Jesus comes to a stand and sends <i>to have him +fetched!</i> They follow the voice and find the man sitting +upon the ground. Rise, he calleth thee! they say to him. +He throws away his garment, springs up, and presses +through the crowd to Jesus. As Jesus sees the man +approaching him thus he can have no idea that he is blind! +He has to ask him, therefore, what he wants. The +distance, the heat, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page160">[pg 160]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg160"></a> +the sending to fetch him, the nimble +approach,—all this Matthew has dropped. He has simplified +the situation: Jesus encounters the two blind men on the +road and at once addresses them. Only he has retained +from the original situation the question, “what is +wanted?”—which in Mark is actually necessary, but in Matthew +remains unaccountable, for there Jesus must see that he has +to do with two blind men!</p> + +<p>But if there lay such a distance between Jesus and the +blind man, no one could have an idea that he took the +monotonous cry about the Son of David as an address to +himself! It was just simply an annoying cry, which the +bystanders sought in vain to silence. The people attached +as little importance to it as to the cries of the +demons—if in fact they understood it at all.</p> + +<p>The <i>address</i> of the beggar was of an entirely different +tenor and shows that he no more took Jesus for the +Messiah than did the people: “Rabbi, that I may receive my +sight.” For him, therefore, Jesus was the rabbi from +Nazareth.</p> + +<p>If one keep this situation in view, it will be seen that +the bystanders could in no way get the idea that Jesus +here welcomes a messianic +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page161">[pg 161]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg161"></a> +acclaim. This, however, was +the first sign which he again performed after coming out +of his retirement. Thereby he legitimated himself before +the Paschal caravan as the Forerunner, for which his +adherents in Galilee took him before he suddenly withdrew +into solitude in the north. Now the demonstration is let +loose, and they prepare for him as the Forerunner the +ovation at the entrance into Jerusalem.</p> + +<p>In demonstrating the proper character of this +occurrence one has to deal with apparently insignificant detail +to which not everyone may be inclined to ascribe due +importance. In view of this the following points are to be +kept in mind:</p> + +<p>1. In the representation which assumes the messiahship +of Jesus there must come about as of itself a shifting of +detail which has the effect of describing a messianic +entrance. This is the case with Matthew. There is no +evidence of a deliberate purpose on the part of the writer.</p> + +<p>2. Mark’s delineation shows such originality in +comparison with the parallels (one has but to think of the +story of the Baptism and the report of the Last Supper) +that one cannot easily lay too great weight upon the peculiarity +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page162">[pg 162]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg162"></a> +of his account,—especially when it results in so +clear and consistent a picture as is here the case.</p> + +<p>3. Nothing is accomplished by the assertion that proof +has not been brought that it was assuredly a question of +an ovation to the Forerunner. For then it remains to +demonstrate how it was, that, on the presumption that +it was actually an ovation to the Messiah, the transactions +in the Jerusalem days make no allusion at all to the +presumed messianic pretension and the venal accusers do not +appeal to any such claims. What must the Roman +procurator have done if a man had marched into the city +hailed by the populace as the Son of David?</p> + +<p>4. The true historical apprehension is peculiarly +difficult for us here because of our notion that the signs and +wonders were regarded by the contemporaries as a +confirmation of the messiahship of Jesus. In that opinion we +share the standpoint upon which the Johannine +representation is based. According to the conception of Jesus’ +contemporaries, however, the Messiah needs no signs, but +rather he will be at once manifest in his power! The signs +belong on the contrary to the period of the Forerunner!</p> + +<p>5. Our translation also has a prejudicial +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page163">[pg 163]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg163"></a> +effect. The word <i>ἐρχόμενοζ</i> denotes in all passages a personality +sharply defined for that time. Hence one must in every +case translate it in accord with this perception,—not one +time as a substantive [cf. the German Bible] and again +(in the story of the ovation) as a verb-form, just as +happens to be most convenient. “The Coming One” is the +Forerunner, because before the messianic judgment he is +to come in the name of God to put everything in order.</p> + +<p>We arrive therefore at the conclusion: <i>Until the +confession before the council Jesus was publicly regarded as +the Forerunner, as he had been already in Galilee.</i></p> + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page164">[pg 164]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg164"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_7">CHAPTER VII</h2> + +<h4>AFTER THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. LITERARY +AND HISTORICAL PROBLEMS</h4> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_7_1">1. The Voyage on the Lake after the Return +of the Twelve.</h3> + +<p>It is exceedingly difficult to gather from the Synoptic +accounts a clear picture of the events which happened +after the mission of the Twelve. When did the Disciples +return? Where did Jesus betake himself during their +absence? What sort of success did the Disciples have? +What events happened between their return and the +departure for the north? Were these events of a sort to +account for Jesus’ determination to withdraw with them +into solitude?</p> + +<p>The accounts supply no answer to these questions. +Moreover they confront us with another, a purely literary +problem. The connection between the several scenes is +here extraordinarily broken. It seems almost as if the +thread of the narration were here completely lost. Only +at the moment of departure for the journey to Jerusalem +do the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page165">[pg 165]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg165"></a> +scenes begin to stand again in a clear and natural +relationship.</p> + +<p>First of all we have to do with two obvious doublettes: +the feeding of the multitude and the subsequent journey +on the lake (Mk 6<sup>31, 56</sup> = Mk 8<sup>1, 21</sup>). In both +instances Jesus is overtaken by the multitude as he lands +on a lonely shore after a journey across the lake. Then +he returns again to the Galilean village on the west shore. +Here in his accustomed field of activity he encounters the +Pharisaic emissaries from Jerusalem. They call him to +account. In the series which contains the first account of +the feeding of the multitude the question at issue is about +hand-washing (Mk 7<sup>1-23</sup>), in the second case it is the +requirement of a sign (Mk 8<sup>11-13</sup>). The first series +concludes with the departure for the north, where in the +neighbourhood of Tyre and Sidon he meets the +Canaanitish woman (Mk 7<sup>24-30</sup>). In the second series the +journey to Cæsarea Philippi (Mk 8<sup>27</sup>) follows upon +his encounter with the Pharisees.</p> + +<p>We have here therefore two independent accounts of +the same epoch in Jesus’s life. In their plan they match +one another perfectly, differing only in the choice of the +events to be related. These two narrative series are as +it were predestinated to be +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page166">[pg 166]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg166"></a> +united instead of being placed +side by side. It happens that each of the northern journeys, +according to the narrative, begins and ends with a sojourn +in Galilee. Mk 7<sup>31</sup>: After leaving the region of Tyre +he came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee. Mk 9<sup>30, 33</sup>: +And they went forth from thence (i. e. from Cæsarea +Philippi) and wandered through Galilee and came to +Capernaum. At the end of one narrative series one finds +oneself again at the beginning of the other. Hence if one +connect the one return from the north with the beginning +of the other narrative series, one has, superficially viewed, +a perfectly natural continuation,—only that Jesus must +now, incomprehensibly enough, start back immediately +for the north, instead of the return to Galilee being a stage +on the journey to Jerusalem! This is the order that was +finally followed, but it is only in the second return that +the narrative finds a point of attachment for the journey +to Jerusalem.</p> + +<p>This return movement in both series accounts for the +fact that the two narratives, though they are really +parallel cycles, are yet attached to one another in +chronological sequence. The present text has completed the +process of harmonising them. It is not simply that the story +of the second feeding of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page167">[pg 167]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg167"></a> +the multitude makes reference +to the first in the word “again” (Mk 8<sup>1</sup>): the +reconciliation is in fact carried so far that Jesus in one word +addressed to the Disciples assumes both miracles +(Mk 8<sup>19-21</sup>)! How far this process was already +accomplished in the oral tradition, and how much is to be charged +to the account of the final literary composition, is a +question which we are no longer in a position to answer.</p> + +<p>Only the first cycle is complete. Jesus and his Disciples +travel by boat north-east along the coast and return then +again to the country of Genezareth (Mk 6<sup>32, 45, 53</sup>).</p> + +<p>The second cycle is incomplete and fallen somewhat +into disorder. Jesus is back on the west coast after his +voyage. Mk 8<sup>10</sup> ff. corresponds with Mk 6<sup>53</sup> ff. and +Mk 7<sup>1</sup> ff. Dalmanutha lies on the west coast. But instead of +his departing now directly for the north, there comes +first another voyage to the east coast (Mk 8<sup>13</sup>). It is not till +they reach Bethsaida that he starts with his Disciples +northward (Mk 8<sup>27</sup>). The first cycle on the other +hand relates <i>this voyage to Bethsaida as an episode of the +famous coasting voyage and places it immediately after +the feeding of the multitude</i> (Mk 6<sup>45</sup> ff[.]). And as a +matter of fact the second narrative series also shows +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page168">[pg 168]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg168"></a> +that this was the original connection. For here, too, as in the +first series, the conversation upon landing deals with the +foregoing miracle. Mk 6<sup>52</sup>: “For they understood not +concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.” +Mk 8<sup>19-21</sup>: “When I brake the five loaves—when the +seven—do ye not yet understand?” It is therefore +impossible that between this voyage and the feeding of the +multitude all the events were crowded which were enacted +upon the west shore. The minds of all are still full of +the great event. The new sea journey of the second cycle +is nothing else but the original continuation of the voyage +to Bethsaida from the scene of the feeding of the +multitude.</p> + +<p>Therewith the parallelism of the two series is proven. +The events follow one another in this order: coasting +voyage from the west shore, feeding of the multitude, +continuation of the voyage to the north-east, “walking upon +the sea” and conversation in the boat, arrival at Bethsaida, +return to the region of Genezareth, discussion with the +Pharisees, departure with the Disciples to the north.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_7_2">2. The Supper by the Seashore.</h3> + +<p>The Disciples’ proclamation of the immediate +approach of the Kingdom must have +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page169">[pg 169]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg169"></a> +had a great success. A +mighty multitude of such as believed the message crowded +around Jesus. He had about him a community inspired +by the most lively eschatological expectation. They would +not let go of him. In order to be alone with his Disciples +he embarks in a boat. He meant to withdraw to the +north-east shore. But the people, when they learned that he +would take himself away, streamed together from all +sides and followed him along the beach. Mk 6<sup>32, 33</sup>: +“For there were many coming and going, and they had +no leisure so much as to eat. And they went away in a +boat to a desert place apart. And the people saw them +going, and many knew them, and they ran there together +on foot from all the cities and outwent them.”</p> + +<p>They meet him in a lonely region and immediately +surround him. The hour comes for the daily meal. In the +accounts of the following miracle the meal which they +celebrated is preserved to us. <i>The occasion was a solemn +cultus-meal!</i> After the loaves which he had broken were +consecrated by a prayer of thanksgiving Jesus has them +distributed to the multitude by his Disciples. Except for +the addition of the two parables [“My body—my blood”] +we have absolutely the same solemn ceremony at the Last Supper. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page170">[pg 170]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg170"></a> +There he personally distributed the food to his +table-companions. The description of the distribution of +the bread in the two cases corresponds perfectly. +Mk 6<sup>41</sup>: He took the loaves, and looking up to heaven, he +blessed them, and he gave to the Disciples to set before +them. Mk 14<sup>22</sup>: He took a loaf, and when he had +blessed, he brake it, and gave to them.</p> + +<p>Hence the <i>solemn act of distribution</i> constitutes the +essence, as well of that meal by the seashore, as of the +last meal with his Disciples. The “Lord’s Supper” is a +name appropriate to both, for that meal by the sea also +took place at the evening hour. Mk 6<sup>35</sup>: And when the +day was now far spent his Disciples came to him, etc. +Here the table-company is composed of the great +multitude of believers in the Kingdom: at the Last Supper it +was limited to the circle of the Disciples. <i>The celebration, +however, was the same.</i></p> + +<p>The story of this event has been distorted into a +miracle: the cultus-meal which Jesus improvised by the +seashore has been represented as a hearty and filling supper. +That the scanty provision which was at hand, the food +designed for himself and his Disciples, was solemnly +distributed to the people is historic. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page171">[pg 171]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg171"></a> +That this meal took the +place of the evening repast likewise corresponds with the +fact. But that through a supernatural process the +multitude was <i>filled</i> by it,—that belongs to the miraculous +character which the later age ascribed to the celebration +because its significance could not be apprehended.</p> + +<p>The historical procedure is the following: The +Disciples ask Jesus to send the people away that they may be +fed. For him, however, it is not an appropriate moment +to think of an earthly meal and so to disperse, for the +hour is near when they shall all be gathered about him +at the messianic banquet. Hence he would not have them +go yet, but before he dismisses them he commands them +to recline as at table. In place of the full meal he +introduces a ceremonial meal, in which the satisfaction of +earthly appetite has no part, so that the food intended +for himself and his Disciples sufficed for all.</p> + +<p>Neither the Disciples nor the multitude understand +what goes on. As Jesus afterwards in the boat directs the +conversation to the significance of the meal—this alone +can be the historical meaning of the obscure intimations +of Mk 6<sup>52</sup> and Mk 8<sup>14-21</sup>, it appears that the +Disciples have understood nothing.</p> + +<p>He celebrated, therefore, a sacred cultus-meal +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page172">[pg 172]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg172"></a> +the meaning of which was clear to him alone. He did not +count it necessary to explain to them the meaning of the +ceremony. The memory, however, of that mysterious +supper on the lonely seashore lived on vividly in the tradition +and grew to the account of the miraculous feeding. +Wherein did the solemnity of this distribution consist for +Jesus? The gathering at the feast is of an eschatological +character. The people that gathered about him by the +seaside were awaiting with him the dawn of the Kingdom. +In replacing now the customary full meal with a sacred +ceremonial meal, at which he distributed food with +thanksgiving to God, he acted at the prompting of his messianic +consciousness. <i>As one who knew himself to be the Messiah, +and would be manifested to them as such at the imminent +dawn of the Kingdom, he distributes, to those whom he +expects soon to join him at the messianic banquet, sacred +food, as though he would give them therewith an earnest +of their participation in that future solemnity.</i> The time +for earthly meals is passed: hence he celebrates with them +a foretaste of the messianic banquet. They, however, +understood it not, for they could not guess that he who +distributed to them such consecrated eucharistic +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page173">[pg 173]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg173"></a> +food was conscious of being the Messiah and acted as such.</p> + +<p>In this connection there falls a light upon the nature +of the Last Supper at Jerusalem. There the Disciples +represented the community of believers in the Kingdom. +In the course of that last meal Jesus distributed to them +with a word of thanksgiving food and drink. But now +they know what he assumes to be: he had disclosed to +them the secret of his messiahship. From this they are +able to divine in his distribution the reference to the +messianic banquet. He himself gave this significance to +his action in the fact that he concluded the ceremony with +a hint of their proximate reunion when he should drink +the wine new with them in his Father’s Kingdom!</p> + +<p>The supper by the seaside and the supper at Jerusalem +therefore correspond completely, except that in the latter +Jesus signified to his Disciples the nature of the ceremony +and at the same time expresses the thought of the Passion +in the two parables [“My body— my blood”]. The +cultus-meal was the same: a foretaste of the messianic banquet +in the circle of the fellowship of the believers in the +Kingdom. <i>Now for the first time one is able to understand +how the nature +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page174">[pg 174]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg174"></a> +of the Last Supper can be independent of +the two parables.</i></p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_7_3">3. The Week at Bethsaida.</h3> + +<p>During the ceremony Jesus was deeply moved. For +this reason he urged immediate departure and dismissed +the people. He himself withdrew to a mountain in order +to be alone in prayer. On the beach at Bethsaida, whither +he had charged them to row, he again met his Disciples. +They, battling with wind and wave, had the illusion that a +supernatural apparition approached them as they descried +his figure on the beach. They still were so much under the +influence of the impression lately made upon them by the +mighty personality who with mysterious majesty had +distributed to the multitude sacred food and then had +suddenly broken off the ceremony (Mk 6<sup>45-52</sup>).</p> + +<p>Whither had he sent away the multitude? What did +they do at Bethsaida? How long did they stay there? Our +text merely recounts that they returned again to +Genezareth.</p> + +<p>At this point, however, we encounter a difficult literary +problem, in the Synoptical narrative of the period +immediately preceding the departure for Jerusalem +(Mk 9<sup>30</sup>). +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page175">[pg 175]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg175"></a> +According to Mk 8<sup>27-33</sup>, Jesus is now alone +with his Disciples far away in the north, in heathen +territory,—from which point also he sets out on the rapid +march through Galilee to Jerusalem (Mk 9<sup>30</sup> ff.): “And +they went forth from thence and passed through Galilee, +and he would not that any man should know it.” Between +the disclosure of his messiahship and this departure there +intervenes only one scene (Mk 8<sup>34</sup>- 9<sup>29</sup>), where he +appears surrounded by a great multitude of people. In +company with the three intimate Disciples he leaves the +multitude, only to return to them shortly again. It is +nowhere recounted how this multitude suddenly gets to him +in heathen territory. And just as little are we informed +how it leaves him again, so that (according to +Mk 9<sup>30</sup> ff.) he can march through Galilee alone with his +Disciples and unrecognised.</p> + +<p>But it is not only the multitude that appears +unexpectedly: the whole scenery also is altered. One finds +oneself in a familiar region, for Jesus enters with his +Disciples “into the house,” while the people stay without +(Mk 9<sup>28</sup>)!</p> + +<p>The literary context in which the section stands is +absolutely impossible, for this cannot have been enacted in +<i>heathen territory,</i> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page176">[pg 176]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg176"></a> +but only in <i>Galilee!</i> But as Jesus +subsequently had only a fleeting contact with Galilee, passing +through it incognito, this piece belongs in the Galilean +period <i>before the departure for the north, and more +precisely, at the time of the return of the Disciples,</i> for it is +then that he was constantly surrounded by a throng of +people and was seeking to be in solitude with his Disciples!</p> + +<p>The situation, however may confidently be defined with +still greater exactness. Jesus dwelt in a village (Mk 9<sup>28</sup>) +in the neighbourhood of which there was a mountain to +which he betook himself with the three Disciples (Mk 9<sup>2</sup>). +All this agrees, however, most certainly with the +sojourn in <i>Bethsaida.</i> The mountain which he seeks with +the Three is <i>the mountain on the north shore of the lake +where he prayed in the night when he came to Bethsaida!</i></p> + +<p>The passage Mk 8<sup>34</sup>- 9<sup>29</sup> belongs therefore in the +days at Bethsaida! It is no longer possible to make out +by what process it came into the present impossible +context. The adoption of the present order may have been +prompted in part by the consideration that the impressive +word about the obligation of following Jesus in suffering +(Mk 8<sup>34</sup>- 9<sup>1</sup>) seemed to form a most natural +conclusion to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page177">[pg 177]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg177"></a> +the prediction of the Passion at Cæsarea Philippi +(Mk 8<sup>31-33</sup>).</p> + +<p>Moreover the transformation of the account of Jesus +meeting his Disciples at their landing into a miracle made +it difficult to effect a natural connection with the events +which occurred the following morning. And yet Mk 8<sup>34</sup> ff. +may fairly be said to imply such measures as were +adopted the evening before (Mk 6<sup>45-47</sup>). Jesus had +dismissed the people, had himself retired to solitude, and +while it was yet night had overtaken his Disciples at +Bethsaida, where they found lodging in a house (Mk 9<sup>28</sup>). +The next day he calls the people about him with the +Disciples (Mk 8<sup>34</sup>) and speaks to them about the +requirement of self-denial on the part of his followers, readiness +to endure shame, scorn, ridicule, rather than prove untrue +to him. This conduct is justified by the nearness of the +coming of the Son of Man, who will perform judgment +in the person of Jesus.</p> + +<p>This admonition concludes with a word about “the +coming of the Kingdom of God with power,” i. e. the +eschatological realisation of it. In its present form it is +toned down: some of them that stand by shall not taste +of death till that moment arrive. As the conclusion of this +address, however, it +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page178">[pg 178]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg178"></a> +must have run: Ye who stand here +shall soon experience the great moment of the mighty +dawn of the Kingdom of God! Thus this earnest address +at Bethsaida reflects the expectations which stirred Jesus +and the throng about him.</p> + +<p>Six days after that address at Bethsaida Jesus took +with him the Three and led them to the mountain where +he had prayed in solitude at evening after the great cultus-meal +in common. At their return they find the other +Disciples surrounded by the people. In spite of the authority +over demons of which they had made proof during their +progress through the cities of Israel, they were now not +able to master a demoniac boy who was brought to them. +Jesus takes the father and boy apart. The very moment +that the people come running together (Mk 9<sup>25-27</sup>) +the crisis begins, after which Jesus takes by the hand the +lad, who was lying as dead, and raises him up.</p> + +<p>This passage, therefore, which has been wrested so +strangely out of its connection, contains a striking account +of the first and last days of the week which Jesus passed +in Bethsaida between the return of the Disciples and the +departure for the north.</p> + +<p>It will now be perfectly clear how unhistoric +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page179">[pg 179]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg179"></a> +is the view that Jesus left Galilee in consequence of growing +opposition and spreading defection. On the contrary, this is the +period of his highest triumph. A multitude of people with +faith in the Kingdom thronged him and pursued him +everywhere. Hardly has he landed upon the west coast but they +are already there. Their number has grown still greater +and increases more and more (Mk 6<sup>53-56</sup>). That they +deserted him, that they even showed the least motion of +doubt or defection, the texts give no intimation. <i>It was +not the people that deserted Jesus but Jesus that deserted +the people.</i></p> + +<p>This he did, not out of any fear of the emissaries from +Jerusalem, but only as carrying out what he already had +in mind since the return of the Disciples. He wishes to be +alone. The people had defeated this aim by following him +along the shore as he sailed. When he had returned to +the west coast he found himself again surrounded. Because +he felt it absolutely necessary to be alone with the +Disciples, and because he was not able to effect this purpose +in Galilee, for this cause he suddenly vanished and betook +himself into heathen territory. <i>The journey into the north +country is not a flight, rather it has the same motive as +the voyage on the lake.</i></p> + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page180">[pg 180]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg180"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_8">CHAPTER VIII</h2> + +<h4>THE SECRET OF MESSIAHSHIP</h4> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_8_1">1. From the Mount of Transfiguration +to Cæsarea Philippi</h3> + +<p class="drop">COMING after Cæsarea Philippi the Transfiguration is +an obscure episode devoid of historical significance. The +Three learn no more about Jesus than Peter had already +confessed in the presence of the Twelve and Jesus himself +had confirmed. Thus the whole section is plainly an +intrusion: the apotheosis and obscure dialogue have no +historical significance.</p> + +<p>If, however, as has been proved above by literary +evidence, this scene was enacted some weeks after the mission +of the Twelve and <i>before</i> Cæsarea Philippi—not upon the +mountain of the legend, but on the mountain in the lonely +region by the seashore near Bethsaida,—then we behold +an idle addendum transformed at one stroke into a +Galilean occurrence of far reaching historical importance, +which explains the scene at Cæsarea Philippi, and not vice +versa. What we call +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page181">[pg 181]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg181"></a> +the Transfiguration is in reality +nothing else but the revelation of the secret of +messiahship to the Three. A few weeks later comes then its +disclosure to the Twelve.</p> + +<p>This revelation to the Three is handed down to us in +the form of a miracle-tale. It has undergone the same +transformation as have all the incidents of that voyage +along the north coast. The scene on the mountain, like the +feeding of the multitude and the encounter of Jesus with +his disciples at dusk, bears evident marks of the intense +eschatological excitement of the moment. For this reason +the historical facts are no longer clear in detail. There +appear unto them Moses and Elijah, the two characters +most prominently associated with the expectation of the +last times. To what extent may ecstatic conditions, and +perhaps glossolalia, have contributed to this experience? +The present form of the story permits us to infer +something of the sort (Mk 9<sup>2-6</sup>). Does the voice out of the +cloud (Mk 9<sup>7</sup>, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye him”) +repeat in some sort Jesus’ experience at his baptism?</p> + +<p>There is in fact an inward connection between the +Baptism and the Transfiguration. In both cases a condition +of ecstasy accompanies the revelation of the secret of Jesus’ +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page182">[pg 182]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg182"></a> +person. The first time the revelation was for him +alone; here the Disciples also share it. It is not clear to +what extent they themselves were transported by the +experience. So much is sure, that in a dazed condition, out +of which they awake only at the end of the scene (Mk 9<sup>8</sup>), +the figure of Jesus appears to them illuminated by +a supernatural light and glory, and a voice intimates that +he is the Son of God. The occurrence can be explained +only as the outcome of great eschatological excitement.</p> + +<p>It is remarkable that the revelation of the secret of +Jesus’ messiahship appears always to be connected with +such conditions. At Pentecost, when Peter openly +proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, we have an example of +glossolalia. Peter, to be sure, had already had a taste of such +an experience as the revelation was made to him on the +mountain near Bethsaida. Paul also was in a state of +ecstasy when he heard the voice before the Damascus gate.</p> + +<p>It has been shown above that no one could conclude +from Jesus’ speech or behaviour that he regards himself +as the Messiah. Properly the question is not, how the +people could remain ignorant of Jesus’ messianic claim, +but how Peter at Cæsarea Philippi +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page183">[pg 183]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg183"></a> +and the High Priest +at the trial could come into possession of this secret.</p> + +<p>The Transfiguration answers the first question. Peter +knew that Jesus is the “Son of God” through the +revelation which he in common with the two other Disciples +received on the mountain near Bethsaida. For this reason +he answered the question with such confidence (Mk 8<sup>29</sup>). +The text of St. Matthew’s Gospel records an +additional saying of Jesus which seems to allude to the very +experience in which this knowledge was supernaturally +imparted to Peter: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: +for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but +my Father which is in heaven” (Mt 16<sup>17</sup>).</p> + +<p>Moreover, the scene which follows upon Peter’s +answer clearly has to do with a secret common to him and +to Jesus. When Jesus disclosed that he must die in +Jerusalem Peter turns upon him impetuously, takes him apart, +and speaks to him in excited tones. As Jesus sees that the +other Disciples are attentive he abruptly turns away from +Peter with a sharp word, calling him the Tempter, who +minds not the things of God but the things of men +(Mk 8<sup>32</sup> and 8<sup>33</sup>).</p> + +<p>Why this agitation of Peter over Jesus’ disclosure +about the fatal journey to Jerusalem? +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page184">[pg 184]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg184"></a> +Because it comes +as a new factor, above and beyond what was disclosed +on the mountain near Bethsaida. About that experience +he dare not speak in the presence of the other Disciples, +because Jesus had forbidden it. For this reason he takes +Jesus apart. Jesus, however, seeing that the other +Disciples are listening, cannot explain matters to him, and so +with passionate abruptness enjoins silence.</p> + +<p>Only the connection with the foregoing +Transfiguration explains the characteristic traits of the scene at +Cæsarea Philippi. Psychological observations about the +quick apprehension and lively temperament of Peter—the +common expedients of modern interpretation—do not in +fact begin to explain why he alone should arrive with such +confidence at the knowledge of Jesus’ messiahship, only +to fall a moment later into such misunderstanding that +he gets into an excited dispute with Jesus. Why do they +both go apart together? Why, instead of instructing him, +does Jesus leave him there with a hard word of rebuke?</p> + +<p>Taken by itself the whole scene at Cæsarea Philippi is +an enigma. If, however, we assume that the +Transfiguration preceded it, the enigma is solved and the scene is illuminated +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page185">[pg 185]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg185"></a> +down to the smallest details. The revelation +to the Twelve was preceded by the disclosure to the Three +of the secret of Jesus’ messiahship.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_8_2">2. The Futuristic Character of Jesus’ Messiahship.</h3> + +<p>Meanwhile the revelation of the secret of his +messiahship alters nothing in the behaviour of the Disciples to +Jesus. They do not sink before him in the dust as if now +the man whom they had known was become a superhuman +being. They only manifest in consequence of this revelation +a certain awe. They dare not interrogate him when they +fail to understand his words (Mk 9<sup>32</sup>), and as they +company with him they appear to be aware that he +carries within him a great secret.</p> + +<p>Are we to imagine then that after this revelation of +his secret Jesus was henceforth regarded by his disciples +as the Messiah? No, <i>not yet</i> was he the Messiah. It must +constantly be kept in mind that the Kingdom and the +Messiah are correlative terms which belong inseparably +together. Now if the Kingdom was not yet come, neither +was the Messiah. Jesus’ disclosure had reference to the +time of the dawning of the Kingdom. When +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page186">[pg 186]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg186"></a> +that hour +shall strike, then shall he appear as Messiah, then shall +his messiahship be revealed in glory. Such was the secret +which he solemnly made known to his disciples.</p> + +<p>Jesus’ messiahship was a secret, not merely because +he had forbidden it to be spoken, but in its very nature it +was a secret, inasmuch as it could be realised only at a +definite time in the future. It was a conception which could +be formulated fully only in his own consciousness. +Wherefore the people could not understand it—and need not +know anything about it. It was enough if by his word +and his signs he might convert them to faith in the +nearness of the kingdom, for with the coming of the Kingdom +his messiahship would be manifest.</p> + +<p>It is almost impossible to express in modern terms the +consciousness of messiahship which Jesus imparted as a +secret to his Disciples. Whether we describe it as an +identity between him and the Son of Man who is to appear, +whether we express it as a continuity which unites both +personalities, or think of it as virtually a pre-existent +messiahship,—none of these modern conceptions can render +the consciousness of Jesus as the Disciples understood it.</p> + +<p>What we lack is the “Now and Then” +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page187">[pg 187]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg187"></a> +which dominated their thinking and which explains a curious duality of +consciousness that was characteristic of them. What we +might call identity, continuity, and potentiality was in +their mind confounded in a conception which quite eludes +our grasp. Every person figured himself in two entirely +different states, according as he thought of himself now, +in the pre-messianic age, or then in the messianic. +Expressions which we interpret only in accordance with our +unity of consciousness, they referred as a matter of course +to the double consciousness familiar to them. Therefore +when Jesus revealed to them the secret of his +messiahship, that did not mean to them that he is the Messiah, +as we moderns must understand it; rather it signified for +them that their Lord and Master was the one who in the +messianic age would be revealed as Messiah.</p> + +<p>They think of themselves also in terms of this double +consciousness. As often as Jesus made known to them the +necessity of his suffering before entering upon his rule +they questioned within themselves what manner of +persons they should be in the coming age. Wherefore, +following upon the prophecies of the Passion we find rivalry +among the Disciples as to which shall be the greatest in the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page188">[pg 188]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg188"></a> +Kingdom, or to whom shall be accorded the seats of +honour on either side of the throne. In the meanwhile, +however, they remain what they are, and Jesus remains +what he is, their Teacher and Master. The sons of +Zebedee address him as “Master” (Mk 10<sup>35</sup>). As Teacher +they expect him to give promise and assurance of what +shall come to pass when the Kingdom dawns and his +messiahship is revealed.</p> + +<p>In this sense, then, Jesus’ messianic consciousness is +futuristic. There was nothing strange in this either for him +or for his Disciples. On the contrary, it corresponded +exactly to the Jewish conception of the hidden life and +labour of the Messiah. (Cf. Weber: <i>System der altsynagogalen Theologie,</i> 1880, pp. +342-446). The course of Jesus’ earthly life +preceded his messiahship in glory. The Messiah in his +earthly estate must live and labour unrecognised, he must +teach, and through deed and suffering he must be made +perfect in righteousness. Not till then shall the messianic +age dawn with the Last Judgment and the establishment +of the Kingdom. The Messiah must come from the north. +Jesus’ march from Cæsarea Philippi to Jerusalem was the +progress of the unrecognised Messiah to his triumph in +glory.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page189">[pg 189]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg189"></a></p> + +<p>Thus in the midst of the messianic expectation of his +people stood Jesus as the Messiah that is to be. He dare +not reveal himself to them, for the season of his hidden +labour was not yet over. Hence he preached the near +approach of the Kingdom of God.</p> + +<p>It was this futuristic consciousness of messiahship +which prompted Jesus in the Temple to touch upon the +messianic dogma of the Scribes, as though he would +call their attention to the secret which lurks behind it. +The Pharisees say, “The Messiah is David’s Son;” but +David calls him his Lord. How can he still be his Son +(Mk 12<sup>35-37</sup>)?</p> + +<p>The Messiah is David’s Son—that is, subordinate to +him—since in this era he is born of human parentage and +lives and labours in obscurity. David’s Lord, because at +the dawn of the coming era he will be revealed as Christ +in glory. Jesus has no notion of impeaching the pharisaic +dogma. It is correct, the Scripture so teaches. Only, the +Pharisees themselves cannot properly interpret their +dogma, and so cannot explain how the Messiah can be +in one instance David’s Son and in another, David’s Lord.</p> + +<p>This saying of Jesus to the people in the +Temple—(only Matthew has made of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page190">[pg 190]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg190"></a> +it an embarrassing +polemic)—is on a line with his utterance about the Baptist. Whoever +could apprehend with what authority John +baptised—that is, with the power and authority of +Elijah,—whoever could understand how the Messiah could be in one +instance David’s son, in another David’s Lord,—he must +know also who <i>he</i> is that so speaks. He that hath ears to +hear, let him hear!</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_8_3">3. The Son of Man and the Futuristic Character +of Jesus’ Messiahship.</h3> + +<p>The expression “Son of David” contains an enigma. +Therefore Jesus never used it in speaking of his +messiahship, but always refers to himself as the “Son of Man.” +Consequently this designation must have been peculiarly +apt as a rendering of his messianic consciousness.</p> + +<p>It is evident that he chose this term deliberately. Every +other messianic designation that is applied to him he +corrects and interprets by “Son of Man.”</p> + +<p>As they descend from the mountain where the Disciples +had come to recognise him as the Son of God he speaks +of himself as the “Son of Man” (Mk 9<sup>7-9</sup>).</p> + +<p>Peter proclaimed him before the others as “the +Anointed one” (Mk 8<sup>29</sup>). Jesus immediately +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page191">[pg 191]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg191"></a> +proceeds to instruct them about the fate of the “Son of Man” +(Mk 8<sup>31</sup>).</p> + +<p>“Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed?” the High +Priest asked him (Mk 14<sup>61</sup>). “Ye shall see the Son +of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming +with the clouds of heaven,” is Jesus’ answer. That +signifies, Yes. The same expression occurs in the second and +in the third prophecy of the Passion (Mk 9<sup>30-32</sup> and +Mk 10<sup>32-34</sup>) and in the saying about serving (Mk 10<sup>45</sup>).</p> + +<p>The messianic title “Son of Man” is futuristic in +character. It refers to the moment in which the Messiah shall +come upon the clouds of heaven for judgment. From the +beginning this was the sense in which Jesus had used the +expression, whether in speaking to the people or to the +Disciples. In sending out his Apostles he warned them of +the impending approach of the day of the Son of Man +(Mt 10<sup>23</sup>). He spoke to the people of the coming of +the Son of Man as an exhortation to be faithful to him, +Jesus (Mk 8<sup>38</sup>).</p> + +<p>Withal, he and the Son of Man remain for the people +and for the Disciples two entirely distinct personalities. +The one is a terrestrial, the other a celestial figure; the +one belongs to the age that now is, the other to the +messianic period. Between the two there exists +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page192">[pg 192]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg192"></a> +solidarity, inasmuch as the Son of Man will intervene in behalf of such +as have ranged themselves on the side of Jesus, the herald +of his coming.</p> + +<p>These are the passages one must take as the point of +departure in order to understand the significance of this +expression in Jesus’ mouth. Jesus and the Son of Man are +different persons for such as do not know his secret. They, +however, to whom he has revealed his secret are aware +of a personal connection between the two. Jesus it is who +at the messianic day shall appear as the Son of Man. +The revelation at Cæsarea Philippi consists in this, that +Jesus reveals to his Disciples in what personal relationship +he stands to the coming Son of Man. As the one who is +to be the Son of Man he can confirm Peter’s confession +of him as the Messiah. His reply to the High Priest is +affirmative in the same sense. He is the Messiah—that +they will see when he appears as the Son of Man upon +the clouds of heaven.</p> + +<p>“Son of Man” is accordingly the adequate expression +of his messiahship, so long as he, in this earthly æon as +Jesus of Nazareth, has occasion to refer to his future +dignity. Hence when he speaks to the Disciples about +himself as the Son of Man he assumes this +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page193">[pg 193]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg193"></a> +duality of +consciousness. “The Son of Man must suffer and will then +rise from the dead:” that is to say, “As the one who is +to be Son of Man at the resurrection of the dead I must +suffer.” To the same effect we must understand the word +about serving: As the one who in the character of the +Son of Man is destined to the highest rule I must now +humble myself to the lowliest service (Mk 10<sup>45</sup>). +Therefore he says when they come to arrest him: The +hour is come in the which he who is to be the Son of Man +must be delivered into the hands of sinners (Mk 14<sup>21, 41</sup>).</p> + +<p>The problem about the Son of Man is herewith +elucidated. It was not an expression which Jesus commonly +used to describe himself, but a solemn title which he +adopted when in the great moments of his life he spoke +about himself to the initiated as the future Messiah, while +before the others he spoke of the Son of Man as a +personality distinct from himself. In all cases, however, the +context shows that he is speaking of one who is yet to +come, for in all these passages mention is made either of +the Resurrection or of the appearing upon the clouds of +heaven. The philological objections do not therefore apply +here. Initiated and uninitiated must understand from the +situation that he is speaking +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page194">[pg 194]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg194"></a> +of a definite personality of +the future,—and not of man in general, even though the +expression in both cases would be the same.</p> + +<p>The case is entirely different with another set of +passages where the expression occurs arbitrarily as a pure +self-designation, a roundabout way of saying “I.” Here +all critical and philological objections are thoroughly in +place.<br><br> + +Mt 8<sup>20</sup>,—The Son of Man hath not where to lay his +head.<br> +Mt 11<sup>19</sup>,—The Son of Man is come eating and drinking +(in contrast to the Baptist).<br> +Mt 12<sup>32</sup>,—Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a worse +crime than speaking evil of the Son of Man.<br> +Mt 12<sup>40</sup>,—The Son of Man will be three days in the +earth, like Jonah in the belly of the fish.<br> +Mt 13<sup>37, 41</sup>,—The Son of Man is the Sower; the Son of +Man is the lord of the reapers.<br> +Mt 16<sup>13</sup>,—Who do the people say that the Son of Man +is?</p> + +<p>Here the expression is philologically impossible. For +if Jesus had so used it, his hearers must simply have +understood him to +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page195">[pg 195]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg195"></a> +mean “man.” There is nothing here to +indicate that the word is meant to express a future messianic +dignity! Here in fact he designates by it his actual +present condition! But “Son of Man” is a messianic title of +futuristic character, since it always suggests a coming +upon the clouds, according to Daniel 7<sup>13-14</sup>. +Furthermore, in all of these passages the Disciples are as yet +ignorant of Jesus’ secret. For them the Son of Man is +still an entirely distinct person. The unity of the subject +is still completely unknown to them. Therefore they were +not in a position to understand that by this term he refers +to himself, but they must refer everything to that Son +of Man of whose coming he also spoke elsewhere. Therewith, +however, the passages would be meaningless, for +they imply that Jesus is thus speaking of himself.</p> + +<p>Historically and philologically it is therefore +impossible that Jesus could have employed the expression as a +purposeless and matter of course self-designation. Even +as a self-designation referable to the future messianic +dignity that was to be his, only they could understand it +who knew his secret. Hence all the passages are +unhistorical in which, <i>previous to Cæsarea Philippi</i> (or, for the +Three, previous to the Transfiguration), +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page196">[pg 196]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg196"></a> +he designates +<i>himself</i> as Son of Man. Only those in that period are +historical in which he speaks of the Son of Man as a figure +yet to come, not identical with himself (Mt 10<sup>23</sup> and +Mk 8<sup>38</sup>). The passages cited above, in which the +expression is used without its proper significance as a mere +self-designation, are therefore not historical, but are +comprehensible only as the result of a literary process. How +does it come about that a later period of Gospel +composition regarded this expression as “Jesus’ self-designation”?</p> + + +<p>This was due to a shifting of the perspective. It is +observable from the moment when men began to write +the history of Jesus upon the assumption that on earth he +was already the Messiah. From that time on men lost +consciousness of the fact that for the earthly existence of +Jesus his very messiahship was something future, and that +by the very expression Son of Man he designated himself +as the future Messiah. Since, then, it was an historic fact +that he spoke of himself as the Son of Man, the writers +appropriated this emphatic term and without suspecting +that it was appropriate only in certain sayings and in +definite situations, they employed it indifferently in any +passage where Jesus spoke of himself,—and thereby +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page197">[pg 197]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg197"></a> +created these philological and historical impossibilities.</p> + +<p>This erroneous use was due therefore to a literary +development of markedly secondary character. In this +respect it was like the unhistorical use of the expression +“Son of David” by Matthew. It agrees thereto that the +“Son of Man” passages here in question belong likewise +to a secondary stratum of St. Matthew’s Gospel.</p> + +<p>What chiefly reveals their secondary character is: the +transformation of the simple question asked at Cæsarea +Philippi (Mt 16<sup>13</sup>); the application of the parable of +the sower (Mt 13<sup>37, 41</sup>); and the false interpretation +of the saying about Jonah (Mt 12<sup>40</sup>).</p> + +<p>No less secondary is the formulation of the speech +about the sin against the Holy Ghost, where a contrast +is drawn between blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and +against the Son of Man (Mt 12<sup>32</sup>), whereas in Jesus’ +thought both came to the same thing, since it was a +question of conscious hardening against the power of the +coming Kingdom which worked in him. In the passages Mt 8<sup>20</sup> +and Mt 11<sup>19</sup> the expression is arbitrarily used, for +Jesus merely wishes to say: <i>I</i> have nowhere to lay my +head; and, <i>I</i> eat and drink, in contrast to the ascetic +practice of the Baptist.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page198">[pg 198]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg198"></a></p> + +<p>It is quite a different case which is presented by the +two unhistorical “Son of Man” passages in St. Mark’s +Gospel.<br> + +Mk 2<sup>10</sup>—The Son of Man hath authority to forgive +sins upon earth.<br> +Mk 2<sup>28</sup>—The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.</p> + +<p>The secondary character appears in the fact that Jesus +is supposed to have used the expression here as a +self-designation. The historical fact is that he used it in that +connection in the third person, referring either to the +Son of Man as an eschatological figure, or to man in +general. In either case it makes sense.</p> + +<p>1. Man as such can by works of healing declare the +forgiveness of sins upon earth.</p> + +<p>Man as man is lord of the Sabbath.</p> + +<p>2. In view of the coming of the Son of Man +forgiveness of sins is already available, as the works of healing +show.</p> + +<p>In view of the coming of the Son of Man a higher +factor already emerges to modify the legalistic observance +of the Sabbath.</p> + +<p>The Law yields to something higher. The case of +David shows it.</p> + +<p>However one may explain these passages, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page199">[pg 199]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg199"></a> +one thing is clear: the expression did actually occur here and did +somehow modify Jesus’ statement. The only secondary +trait appears in the use of the expression as a +self-designation, whereas in fact Jesus spoke of man in general or +of the Son of Man. These passages, therefore, are on +the threshold between the historical and the +literary-unhistorical use of the name “Son of Man.”</p> + + +<p>We can now understand the peculiar difficulty of the +“Son of Man” problem. Hitherto, the deeper the +investigation went, so much the further the solution seemed to +recede. This was due to the fact that no amount of +reflection could effect the separation of passages of such unequal +worth. Thus the literary and historical sides of the +problem remained confounded with one another. The moment, +however, the discovery is made, from the study of Jesus’ +messianic consciousness, that the expression Son of Man +is the only one by which he could utter the secret of his +future dignity, the separation is given. All those passages +are historical which show the influence of the apocalyptic +reference to the Son of Man in Daniel: all are unhistorical +in which such is not the case. At the same time the shifting +of the perspective explains why for writers of a later +generation this +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page200">[pg 200]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg200"></a> +expression in Jesus’ mouth could have only +the significance of an arbitrary self-designation, +appropriate in all situations where he spoke of himself.</p> + +<p>Finally, the last enigma is also solved. Why does the +expression disappear from the language of the primitive +Church? Why does no one (with exception of Acts 7<sup>56</sup>) +designate the Messiah by the title Son of Man, +notwithstanding that Jesus had used it exclusively to indicate his +dignity? This is due to the fact that “Son of Man” was +the messianic expression for a clearly defined episode of +the messianic drama. The Messiah was the Son of Man +in the moment of his manifestation upon the clouds of +heaven to reign in judgment over the world. Jesus thought +exclusively of that moment, since only from that moment +on was he for men the Messiah. The primitive Church, +however, seeing that a transitional period intervened, +beheld Jesus as the Messiah in heaven above at the right +hand of God. He was already the Messiah and did not +have to become such at the moment of the appearing of +the Son of Man. Because the perspective was shifted here +also, one used the general expression “Messiah” instead +of the title “Son of Man” which pointed to a particular +scene.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page201">[pg 201]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg201"></a></p> + +<p>Jesus would have expressed himself inaccurately had +he said, I am the Messiah,—for that he was to be only +when he appeared in glory as the Son of Man.</p> + +<p>The primitive Church would have expressed itself +inaccurately had it said, Jesus is the Son of Man,—for after +the Resurrection he was the Messiah at the right hand +of God, whose coming as Son of Man the Church expected.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_8_4">4. The Resurrection of the Dead and the Futuristic +Character of Jesus’ Messiahship.</h3> + +<p>What is the significance of the +resurrection-prophecies? It seems to us hard to admit that Jesus could have +foretold so precisely an event of that sort. It seems much +more plausible to suppose that general utterances of his +about a glory that awaited him were editorially +transformed <i>ex eventu</i> into predictions of the Resurrection.</p> + +<p>Such criticism is in place so long as one holds the view +that the prophecy of the Resurrection referred to an +isolated event in the personal history of Jesus. So it appears, +however, only to our modern consciousness, because we +think uneschatologically even in the matter of the +Resurrection. For Jesus and his Disciples, on the other hand, the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page202">[pg 202]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg202"></a> +Resurrection which he spoke about had an entirely +different significance. It was a messianic event which +signified the dawn of the full glory that was to come. We +must eliminate from the Resurrection predicted by Jesus +all modern notions suggestive of an apotheosis. The +contemporary consciousness understood this “Restoration” +(Acts 3<sup>21</sup>) as a revelation of Jesus’ messiahship at the +dawn of the Kingdom. Therefore when Jesus spoke of +his resurrection the Disciples thought of the great +messianic Resurrection in which he as the Messiah would be +raised from the dead.</p> + +<p>The conversation during the descent from the +mountain of Transfiguration is decisive on this point. Jesus +spoke then for the first time to his most intimate disciples +of “the resurrection of the Son of Man from the dead” +(Mk 9<sup>9</sup>). They, however, were quite unable to think +of “the resurrection of the Son of man” apart from the +messianic Resurrection. Their attention was entirely +occupied with the messianic event which Jesus’ words suggested +to them. They question therefore among themselves about +the Resurrection of the dead. What should that mean +(Mk 9<sup>10</sup>)? That is to say, the conditions thereof, so +far as they can see, are not yet +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page203">[pg 203]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg203"></a> +fulfilled. Elijah is not yet +come (Mk 9<sup>11</sup>). Jesus puts their minds at rest with +the hint that Elijah had already appeared though men did +not recognise him. He means the Baptist (Mk 9<sup>12-13</sup>).</p> + +<p>This conversation, in which otherwise it is impossible +to detect at all any reasonable sequence of thought, +becomes perfectly transparent and natural the moment it is +noticed how the Disciples are unable to think of the +resurrection which Jesus’ words suggest except in the same +thought with the general messianic Resurrection. +Therefore this talk during the descent from the mountain throws +a clear light upon Jesus’ later prophecies of his Passion +and Resurrection, because we are here in a position to +observe the thoughts and questions which these words +awaken in the hearts of the Disciples. Moreover this +“resurrection prophecy” lacks the mention of the three +days which furnishes precisely the occasion for the critical +attitude toward the subsequent prophecies of the Passion. +In this respect the prediction during the descent agrees +thoroughly with the last utterance before the High Priest. +Both lack the definite indication of the time when the +Resurrection or the appearing upon the clouds of heaven +shall take place. In the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page204">[pg 204]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg204"></a> +messianic event both correspond +chronologically: resurrection and coming on the clouds +signify only the revelation of Jesus’ messiahship on the +great Resurrection Day.</p> + +<p>This expectation of the eschatological Resurrection of +the dead ruled the consciousness of Jesus and his +contemporaries. He assumes it in his discourses at Jerusalem. +Expectation of the Kingdom and belief in the approaching +Resurrection of the dead belong together. It is, as we +have already observed, an error in perspective to +represent Jesus’ thought in regard to the coming Kingdom as +directed toward the future as if it had to do with +subsequent generations. So the modern mind thinks. It was +just the opposite with Jesus. The Kingdom had to do +with the past generations. They rise up to meet the +Judgment which inaugurates the Kingdom.</p> + +<p>The Resurrection of the dead is the condition +precedent to the establishment of the Kingdom. Through it all +generations of the world are lifted out of their temporal +sequence and placed before God’s judgment as +contemporaries. For example, such a parable even as that of the +Lord’s Vineyard requires the assumption of the +Resurrection of the dead (Mk 12<sup>1-12</sup>). The whole history of +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page205">[pg 205]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg205"></a> +Israel is there described in the conduct of the +husbandmen. Jesus speaks of the generations of Israel from the +days of the Prophets unto the people then present to +whom his warning is addressed. The parable, however, +pictures only one generation, because when it is a question +of the Judgment, the whole people in its consecutive +generations appears before God as one collective +whole,—which means that it is raised up as a whole from the dead.</p> + +<p>In the same way it is to be explained that the people +of Sodom of a generation long gone by are assured of a +more tolerable fate than the present inhabitants of +Capernaum (Mt 11<sup>23-24</sup>).</p> + +<p>Those who believed in the coming of the Kingdom +believed also in the approaching Resurrection of the dead. +Wherefore the attack of the Sadducees was directed +precisely against this point. Jesus’ reply to them, that “when +they shall rise from the dead they neither marry nor are +given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven” +(Mk 12<sup>25</sup>), is to be understood as descriptive of conditions +in the Kingdom of heaven, into which they enter through +the Resurrection from the dead.</p> + +<p>The “Resurrection of the dead” was, in +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page206">[pg 206]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg206"></a> +fine, only the mode in which the transformation of the whole form of +existence was accomplished upon those who had already +succumbed to death. By the coming of the Kingdom of +God, however, the earthly form of existence in general +must be raised to another and an incomparably higher +estate. From this point of view, those also are to +experience a “resurrection” who before the great Event have +not succumbed to death; for by a higher power their +mode of existence, too, will suddenly be transformed into +another, which they will then share with those that have +been awakened from death. In comparison with this new +form of existence the foregoing condition is a matter of +indifference. It is all one whether from our earthly +existence or from the sleep of death we pass into the +messianic mode of being. In comparison with the latter all +being is “death.” It alone is “life.”</p> + +<p>Wherefore, to the living, Jesus speaks of the way that +leadeth unto “life” (Mt 7<sup>14</sup>). He counsels men rather +to part with a member of the body, when “life” is in +question, than to fail of gaining through the Resurrection +a part in the messianic existence (Mt 18<sup>8, 9</sup>). The rich +young man asks what he must do “to inherit eternal life.” Jesus +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page207">[pg 207]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg207"></a> +is very sorrowful when he will not follow the +counsel given him, because it is so hard for a rich man +“to enter into the Kingdom of heaven” (Mk 10<sup>17, 25</sup>).</p> + +<p>This disparagement of the earthly form of existence +goes to the length of sacrificing altogether the earthly life +for the sake of full assurance of life in the coming age. +Hence, with the exhortation to follow him in suffering +and reproach, Jesus declares that “whosoever would save +his life shall lose it.” That is to say, Whosoever, through +anxiety about his earthly existence, makes himself +unworthy that the Son of Man intervene for him before +God, forfeits thereby the messianic life which commences +with the Resurrection (Mk 8<sup>35</sup>).</p> + +<p>When the Kingdom dawns it is all one whether we +exist in a living or in a dead body. It is only with this +persuasion that a man can meet persecution boldly. +Wherefore Jesus says to the Apostles as he sends them forth: +Be not afraid of them which kill the body but are not +able to kill the “soul,” but fear him who hath power to +destroy both “soul” and body in hell (Mt 10<sup>28</sup>).</p> + +<p>St. Paul furnishes a classical instance of this same +connection between the eschatological expectation of the +early Church and +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page208">[pg 208]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg208"></a> +the Resurrection of the dead +(1 Cor. 15<sup>50-54</sup>). What we have here is not a specifically +Pauline thought, but a primitive Christian conception to which +Jesus had already given utterance. Flesh and blood, +whether quick or dead, can in no wise have part in the +Kingdom. Therefore when the hour strikes and the dead +are raised incorruptible, the living also shall be changed, +putting on incorruption and immortality.</p> + +<p>The Resurrection of the dead is the bridge from the +“Now” to the “Then.” It accounts for the duality of +consciousness. Hence when Jesus spoke of his resurrection +the Disciples correlated this word with the great context. +It signified for them the general Resurrection in which +they too would arise in the form of existence appropriate +to the Kingdom of God. True, they expected his +resurrection,—not, however, as the “Easter event,” but as the +dawn of the messianic Kingdom. Jesus was to be revealed +as the risen Christ when he should come as Son of Man +upon the clouds of heaven to usher in the messianic day.</p> + +<p>For our feeling, the death of Jesus is related to the +Resurrection as a discord in music to its resolution. Owing +to the disparagement of every form of existence prior +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page209">[pg 209]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg209"></a> +to the messianic age, a much weaker accent, for the +Disciples lay upon the death. What they conceived was an +endless, eternal accord following upon a brief earthly prelude.</p> + +<p>Where we see a juxtaposition of messianic claim, +Passion prediction, and Resurrection prophecy, the Disciples +perceived a much stricter connection of thought. They +beheld all in a messianic light. Hence they did not draw +from Jesus’ words three separate conclusions: (1) that +he was the Messiah; (2) that he must suffer and die; +(3) that he would rise from the dead. Rather, the +impression they received was this: Our master will after his +death, at the Resurrection, be revealed as the Son of +Man. At the same time they question within themselves +what sort of persons they then will be and what office +and dignity will fall to their lot in the new existence.</p> + +<p>It can thus be explained why their messianic conception +was not completely overthrown by the notion of “the +suffering and dying Messiah.” Jesus had revealed to them +neither the suffering, nor the dying, nor the risen Christ; +but he spoke to them of the Son of Man who was due to +appear, and revealed to them that it was he who should +come in that character when he had perfected himself by +suffering here below.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page210">[pg 210]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg210"></a></p> + +<p>It can never be emphasised enough that in this respect +Jesus’ messiahship was completely in line with the popular +conception. The tragedy of his life is not to be accounted +for by the incompatibility of his notion of messiahship +and the general expectation, so that only conflicts could +ensue which must bring about his death. This conception +first appears in the Fourth Gospel. The historical Jesus +laid claim to messiahship only from the moment of the +Resurrection.</p> + +<p>This view of Jesus’ messianic disclosures in the early +Synoptic tradition is absolutely required by the conception +of the primitive Church. The primitive Church assumes +that Jesus’ messianic consciousness was futuristic when +he talked to the Disciples and even when he gave answer +to the High Priest. Even Peter’s discourse in the Acts dates +his messiahship from the moment of the Resurrection. +Until then he was Jesus of Nazareth. Only, the provisional +condition of sitting on the right hand of God takes the +place of the coming upon the clouds of heaven. “Jesus the +Nazarene, a man approved of God unto you by mighty +works and wonders and signs which God did by him in +the midst of you (Acts 2<sup>22</sup>), him did God raise up +(Acts 2<sup>32</sup>) and hath made him both Lord and +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page211">[pg 211]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg211"></a> +Messiah, this +Jesus whom ye crucified” (Acts 2<sup>36</sup>).</p> + +<p>This testimony to the primitive conception of Jesus’ +messiahship is of itself so weighty that it would put to +silence the whole Synoptical tradition if that were of a +different tenor. How is it conceivable that the Disciples +proclaimed that Jesus had entered upon his messianic +existence through the Resurrection, if already upon earth +he had spoken of his messiahship as a dignity then +actually possessed? As a matter of fact the early Synoptic +tradition and the view of the primitive Church agree +together completely. Both affirm with one voice that Jesus’ +messianic consciousness was futuristic.</p> + +<p>If we had not this witness, the knowledge of Jesus’ +historical character and personality would be forever +closed to us. For after his death all sorts of presumptions +arose to obscure the consciousness of the futuristic +character of his messiahship. His resurrection as Messiah +coincided with the general Resurrection which should usher +in the messianic age—such was the perspective of the +Disciples before his death. After his death his resurrection +as Messiah constituted a fact for itself. Jesus was the +Messiah <i>before</i> the messianic age! That is the fateful shifting +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page212">[pg 212]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg212"></a> +of the perspective. Therein lies the tragical +element—but the magnificent as well—in the whole +phenomenon of Christianity.</p> + +<p>The primitive Christian consciousness made the most +strenuous efforts to fill the breach, trying in spite of it to +conceive of Jesus’ resurrection as the dawn of the +messianic era in the general rising of the dead. There was +an effort to make it intelligible as analogous to a +somewhat protracted interval between two scenes of the first +act of a drama. Properly, however, they already stood +within the messianic Resurrection. Thus for Paul, Jesus +Christ, proved to be the Messiah through the +Resurrection of the dead, “is the first fruits of them that sleep” +(1 Cor. 15<sup>20</sup>). The whole structure of Pauline theology +and ethics rests upon this thought. Because they find +themselves within this period, believers are in reality buried +with Christ and with him raised again through baptism. +They are “new” creatures, they are the “righteous,” whose +citizenship is in heaven. Until we grasp this fundamental +notion we cannot perceive the unity in the manifold +complications of St. Paul’s world of thought.</p> + +<p>The Christian historical tradition sought another way +out. It assumed a sort of preresurrection which coincided +with the resurrection +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page213">[pg 213]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg213"></a> +of Jesus. It lent to this the colouring +of the messianic Day. Mt 27<sup>50-53</sup> furnishes an example +in legendary form of such a method of reconciling fact +and theory. With Jesus’ death upon the cross a new world +era dawned. When he yielded up his spirit the veil of the +Temple was rent from the top to the bottom and +earthquakes, the signs of the end of the world, shook the earth; +the rocks were rent; the graves opened; and many bodies +of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised. After +Jesus’ resurrection they go forth out of the tombs into +the holy city and appear unto many. So this narrative +clings to the conception that the general Resurrection of +the dead under the omens of the messianic Day comes +in conjunction with Jesus’ death and consequent +resurrection,—but still only as a sort of prelude.</p> + +<p>Time, indeed, proved mightier than the original +conceptions. Inexorably it thrust itself like a splitting wedge +between Jesus’ resurrection and the expected general +Resurrection of the messianic Day, and with the temporal +coincidence it destroyed also the casual [causal] connection in the +original sense. The messiahship of Jesus stood up solidly +out of the past. Those who confessed it and at the same +time expected the Kingdom as a future +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page214">[pg 214]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg214"></a> +event lost all +consciousness of the fact that in the preaching of Jesus his +messiahship and the Kingdom were both of them future +and coincident events. They began to regard the Gospel +history from the point of view that <i>Jesus was the Messiah.</i> +The title for this new view of the Gospel history was +written by St. Paul. It reads: <i>“Jesus Christ,”</i>—the office +and dignity of the risen Lord is combined with the +historical personality in one idea. The Fourth Gospel has +drawn the logical consequence therefrom and has so +depicted the history of Jesus as if he had come upon earth +as the Messiah.</p> + +<p>It is the task of the historical investigator to +emancipate himself for a moment from the unhistorical +perspective and place the Synoptic accounts in the right light. +Only then, when one has grasped the futuristic element +in Jesus’ messianic consciousness, can one understand why +he revealed his dignity to the Disciples as a “secret,” why +he designated himself thereby as the Son of Man, and +in what sense he spoke of his resurrection.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_8_5">5. The Betrayal by Judas—the Last Disclosure +of the Secret of Messiahship.</h3> + +<p>What did Judas actually betray? According to the +accounts of our Gospels it +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page215">[pg 215]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg215"></a> +looks as if he had informed the +Sanhedrin where at a particular hour they could +apprehend Jesus. But, even if this indication of the place did +play some part in the betrayal of Judas, it could only +have been incidental. Where Jesus abode they could at +any time find out, since he did nothing to make his coming +and going secret. If then they desired to seize him, they +had only to send a spy after him as he left Jerusalem in +the evening, and they could have got all the information +they wanted. For this purpose they did not need one of +the inner circle.</p> + +<p>As a matter of fact, however, the principal difficulty +lay in an entirely different direction. Not to <i>arrest</i> him +but to <i>convict</i> him was what they could not accomplish, +for they could bring nothing against him. With respect +to him and his following they found themselves in the +embarrassing fix into which every conscientious church +discipline must necessarily fall some time or another: these +people were too pious for them, pious beyond proper +limits, inasmuch as they with too great enthusiasm +believed what the others with seemly moderation of feeling +confessed in their creed,—namely, that the Kingdom is +near. They could not get a conviction on the ground of +the title of Forerunner +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page216">[pg 216]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg216"></a> +which the people attributed to him, +for he had justified this attribution by signs. Moreover +he had never openly claimed for himself such a dignity. +Nevertheless the manner of his behaviour was for them +dangerous in the highest degree. At the head of the pious +populace he terrorised them. For this reason they would +gladly have made away with him—and could not.</p> + +<p>One can understand the attitude of the Sanhedrin and +their difficulties if one steadily keeps in mind that, in view +of Jesus’ whole activity, the thought had not occurred to +anybody that he could take himself to be the Messiah. +Thus they knew no charge to bring against him, and had +nothing for it but to try to catch him in his speech and +discredit him with the people—and in this they were not +successful.</p> + +<p>Then Judas appeared before them and put the deadly +weapon into their hand. As they heard what he told them +“they were glad,” for now was he delivered into their +power. Judas now seeks a favourable moment to deliver +the betrayed into their hands (Mk 14<sup>11</sup>).</p> + +<p>What he had betrayed to them we can see from the +process of the trial. The witnesses of the Pharisees can +adduce nothing that would justify his conviction. When, however, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page217">[pg 217]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg217"></a> +the witnesses have withdrawn, the High Priest +puts the question to Jesus directly, whether He is the +Messiah. To prove such a claim on Jesus’ part they could +not adduce the necessary witnesses,—for there were none. +The High Priest is here in possession of Jesus’ secret. +That was the betrayal of Judas! Through him the +Sanhedrin knew that Jesus claimed to be something different +from what the people held him to be, though he raised +no protest against it.</p> + +<p>They got the decisive charge through the betrayed +secret of Cæsarea Philippi. To be Elijah, the prophet of +the last times, was no religious crime. But to claim to be +Messiah, that was blasphemy! The perfidy of the charge +lay in the High Priest’s insinuation that Jesus held +himself then to be the Messiah, just as he stood there before +him. This Jesus repudiated with a proud word about his +coming as Son of Man. Nevertheless he was condemned +for blasphemy.</p> + +<p>We have therefore three revelations of the secret of +messiahship, which so hang together that each subsequent +one implies the foregoing. On the mountain near +Bethsaida was revealed to the Three the secret which was +disclosed to Jesus at his baptism. That was after the harvest. +A few weeks later it was +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page218">[pg 218]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg218"></a> +known to the Twelve, by the fact +that Peter at Cæsarea Philippi answered Jesus’ question +out of the knowledge which he had attained upon the +mountain. One of the Twelve betrayed the secret to the +High Priest. This last revelation of the secret was fatal, +for it brought about the death of Jesus. <i>He was +condemned as Messiah although he had never appeared in +that rôle.</i></p> + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page219">[pg 219]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg219"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_9">CHAPTER IX</h2> + +<h4>THE SECRET OF THE PASSION</h4> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_9_1">1. The Pre-Messianic Affliction.</h3> + +<p class="drop">THE reference to the Passion belonged as a matter of +course to the eschatological prediction. A time of unheard +of affliction must precede the coming of the Kingdom. Out +of these woes the Messiah will be brought to birth. That +was a view prevalent far and wide: in no other wise could +the events of the last times be imagined.</p> + +<p>According to this view Jesus’ words must be +interpreted. It will appear then that in his preaching of the +Kingdom he brought into sharp prominence the thought +of the Affliction of the last times. We always assume that +when he speaks of persecutions which his Disciples shall +encounter he means to predict what they must go through +when they are left alone and orphaned on earth after his +death. That is totally false. After his death Jesus will be +Messiah through the Resurrection, and therewith the +glory of the Kingdom dawns. Not what they must +withstand after his death, but what they are to be in the +Kingdom +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page220">[pg 220]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg220"></a> +is the thought which concerns the Disciples on +the way to Jerusalem.</p> + +<p>When Jesus speaks of suffering and persecution it is a +question of the afflictions which his followers must bear +with him before the dawn of the Kingdom. What is meant +is the last desperate attack of the powers of this world +at enmity with God, which shall sweep like a flood over +those who in expectation of the Kingdom represent the +divine power in the godless world. Hence Jesus constitutes +the focus upon which the Affliction concentrates. He is +the rock upon which the waves dash themselves to pieces. +Whosoever would not be torn away by the flood must +cling stedfastly to him.</p> + +<p>When he says that his mission is not to bring peace +upon earth but a sword, when he speaks of the uprising +which he brings about, in which the most sacred earthly +ties shall be broken, in which one must follow him laden +with the cross and count one’s earthly life for naught +(Mt 10<sup>34-42</sup>), he means by this the great persecution +of the last times. He who hastens the coming of the +Kingdom brings also this Affliction to pass, for it is out of this +travail indeed that the Kingdom and the Messiah are +born.</p> + +<p>Hence the harsh accord heard throughout +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page221">[pg 221]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg221"></a> +the messianic harmonies! Jesus concludes the Beatitudes with the +intimation that his Disciples are blessed if they are hated and +persecuted and all manner of evil is spoken against them +for his sake. Then have they indeed reason to rejoice and +be exceeding glad, for in what they must endure is revealed +their right to membership in the Kingdom of God. While +they are still afflicted by the power of this world their +reward is already prepared in heaven (Mt 5<sup>11, 12</sup>).</p> + +<p>“Preach, saying, the Kingdom of God is at hand,” +was Jesus’ injunction to the Apostles when sending them +out. Therewith, however, he prepared them impressively +for the Affliction of the last times, for the hand of the +world-clock approaches the great hour. They must know +it, in order that they may not think that something strange +has befallen them when they are brought to trial by the +world-power, when uprising and persecution threaten +them and bring their life into danger. They must know +it, in order that they may not doubt and deny him and +be offended in him when he is delivered into the hands +of men, for he himself as the mighty preacher of the +Kingdom has incited this uprising. When, however, the +world-power appears to conquer, then God in his omnipotence +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page222">[pg 222]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg222"></a> +stands above. Not those that kill the body must they +fear, but the almighty Lord who in the Judgment can +destroy both soul and body in hell. In this last uprising +the world-power judges itself: after the Judgment comes +the Kingdom. That is the fundamental thought of the +charge to the Apostles.</p> + +<p>Likewise the embassage to the Baptist concludes with +a similar intimation. The Kingdom is near, he would have +them say to him; my preaching, signs, and wonders +confirm it; and he attains blessedness whosoever is not +offended in me, i. e. whosoever is faithful to me in the +pre-messianic Affliction.</p> + +<p>His warning of the heavy time to come is directed most +impressively, however, to those whom the Apostles’ +preaching has drawn about him in trustful expectation of +the Kingdom. In the gathering dusk of evening he had +celebrated with them the great Supper beside the sea. As +one who knew himself to be the Messiah he had distributed +to them sacred food, and thereby, without their suspecting +it, had consecrated them to be partakers of the messianic +feast. The following morning, however, he called them +about him at Bethsaida and exhorted them to be ready to +sacrifice their life in the Affliction. Whosoever +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page223">[pg 223]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg223"></a> +shall be ashamed of him and of his words in the humiliation which +must overtake him in this adulterous and sinful world, +him will the Son of Man refuse to recognise when he shall +appear in the glory of his Father surrounded by his +angels (Mk 8<sup>35-38</sup>).</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_9_2">2. The Idea of the Passion in the First Period.</h3> + +<p>The Passion therefore belonged to Jesus’ preaching +from the beginning. In the Affliction of the last times his +followers must pass with him through suffering to +glory—so his hearers understood him. Only, they did not know +that he with whom they must suffer would be revealed as +Messiah.</p> + +<p>In Jesus’ messianic consciousness the thought of +suffering acquired now, as applied to himself, a mysterious +significance. The messiahship which he became aware of at +his baptism was not a possession, nor a mere object of +expectation; but in the eschatological conception it was +implied as a matter of course that through the trial of +suffering he must become what God had destined him to +be. His messianic consciousness was never without the +thought of the Passion. Suffering is the way to the +revelation of messiahship!</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page224">[pg 224]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg224"></a></p> + +<p>What he experienced in this age represented the hidden +life and labour of the Messiah. Suffering, however, was +allotted to this rôle. It was Jewish doctrine that the +Messiah must be full of chastisement, for the sufferings are +necessary to the making of the perfectly righteous man (Weber, p. 343).</p> + +<p>This messianic consciousness of Jesus shows the same +deepening of moral tone as does his eschatology. +According to the customary modernising conception, it is assumed +that during the greater part of his ministry Jesus did not +think of the Passion, but was first obliged to entertain that +thought by the malicious enmity of the Scribes. Thus his +messiahship receives in the first period an ethical-idyllic +cast, in the second, a modern hue of resignation. The +historic-eschatological picture is at once livelier, deeper, +and more moral. Jesus’ character did not undergo an +“evolution” through the acceptance of the idea of the +Passion. From the beginning he knew himself as Messiah +only in so far as he was resolved through suffering to be +purified unto perfection. As the one who is destined to +bear rule in the new age he must beforehand be delivered +into the power of ungodliness in order that he may there approve +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page225">[pg 225]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg225"></a> +himself for the divine lordship he is to exercise. +Out of such a messianic consciousness as this he adjures +those about him to remain true so that he can recognise +them as his own when the glory dawns. Thus the active +ethical trait which constituted the depth of the secret of +the Kingdom is a controlling factor also in the secret of +messiahship.</p> + +<p>The historical problem presents itself now in this form: +In the first period Jesus expressed the thought of the +Passion much more frequently than in the second, and he +uttered it openly. Every discourse of some length +concludes with such an intimation. His own Disciples were +familiar with the thought of seeing him humiliated in the +Affliction. In spite of this, however, the disclosure at +Cæsarea Philippi appeared to the Disciples a new thing, +and so it was in fact. For it was no longer a question +simply of the suffering which the great herald of the +Kingdom must undergo in company with his own in the +final Affliction; but now he suffers who is to be the Messiah. +This suffering, moreover, does not any longer occur in the +general Affliction of the last times, but Jesus suffers alone, +and his suffering is now represented as a purely earthly, +historical event! He will +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page226">[pg 226]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg226"></a> +be delivered to the Council and +by it condemned to death! That was the new thing which +remained a secret for the Disciples.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_9_3">3. The “Temptation” and the Divine Omnipotence.</h3> + +<p>A peculiar note of hesitancy appears in the thought of +the Passion. At one time death seems an absolute +necessity; then again—for example, in Gethsemane—Jesus +recognises once more the possibility that the Passion may +still be spared him. But as a matter of fact the idea of +the Passion subsisted without respect to earthly success +or failure. Therefore the hesitancy ought not to be +brought into connection with this. As Jesus journeyed +towards Jerusalem to die he did not in a corner of his +heart indulge the thought that God in his omnipotence +might perhaps be able nevertheless to make his way a +triumphal march and show himself through him victorious +over the Pharisees and the Council. That, according to +his feeling, would have been a “human” way of thinking, +such as he had reproved in Peter (Mk 8<sup>33</sup>). For in the +affairs of God’s Kingdom he cannot oppose to one another +the opposition of the Scribes and the divine omnipotence; +it is a question of a divine drama +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page227">[pg 227]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg227"></a> +in which they were mere +subordinate actors with a prescribed rôle, like the minions +that arrested him at their behest. The hesitancy must +therefore have its ground in the divine will itself.</p> + +<p>It is the specific characteristic of Jesus’ view, that the +divine will has indeed, on the one hand, designedly +preordained the messianic drama in the well known form; +yet, on the other hand again, God remains sovereignly +free with respect to his plan. By a messianic programme +established once and for all the divine omnipotence behind +it is in no wise bound! It knows no determinism at all.</p> + +<p>Jesus expected of this omnipotence that it could still +receive into the estate of blessedness even such as by their +behaviour had forfeited membership in the Kingdom. +According to the accepted standards it is indeed impossible +that the rich can enter into life. But with God all things +are possible (Mk 10<sup>27</sup>).</p> + +<p>It was a maxim that whosoever would reign with the +coming Messiah must suffer with Jesus. But yet he dared +not promise his two intimate Disciples, James and John, +the seats upon the throne, although he expected that they +would share his Passion. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page228">[pg 228]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg228"></a> +He might by this infringe upon +God’s omnipotence (Mk 10<sup>35-40</sup>).</p> + +<p>Thus the Affliction also of the last times had its place +indeed in the divinely ordained course of the messianic +drama. But yet it lay in God’s unrestricted omnipotence +that he might eliminate it and permit the Kingdom to +dawn without this season of trial. Therefore men might +pray God that he would suffer that heavy hour of +probation to pass by. Jesus enjoined this upon his Disciples in +the same prayer in which he taught them to make petition +for the coming Kingdom. He teaches them to implore +God for the final state of blessedness, in which his name +will be hallowed and his will be done on earth as it is in +heaven; but at the same time they are to beg him not to +lead them into the “Temptation,” not to give them into +the power of the Evil, not to oblige them to make +satisfaction for their sins by the endurance of the Affliction +of the last times; but to deliver them by his omnipotence +from the power of the Evil when the ungodly world for +the last time asserts itself at the coming of the Kingdom +for which they pray. That is the inner connection of the +last three petitions of the Lord’s Prayer.</p> + +<p>The Lord’s Prayer thus exhibits in the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page229">[pg 229]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg229"></a> +first three and +the last three petitions a purely eschatological character. +We have the same contrast as in the Beatitudes, the charge +to the Apostles, the embassage to the Baptist, and the +discourse at Bethsaida. First it is a question of the coming +of the Kingdom, then of the Affliction of the last times. +We perceive from the Lord’s Prayer, however, that there +is no absolute necessity for this Affliction, but that it is +only relatively determined in God’s almighty will.</p> + +<p>The Affliction, in fact, represents in its extremest form +the repentance requisite for the Kingdom. Whosoever +comes through that test approved makes satisfaction for +his transgressions in the godless æon. Through conflict and +suffering men wrest themselves free from this power to +become instruments of the divine will in the Kingdom of +God. That is to be conceived collectively. The faithful +adherents of the Kingdom as a community make the +satisfaction. The individual thereby perfects and approves +himself. Such is God’s will. Jesus, however, prays with +them to God that he may be pleased in his omnipotence +to forgive them the debt without satisfaction, as they +forgive their debtors. That means remission pure and simple, +without atonement. May it please +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page230">[pg 230]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg230"></a> +God not to lead them +through the “Temptation,” but straightway to release +them from the power of the world.</p> + +<p>Only so can one understand how Jesus throughout his +ministry can assume forgiveness of sins and yet here +expressly prays for it; and how he can speak of a temptation +which comes from God. It is a question in fact of the +general messianic remission of debts and the Temptation +of the messianic Affliction. Therefore these petitions +constitute the conclusion of the Kingdom-prayer.</p> + +<p>What Jesus here in common prayer petitions for +the community, that he implores for himself when his +hour is come. In Gethsemane he prostrates himself before +God. In moving prayer he appeals to God’s omnipotence: +Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee (Mk 14<sup>36</sup>). +He would that the cup of suffering might pass +his lips without his needing to taste it. Also he rouses +the three Disciples, bidding them to watch and pray God +that he may spare them the Temptation, for the flesh is +weak.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_9_4">4. The Idea of the Passion in the Second Period.</h3> + +<p>With the revelation at Cæsarea Philippi cease all +intimations that the believers must +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page231">[pg 231]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg231"></a> +pass with Jesus through +the Affliction. According to the secret which he imparts +to the Disciples he alone suffers. In Jerusalem he +addressed not one urgent word, either to the people or to +the Disciples, about following him in suffering. Indeed he +actually takes back what he before had said. The +morning after the Supper by the seashore, addressing those +whom he had consecrated unto the messianic banquet, he +makes their blessedness dependent upon following him in +suffering. To the partakers of the Last Supper at +Jerusalem he calmly stated beforehand that they would all be +“offended” in him that night! He coupled this with no +condemnation—for it is so determined in the Scripture! +Is it not written, “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep +shall be scattered”? Therefore, even if they are offended +in him, if even they forsake him, in his glory he will still +gather them again, and as Messiah—for that he is as the +risen one—he will go before them unto Galilee +(Mk 14<sup>26-28</sup>).</p> + +<p>What at an earlier period he had required of all, that +he now does not expect even of him who boasted that he +alone would stand by him. “Before the cock crow twice +thou shalt deny me thrice,” said he to Peter (Mk 14<sup>29, 31</sup>).</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page232">[pg 232]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg232"></a></p> + +<p>This change must be connected with the form which +the idea of the Passion assumed in the second period. +There must have occurred an alteration in the conception +of the Affliction of the last times. The others are freed +from the trial of suffering, Jesus suffers alone;—and in +fact the humiliation consists in the death to which the +scribes consign him. It is by this means that the final +affliction now accomplishes itself. His faithful followers +are spared. <i>He suffers in their stead, for he gives his life +a ransom for many.</i></p> + +<p>Jesus has not disclosed in what way this secret was +made known to him in the days of solitude after the +mission of the Twelve. The form of the secret of the +Passion shows, however, that two experiences had influence +upon him.</p> + +<p>First, the death of the Baptist. The Baptist for him +was Elijah. If he was slain by the hand of man before +the messianic Day, such was God’s will, and so it was foreordained +in the messianic drama. This occurred while the +Disciples were away. His embassage to the Baptist +perhaps never reached him. He must come now to an +understanding of this matter. For this cause he wishes to +withdraw into solitude with his companions.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page233">[pg 233]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg233"></a></p> + +<p>How much he was preoccupied with the thought of the +Baptist’s death is shown by the conversation which +followed the revelation to the Three on the mountain. It was +ordained in the Scripture that Elijah must meet such a +fate at the hands of men. So also it is written of the Son +of Man that he must suffer many things and be set at +naught (Mk 9<sup>12-13</sup>).</p> + +<p>Hitherto he had spoken only in general terms of the +final Affliction as an event of the last times. Now, however, +it has been fulfilled upon the Baptist as an <i>historical event.</i> +That is a sign, which indicates how it will be fulfilled upon +himself.</p> + +<p>This indication came precisely at the time when he was +compelled by the course of events to reflect upon the final +Affliction. After the return of the Twelve he had expected +it as an impending event. But it failed to occur. What is +more, the Kingdom failed therewith to appear! In sending +out the Twelve he had told them that they would be +surprised by the overflowing woes ere they had gone through +all the cities of Israel,—and they had returned without +witnessing the beginning of the woes or the dawn of the +Kingdom.</p> + +<p>The report with which they returned +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page234">[pg 234]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg234"></a> +showed, however, +that all was ready. Already the power of ungodliness was +broken, for else the unclean spirits would not have been +subject to them. The Kingdom was compellingly hastened +by the repentance practised since the days of the Baptist. +In this respect also the measure was full,—that was +proved by the multitudes which thronged about him in +faithful expectation. So all was ready—and still the +Kingdom did not come! The delay of the eschatological +coming of the Kingdom,—that was the great fact which +drove Jesus at that time once and again into solitude to +seek light upon the mystery.</p> + +<p>Before the Kingdom could come the Affliction must +arrive. But it failed to arrive. It must be brought about +in order that the Kingdom may thus be constrained to +come. Repentance and the subjugation of the power of +ungodliness did not avail by themselves; but the violent +stormers of the Kingdom must be reinforced by one +stronger still, the future Messiah, who brings down +upon himself the final Affliction in the form in which +it had already been accomplished upon Elijah. Thus +the secret of the Kingdom merges in the secret of the +Passion.</p> + +<p>The conception of the final Affliction contains +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page235">[pg 235]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg235"></a> +the thought of atonement and purification. All they who are +destined for the Kingdom must win forgiveness for the +guilt contracted in the earthly æon by encountering +stedfastly the world-power as it collects itself for a last attack. +For through this guilt they were still subject to the power +of ungodliness. This guilt constitutes a counter weight +which holds back the coming of the Kingdom.</p> + +<p>But now God does not bring the Affliction to pass. And +yet the atonement must be made. Then it occurred to +Jesus that he as the coming Son of Man must accomplish +the atonement in his own person. He who one day shall +reign over the believers as Messiah now humbles himself +under them and serves them by giving his life a ransom +for many, in order that the Kingdom may dawn upon +them. That is his mission in the estate which precedes his +celestial glory. “For this he is come” (Mk 10<sup>45</sup>). He +must suffer for the sins of those who are ordained for his +Kingdom. In order to carry this out, he journeys up to +Jerusalem, that there he may be put to death by the +secular authority, just as Elijah who went before him +suffered at the hand of Herod. That is the secret of the +Passion. Jesus did actually die for the sins of men, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page236">[pg 236]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg236"></a> +even though it was in another sense than that which Anselm’s +theory assumes.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_9_5">5. Isaiah 40[-66]: The Secret of the Passion Foretold +in the Scripture.</h3> + +<p>“How is it written of the Son of Man? That he must +suffer many things and be set at naught” (Mk 9<sup>12</sup>). +The new form of the secret of the Passion is derived +from the Scripture. In the picture of the suffering servant +of God Jesus recognised himself. There he found his +vocation of suffering depicted in advance.</p> + +<p>In order, however, to understand how his secret came +to him from out the Scripture, the picture of the suffering +servant of God must be set in the great framework in +which it belongs. The modern-historical solution cannot +do this. It confines itself to the notion of a meek +self-surrender. As soon, however, as it is once perceived that +Jesus’ idea of the Passion was eschatological, it is +evident also in what a great context he must view the figure +of the suffering servant of God. Accordingly, Isa. 40-66 +was nothing else but the prophetic representation of the +events of the last time in the midst of which he knew +himself to be.</p> + +<p>The passage commences with the proclamation +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page237">[pg 237]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg237"></a> +that God’s reign is about to begin. The preparer of the way +comes upon the scene. He cries that the earthly passes +away when the Lord, dealing reward and recompense, +appears in his glory. The hour dawns in which he gathers +his flock and brings in the era of peace.</p> + +<p>The Elect is there. He proclaims righteousness in +truth. God has put his spirit upon him (Isai. 42<sup>1</sup> ff.). +He shall establish judgment upon the earth; the cities wait +upon his teaching. But before the glory dawns and the +bearer of the divine spirit rules with power and +righteousness over the peoples he must pass through an estate of +humiliation. Others do not understand why he is put to +shame. They think God has rejected him, and know not +that he bears their infirmities, is pierced for their +transgressions, and smitten for their offences. The oppressed +servant is meek and openeth not his mouth. For the +transgression of the people he is stricken to death. Then, +however, will the Lord glorify him. He hath called him to +this from his mother’s womb. He is ordained to bring +again Jacob and to save Israel. He shall be for a light +to the Gentiles, that God’s salvation may extend unto the +ends of the earth (Isai. 49<sup>1</sup> ff.; Isai. 52<sup>1</sup> ff.; Isai. 53<sup>1</sup> ff.).</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page238">[pg 238]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg238"></a></p> + +<p>Upon the delineation of the suffering of the servant +of God there follows a description of the judgment upon +the whole world and upon Israel (Isa. 54-65). In the +end, however, the glory of God breaks forth. He is +enthroned above the new heaven and the new earth +(Isa. 65 and 66). When the Judgment is accomplished, then the +rejoicing breaks out, for the blessed out of the whole +world, out of every tribe and nation, will gather unto him +and do him reverence.</p> + +<p>One must grasp the dramatic unity in these chapters +in order to enter into sympathy with one who sought here +mysterious intimation about the things of the last time. +Jesus’ idea of the Passion is in the end completely +absorbed in that of the Deutero-Isaiah. Like the servant +of God, he too is destined to reign in glory. But first he +appears, meek and unrecognised, in the rôle of a preacher +who works righteousness. He must pass also through +suffering and humiliation ere God permit the glorious +consummation to dawn. What he endures is an atonement for +the iniquity of others. This is a secret between himself +and God. The others cannot and need not understand it, +for when the glory dawns they will recognise that he has +suffered for them. Wherefore Jesus did not need to explain +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page239">[pg 239]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg239"></a> +his Passion to the people and to the Disciples, and +ought not to do so. It must remain a secret,—so it is +written in the Scripture. Even to those to whom he +foretold what was coming he uttered it as a secret. At his +appearing as Son of Man the scales must fall from their +eyes. In the glory of the Kingdom they then shall +recognise that he has suffered in order that they may be spared +and have peace. The secret is intelligible only +retrospectively, from the point of view of the glory that shall be +revealed.</p> + +<p>Therefore it makes no difference if his own followers +turn away from him in his humiliation and men are +offended in him as though he were chastised of God. The +Scripture does not reckon it against them as sacrilege, +but has so ordained it. The moment therefore the secret +of the Passion is made clear to him by the Scripture he +no more says, Whosoever is ashamed of me in my +humiliation, the same is condemned; but, Ye shall all be offended +in me,—knowing at the same time that they all shall be +gathered about him at the Resurrection.</p> + +<p>Under the influence, therefore, of the Deutero-Isaiah +the idea of the general Affliction of the last times was +transformed into the personal secret of Jesus’ Passion.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page240">[pg 240]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg240"></a></p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_9_6">6. The “Human” Element in the Secret of the Passion.</h3> + +<p>The innermost nature of the idea of suffering +underwent no change in consequence of the secret of the +Passion of the second epoch. For Jesus, suffering, even in this +form, remained pre-eminently the moral condition of the +dignity ordained to him.</p> + +<p>Now, however, the Affliction exhibits the concrete +traits of a determinate event. Jesus brings it down from +the vague heights of apocalyptic drama to the level of +human history. Therein lies something prophetic of the +future of Christianity. After Jesus’ death the whole +messianic drama of the last times is dissolved in human +history. This development began with the secret of the +Passion.</p> + +<p>Thus it is, too, that the secret of the Passion, as +compared with the idea of suffering of the first period, exhibits +more human traits. There is a quality of compassionate +consideration for others in the thought that he makes +satisfaction in the Passion for the adherents of the +Kingdom, in order that they may be exempted from the trial +in which perchance they might prove weak. The petition, +“Lead us not into the Temptation, but +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page241">[pg 241]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg241"></a> +deliver us from +the Evil,” is now fulfilled in his Passion.</p> + +<p>This deeply human trait is especially evident in +Gethsemane. Only over the three intimate Disciples still hovers +the possibility that they may be obliged to pass with him +through suffering and temptation. The sons of Zebedee, +to secure their claim that they sit with him upon the throne, +boasted that they could drink with him his cup and undergo +with him the baptism of suffering—and this prospect he +held out to them (Mk 10<sup>38-40</sup>). Peter, however, swore +that he would not deny him; even if all others should +forsake him, he desired to die with him (Mk 14<sup>31</sup>). +These three Jesus had taken with him to the place where +he prayed. While he implored God that the cup might +pass him by, there overcame him a sorrowful anxiety for +the Three. If God does now actually send them with him +through the Passion, will they hold out as they are bold +to believe? Wherefore he is mindful of them in that sad +hour. Twice he arouses himself and wakes them out of +sleep, bidding them watch and pray to God that he lead +them not into the Temptation, even if he will not spare +him this cup; for the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. +That is perhaps +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page242">[pg 242]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg242"></a> +the most touching moment in Jesus’ life. +Some have dared to call Gethsemane Jesus’ weak hour; +but in reality it is precisely the hour in which his +supernatural greatness is revealed in his deeply human +compassion.</p> + +<h3 id="mbp_toc_9_7">7. The Idea of the Passion in the Primitive Church. +The Shifting of the Perspective.</h3> + +<p>Jesus carried with him to the grave the secret of the +Passion which was to be revealed to the inheritors of the +Kingdom at its coming. But the Kingdom did not come. +Thus it is to be explained that though he indeed had given +intimation of his Passion to the Disciples, yet they, when +the event came to pass, knew no interpretation of it. +Nevertheless, in some way they had to explain it, by the +help of such intimations as they could recall. This accounts +for the fact that the theory of the early Church +regarding the Passion of Jesus was far poorer than his Secret. +The explanation of the Church focussed principally upon +one fact: In consequence of the Passion and the +Resurrection from the dead he is the Messiah. In this sense the +Passion and the Exaltation are foreordained in the +Scripture.</p> + +<p>While Jesus’ secret brought his death and the dawning +of the Kingdom into the closest +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page243">[pg 243]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg243"></a> +temporal and causal +connection, for the primitive Church, on the other hand, a +past event, as such, constituted the object to be explained, +since the Kingdom had not arrived and the original causal +connection was dissolved along with the temporal.</p> + +<p>Now with reference to his death Jesus had spoken +also of atonement and forgiveness of sins. But the +thoughts which he associated therewith the events had +rendered entirely impossible. The indefinite “many,” who +were to apply the ransom to themselves in the knowledge +that he had suffered for them, simply did not exist; for +the Kingdom had not yet appeared. Only from that point +of vantage, however, could one apprehend that he had +performed the Atonement of Affliction for the inheritors +of the Kingdom.</p> + +<p>In the meantime the situation was entirely different: +“the believers” had taken the place of the “many.” Those +who believe in the messiahship of Jesus have the +forgiveness of sins,—this sentence, as the sermon at Pentecost +shows, was a constituent of the earlier Apostolic +preaching (Acts 2<sup>38</sup>). But to what extent one had thereby +forgiveness of sins,—in that consisted the problem. This, +however, was historically insoluble, for according to +Jesus’ secret of the Passion +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page244">[pg 244]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg244"></a> +the forgiveness of sins applied +not to those who believe in Jesus-Christ, but to the +inheritors of the Kingdom. Therefore, however profound +they may be, and however true to the religious +consciousness of their time, none of the attempts to explain the +significance of the Passion, from Paul to Ritschl, +apprehend the thought of Jesus, because they proceed upon an +entirely different assumption.</p> + +<p>As all of these theories sought nevertheless to +legitimate themselves historically, we witness the astonishing +spectacle, that the most diverse interpretations of his +Passion are put into the mouth of Jesus,—of which, +however, not one can even remotely explain how out of such +a conception the primitive Apostolic estimate of the Death +could have been derived. The same is true of the +modern-historical solution. If Jesus taught the Disciples to +understand the ethical significance of his death, why did the +primitive Christian explanation of the Passion confine +itself to the notion of conformity with Scripture and the +“forgiveness of sins”?</p> + +<p>To this question the modern-historical solution +furnishes no answer. The eschatologico-historical, on the +other hand, is able to take account perspectively of the +necessary distortion which Jesus’ idea of the Passion +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page245">[pg 245]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg245"></a> +underwent in the primitive Church. It indicates which +elements alone of the Passion secret could still subsist +after his death. Because it grasps the connection between +the early Christian interpretation and the thought of +Jesus the eschatologico-historical solution is the right one.</p> + +<p>The abolition of the causal connection between the +death of Jesus and the realisation of the Kingdom was +fatal to the early Christian eschatology. With the secret +of the Passion, the secret of the Kingdom likewise +perished. This, however, meant nothing less than that +eschatology lost precisely that specific “Christian” character +which Jesus had imparted to it. The active ethical element +which served to moralise it dropped out. Thus the +eschatology of the early Church was “dechristianised” by Jesus’ +death. Therewith it sank back again to the level of +contemporary Jewish thought. The Kingdom is again an +object of expectation merely. That moral conversion is +effective actively to hasten its coming,—this secret was +buried with Jesus. Now men repented and strove after +moral renewal <i>as in the days of the Baptist.</i></p> + +<p>This dechristianising was manifest especially in the +matter of the final Affliction. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page246">[pg 246]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg246"></a> +According to the Passion +idea of the first period, the believers must suffer along +with the Messiah; according to that of the second, he +was resolved to endure the Affliction for them. In the +early Church the believers expected the Affliction <i>before</i> +the appearing of the Messiah, as was the case in the +contemporary Jewish conception; for the Passion secret of +Jesus was not known to them. Therefore the Jewish +apocalypses belonged to them just as much as to the other +Jews, only with the difference that the crucified Jesus was +to be the coming Messiah. Early Christian eschatology +was therefore still “Christian” only through the <i>person</i> +of Jesus, no longer through his <i>spirit,</i> as was the case +in the secret of the Kingdom of God and in the secret of +the Passion.</p> + +<p>This furnishes a criterion for judging “the Synoptic +apocalypse” (Mark 13). Even though it may contain single +eschatological sayings attributable to Jesus, the discourse +as such is necessarily unhistorical. It betrays the +perspective of the time after Jesus’ death. During the days at +Jerusalem Jesus could speak of no general Affliction before +the coming of the Son of Man. The Synoptic apocalypse +stands in direct contradiction to the secret of the Passion, +since this indeed simply +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page247">[pg 247]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg247"></a> +abolishes the general Affliction of +the last times. Therefore it is unhistorical. Apocalyptic +discourses with intimation of the final Affliction belong to +the Galilean period at the time of the mission of the +Twelve. The discourse to the Apostles on that occasion +is the historical Synoptic apocalypse. About a time of +affliction after his death Jesus never uttered a word to his +Disciples, for it lay beyond his field of vision.</p> + +<p>Therefore with the death of Jesus, and precisely by +reason of it, eschatology—notwithstanding that the +primitive Christian community still completely lived in it—was +virtually done away with. It was destined to be forced out +of the Christian “Weltanschauung,” for it was +“dechristianised” by the fact that in parting with the secret of +the Kingdom of God and the idea of the Passion it had +forfeited also the inner ethical life which was breathed +into it by Jesus. A tree in full bloom stricken at the +root,—such was the fate of eschatology, to wilt and wither, +although no one at first suspected it was doomed. In the +fact that subsequent history compulsorily created in the +Church an uneschatological view of the world, it only +accomplished what in the nature of things was already +determined by Jesus’ death.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page248">[pg 248]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg248"></a></p> + +<p>The death of Jesus the end of eschatology! The +Messiah who upon earth was not such—the end of the +messianic expectation! The view of the world in which Jesus +lived and preached was eschatological: the “Christian +view of the world” which he founded by his death carries +mankind forever beyond eschatology! That is the great +secret of the Christian “scheme of salvation.”</p> + +<p>For Jesus and his Disciples his death was, according +to the eschatological view, merely a <i>transitional</i> event. +As soon, however, as the event occurred it became the +<i>central fact</i> upon which the new, uneschatological view +was built up. In primitive Christianity the old and new +were still side by side.</p> + +<p>The adherents of Jesus believed in the coming of the +Kingdom because his imposing personality accredited the +message. The Church after his death believed in his +messiahship and expected the coming of the Kingdom. We +believe that in his ethical-religious personality, as revealed +in his ministry and suffering, the Messiah and the +Kingdom are come.</p> + +<p>The situation may be likened to the course of the sun. +Its brightness breaks forth while it is still behind the +mountains. The dark clouds take colour from its rays, and +the conflict +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page249">[pg 249]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg249"></a> +of light and darkness produces a play of +fantastic imagery. The sun itself is not yet visible: it is there +only in the sense that the light issues from it. As the sun +behind the morning glow,—so appeared the personality +of Jesus of Nazareth to his contemporaries in the +pre-messianic age.</p> + +<p>At the moment when the heaven glows with intensest +colouring the sun itself rises above the horizon. But with +this the wealth of colour begins gradually to diminish. The +fantastic images pale and vanish because the sun itself +dissolves the clouds upon which they are formed. As the +rising sun above the horizon,—so appeared Jesus Christ +to the primitive Church in its eschatological expectation.</p> + +<p>As the sun at midday,—so he appears to us. We know +nothing of morning and evening glow; we see only the +white brilliance which pervades all. But the fact that the +sun now shines for us in such a light does not justify us +in conceiving the sunrise also as if it were a brilliant disk +of midday brightness emerging above the horizon. Our +modern view of Jesus’ death is true, true in its inmost +nature, because it reflects his ethical-religious personality +in the thoughts of our time. But when we import this into +the history +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page250">[pg 250]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg250"></a> +of Jesus and of primitive Christianity we +commit the same blunder as were we to paint the sunrise +without the morning glow.</p> + +<p>In genuine historical knowledge there is liberating and +helping power. Our faith is built upon the personality of +Jesus. But between our world-view and that in which he +lived and laboured there lies a deep and seemingly +unbridgeable gulf. Men therefore saw themselves obliged +to detach as it were his personality from his world-view +and touch it up with modern colours.</p> + +<p>This produced a picture of Jesus which was strangely +lifeless and vague. One got a hybrid figure, half modern, +half antique. With much else that is modern, men +transferred to him our modern psychology, without always +recognising clearly that it is not applicable to him and +necessarily belittles him. For it is derived from mediocre +minds which are a patchwork of opinions and apprehend +and observe themselves only in a constant flux of +development. Jesus, however, is a superhuman personality +moulded in one piece.</p> + +<p>Thus modern theology does violence to history and +psychology, inasmuch as it cannot prove what right we +have to segregate Jesus from his age, to translate his +personality into the terms of our modern thought, and to conceive +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page251">[pg 251]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg251"></a> +of him as “Messiah” and “Son of God” outside +of the Jewish framework.</p> + +<p>Genuine historical knowledge, however, restores to +theology full freedom of movement! It presents to it the +personality of Jesus in an eschatological world-view, yet +one which is modern through and through because <i>His</i> +mighty spirit pervades it.</p> + +<p>This Jesus is far greater than the one conceived in +modern terms: he is really a superhuman personality. +With his death he destroyed the form of his +“Weltanschauung,” rendering his own eschatology impossible. +Thereby he gives to all peoples and to all times the right +to apprehend him in terms of their thoughts and +conceptions, in order that his spirit may pervade their +“Weltanschauung” as it quickened and transfigured the Jewish +eschatology.</p> + +<p>Therefore may modern theology, just by reason of a +genuine historical knowledge, claim freedom of +movement, without being hampered continually by petty +historical expedients which nowadays are often resorted to +at the expense of historical veracity. Theology is not +bound to graze in a paddock. It is free, for its task is to +found our Christian view of the world solely upon the +personality of Jesus Christ, irrespective of the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page252">[pg 252]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg252"></a> +form in which it expressed itself in his time. He himself has +destroyed this form with his death. History prompts +theology to this unhistorical step.</p> + +<p>As Jesus gave up the ghost, the Roman centurion said, +“Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mk 15<sup>39</sup>). Thus +at the moment of his death the lofty dignity of Jesus was +set free for expression in all tongues, among all nations, +and for all philosophies.</p> + +<p class="chapter"></p> +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page253">[pg 253]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg253"></a> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_10">CHAPTER X</h2> + +<h4>SUMMARY OF THE LIFE OF JESUS</h4> + +<p class="drop">THE “Life of Jesus” is limited to the last months of +his existence on earth. At the season of the summer +seed-sowing he began his ministry and ended it upon the cross +at Easter of the following year.</p> + +<p>His public ministry may be counted in weeks. The +first period extends from seed time to harvest; the second +comprises the days of his appearance in Jerusalem. +Autumn and winter he spent in heathen territory alone with +his Disciples.</p> + +<p>Before him the Baptist had appeared and had borne +emphatic witness to the nearness of the Kingdom and the +coming of the mighty pre-messianic Forerunner, with +whose appearance the pouring out of the Holy Ghost +should take place. According to Joel, this among other +miracles was the sign that the Day of Judgment was +imminent. John himself never imagined that he was this +Forerunner; nor did such a thought occur to the people, +for he had not ushered in the age of miracles. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page254">[pg 254]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg254"></a> +He is a prophet,—that was the universal opinion.</p> + +<p>About Jesus’ earlier development we know nothing. +All lies in the dark. Only this is sure: at his baptism the +secret of his existence was disclosed to him,—namely, that +he was the one whom God had destined to be the Messiah. +With this revelation he was complete, and underwent no +further development. For now he is assured that, until the +near coming of the messianic age which was to reveal his +glorious dignity, he has to labour for the Kingdom as the +unrecognised and hidden Messiah, and must approve and +purify himself together with his friends in the final +Affliction.</p> + +<p>The idea of suffering was thus included in his messianic +consciousness, just as the notion of the pre-messianic +Affliction was indissolubly connected with the expectation +of the Kingdom. Earthly events could not influence Jesus’ +course. His secret raised him above the world, even though +he still walked as a man among men.</p> + +<p>His appearing and his proclamation have to do only +with the near approach of the Kingdom. His preaching +is that of John, only that he confirms it by signs. Although +his secret controls all his preaching, yet no +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page255">[pg 255]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg255"></a> +one may know of it, for he must remain unrecognised till the new æon +dawns.</p> + +<p>Like his secret, so also is his whole ethical outlook +ruled by the contrast of “Now and Then.” It is a +question of repentance unto the Kingdom, and the conquest +of the righteousness which renders one fit for it,—for +only the righteous inherit the Kingdom. This +righteousness is higher than that of the Law, for he knows that +the law and the Prophets prophesied until John,—with +the Baptist, however, one finds oneself in the ages of the +Forerunner, immediately before the dawn of the Kingdom.</p> + +<p>Therefore, as the future Messiah, he must preach and +work that higher morality. The poor in spirit, the meek, +those that endure suffering, those that hunger and thirst +after righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the +peacemakers,—these all are blessed because by this mark +they are destined for the Kingdom.</p> + +<p>Behind this ethical preaching looms the secret of the +Kingdom of God. That which, as performed by the +individual, constitutes moral renewal in preparation for the +Kingdom, signifies, as accomplished by the community, a +fact through which the realisation of the Kingdom in a +supernatural way will +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page256">[pg 256]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg256"></a> +be hastened. Thus individual and +social ethics blend in the great secret. As the plentiful +harvest, by God’s wonderful working, follows +mysteriously upon the sowing, so comes also the Kingdom of God, +by reason of man’s moral renewal, but substantially +without his assistance.</p> + +<p>The parable contains also the suggestion of a +chronological coincidence. Jesus spoke at the season of +seed-sowing and expected the Kingdom at the time of the +harvest. Nature was God’s clock. With the last +seed-sowing he had set it for the last time.</p> + +<p>The secret of the Kingdom of God is the +transfiguration in celestial light of the ethics of the early prophets, +according to which also the final state of glory will be +brought about by God only on condition of the moral +conversion of Israel. In sovereign style Jesus effects the +synthesis of the apocalyptic of Daniel and the ethics of the +Prophets. With him it is not a question of eschatological +ethics, rather is his world view an ethical eschatology. As +such it is modern.</p> + +<p>The signs and wonders also come under a double point +of view. For the people they are merely to confirm the +preaching of the nearness of the Kingdom. Whosoever +now does not believe that the time is so far advanced, +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page257">[pg 257]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg257"></a> +he has no excuse. The signs and wonders condemn him, for +they plainly attest that the power of ungodliness is coming +to an end.</p> + +<p>For Jesus, however, there lay behind this affirmation +the secret of the Kingdom of God. When the Pharisees +wished to ascribe these very signs to the power of Satan, +he alluded to the secret by a parable. By his acts he binds +the power of ungodliness, as one falls upon a strong man +and renders him harmless before attempting to rob him +of his possessions. Wherefore, in sending out his Apostles, +he gives them, together with the charge to preach, +authority over unclean spirits. They are to deal the last +blow.</p> + +<p>A third element in the preaching of the Kingdom was +the intimation of the pre-messianic Affliction. The believers +must be prepared to pass with him through that time of +trial, in which they are to prove themselves the elect of +the Kingdom by stedfast resistance to the last attack of +the power of the world. This attack will concentrate about +his person; therefore they must stand by him even unto +death. Only life in God’s Kingdom is real life. The Son +of Man will judge them according as they have stood by +him, Jesus, or no. Thus Jesus at the conclusion of the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page258">[pg 258]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg258"></a> +Beatitudes turns to his own Disciples with the words +“Blessed are ye when men persecute you for my sake.” +The charge to the Apostles turns into a consideration of +the Affliction. The embassage to the Baptist about the +imminence of the Kingdom concludes with the word +“Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me.” +At Bethsaida, the morning after he had celebrated the +Supper by the seashore, he adjured the multitude to stand +by him, even when he shall become an object of shame +and scorn in this sinful world,—their blessedness depends +upon this.</p> + +<p>This Affliction meant not only a probation but also an +atonement. It is foreordained in the messianic drama, +because God requires of the adherents of the Kingdom a +satisfaction for their transgressions in this æon. But he +is almighty. In this omnipotence he determines the +question of membership in the Kingdom and the place each +shall occupy therein, without himself being bound by any +determining cause whatsoever. So also in view of his +omnipotence the necessity of the final Affliction is only relative. +He can abrogate it. The last three petitions of the Lord’s +Prayer contemplate this possibility. After beseeching God +that he would send the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page259">[pg 259]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg259"></a> +Kingdom, that his name might be +blessed and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven, +men beg him to forgive them the transgressions and spare +them the Temptation, rescuing them directly from the +power of evil.</p> + +<p>This was the content of Jesus’ preaching during the +first period. He remained throughout this time on the +northern shore of the lake. Chorazin, Bethsaida, and +Capernaum were the principal centres of his activity. +From thence he made an excursion across the lake to the +region of the Ten Cities and a journey to Nazareth.</p> + +<p>Precisely in the towns which were the scenes of his +chief activity he encountered unbelief. The curse which +he must utter over them is proof of it. The Pharisees, +moreover, were hostile and sought to discredit him with +the people, on account of his very miracles. In Nazareth +he had experience of the fact that a prophet is without +honour in his own country.</p> + +<p>Thus the Galilean period was anything but a fortunate +one. Such outward ill[ ]success, however, signified nothing +for the coming of the Kingdom. The unbelieving cities +merely brought down judgment upon themselves. Jesus +had other mysterious indications for measuring the +approach of the Kingdom. By +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page260">[pg 260]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg260"></a> +these he recognised that the +time was come. For this reason he sent forth the Apostles +just as they were returning from Nazareth, <i>for it was +harvest time.</i></p> + +<p>By means of their preaching and their signs the +reputation of his mighty personality spread far and wide. Now +begins the time of success! John in prison hears of it and +sends his disciples to ask him if he is “he that should +come,” for from his miracles he concluded that the time +of the mighty Forerunner whom he had heralded had +arrived.</p> + +<p>Jesus performed signs, his Disciples had power over +the spirits. When he spoke of the Judgment he laid stress +upon the fact that the Son of Man stood in such solidarity +with him that he would recognise only such as had stood +by him, Jesus. The people therefore opined that he might +be the one for whom all were looking, and the Baptist +desired to have assurance on this point.</p> + +<p>Jesus cannot tell him who he is. “The time is far +advanced”—that is the gist of his reply. After the departure +of the messengers Jesus turned to the people and signified +in mysterious terms that the time is indeed much further +advanced than the Baptist dreamed in asking such a +question. The era of the Forerunner had already begun +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page261">[pg 261]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg261"></a> +with the appearance of the Baptist himself. From that time +on the Kingdom of God is with violence compelled to draw +near. He himself who asks the question is Elijah—if they +could comprehend it. Men were not able to perceive that +the man in prison was Elijah. When he began his +preaching, they knew not the time. That was due not alone to +the fact that John performed no miracles, but to the +hardening of their hearts. They are unreasonable children +that do not know what they want. Now there is one here +who performs signs,—but even on his testimony they do +not believe the nearness of the Kingdom. So the curse +upon Chorazin and Bethsaida concludes the “eulogy upon +the Baptist.”</p> + +<p>The sending of the Twelve was the last effort for +bringing about the Kingdom. As they then returned, +announced to him their success, and reported that they had +power over the evil spirits, it signified to him, <i>all is ready.</i> +So now he expects the dawn of the Kingdom in the most +immediate future,—it had seemed to him, indeed, already +doubtful whether the Twelve would return before this +event. He had even said to them that the appearing of +the Son of Man would overtake them before they had +gone through the cities of Israel.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page262">[pg 262]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg262"></a></p> + +<p>His work is done. Now he requires to collect himself +and to be alone with his Disciples. They enter a boat and +sail along the coast towards the north. But the multitude +which had gathered about him at the preaching of the +Disciples, in order to await the Kingdom with him, now +follow after them along the shore and surprise them at +their landing upon a lonely beach.</p> + +<p>As it was evening the Disciples desired that he would +send the people away to find food in the neighbouring +hamlets. For him, however, the hour is too solemn to be +profaned by an earthly meal. Before sending them away +he bids them sit down and celebrates with them an +anticipation of the messianic feast. To the community that was +gathered about him to await the Kingdom, he, the +Messiah to be, distributes hallowed food, mysteriously +consecrating them thereby to be partakers of the heavenly +banquet. As they did not know his secret, they understood +as little as did his Disciples the significance of his act. They +comprehended only that it meant something wonderfully +solemn, and they questioned within themselves about it.</p> + +<p>Thereupon he sent them away. He ordered the +Disciples to skirt the coast to Bethsaida. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page263">[pg 263]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg263"></a> +For his part he betook +himself to the mountain to pray and then followed along +the shore on foot. As his figure appeared to them in the +obscurity of the night they believed—under the impression +of the Supper where he stood before them in mysterious +majesty—that his supernatural apparition approached +them over the turbulent waves through which they were +toiling to the shore.</p> + +<p>The morning after the Supper by the seashore he +collected the people and the Disciples about him at Bethsaida +and warned them to stand by him and not to deny him +in the humiliation.</p> + +<p>Six days later he goes with the Three to the mountain +where he had prayed alone. There he is revealed to them +as the Messiah. On the way home he forbade them to +say anything about it until at the Resurrection he should +be revealed in the glory of the Son of Man. They, +however, still remark the failure of Elijah to appear, who +yet must come before the Resurrection of the dead can +take place. They were not present at the eulogy over the +Baptist to hear the mysterious intimation he let fall. He +must therefore make it clear to them now that the +beheaded prisoner was Elijah. They should take no offence +at his fate, for it was so ordained. He also who +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page264">[pg 264]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg264"></a> +is to be Son of Man must suffer many things and be set at naught. +So the Scripture will have it.</p> + +<p>The Kingdom which Jesus expected so very soon failed +to make its appearance. This first eschatological delay and +postponement was momentous for the fate of the Gospel +tradition, inasmuch as now all the events related to the +mission of the Twelve became unintelligible, because all +consciousness was lost of the fact that the most intense +eschatological expectation then inspired Jesus and his +following. Hence it is that precisely this period is confused +and obscure in the accounts, and all the more so because +several incidents remained enigmatical to those even who +had a part in the experience. Thus the sacramental Supper +by the seashore became in the tradition a “miraculous +feeding,” in a sense totally different from that which +Jesus had in mind.</p> + +<p>Therewith, too, the motives of Jesus’ disappearance +became unintelligible. It seems to be a case of flight, while +on the other hand the accounts give no hint how matters +had come to such a pass. The key to the historical +understanding of the life of Jesus lies in the perception of the +two corresponding points at which the eschatological +expectation +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page265">[pg 265]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg265"></a> +culminated. During the days at Jerusalem there +was a return of the enthusiasm which had already showed +itself in the days at Bethsaida. Without this assumption +we are left with a yawning gap in the Gospel tradition +between the mission of the Twelve and the journey to +Jerusalem. Historians find themselves compelled to <i>invent</i> +a period of Galilean defeat in order to establish some +connection between the recorded facts,—as if a section +were missing in our Gospels. <i>That is the weak point of +all the “lives of Jesus.”</i></p> + +<p>By his retreat into the region of the Genesareth Jesus +withdrew himself from the Pharisees and the people in +order to be alone with his Disciples, as he had in vain +tried to do since their return from their mission. He +urgently needed such a retreat, for he had to come to +an understanding about two messianic facts.</p> + +<p>Why is the Baptist executed by the secular authority +before the messianic time has dawned?</p> + +<p>Why does the Kingdom fail to appear notwithstanding +that the tokens of its dawning are present?</p> + +<p>The secret is made known to him through the +Scripture: God brings the Kingdom +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page266">[pg 266]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg266"></a> +about <i>without the general +Affliction.</i> He whom God has destined to reign in glory +accomplishes it upon himself by being tried as a malefactor +and condemned. Wherefore the others go free: he makes +the atonement for them. What though they believe that +God punishes him, though they become offended in him +who preached unto them righteousness,—when after his +Passion the glory dawns, then shall they see that he has +suffered for them.</p> + +<p>Thus Jesus read in the Prophet Isaiah what God had +determined for him, the Elect. The end of the Baptist +showed him in what form he was destined to suffer this +condemnation: he must be put to death by the secular +authority as a malefactor in the sight of all the people. +Therefore he must make his way up to Jerusalem for the +season when all Israel is gathered there.</p> + +<p>As soon therefore as the time came for the Passover +pilgrimage he set out with his Disciples. Before they left +the north country he asked them whom the people took +him to be. For reply they could only say that he was taken +for Elijah. But Peter, mindful of the revelation on the +mountain near Bethsaida, said: Thou art the Son of God. +Whereupon Jesus informed them of his secret. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page267">[pg 267]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg267"></a> +Yes, he it is who shall be revealed as Son of Man at the +Resurrection. But before that, it is decreed that he must be +delivered to the high priests and elders to be condemned and +put to death. God so wills it. For this cause they are +going up to Jerusalem.</p> + +<p>Peter resents this new disclosure, for in the revelation +on the mountain there was nothing said to such an effect. +He takes Jesus apart and appeals to him energetically. +Whereupon he is sharply rebuked as one who gives ear +to human considerations when God speaks.</p> + +<p>This journey to Jerusalem was the funeral march to +victory. Within the secret of the Passion lay concealed +the secret of the Kingdom. They marched after him, and +knew only that when all this was accomplished he would +be Messiah. They were sorrowful for what must come +to pass; they did not understand why it must be so, and +they durst not ask him. But above all, their thoughts were +occupied about the conditions that awaited them in the +approaching Kingdom. When once he was Messiah, what +would they then be? That occupied their minds, and about +it they talked with one another. But he reproved them +and explained why he must +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page268">[pg 268]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg268"></a> +suffer. Only through +humiliation and the meek sacrifice of service is one prepared to +reign in the Kingdom of God. Therefore must he, who +shall exercise supreme authority as Son of Man, make +now an atonement for many by giving up his life in meek +sacrifice.</p> + +<p>With the arrival upon the Jewish territory begins the +second period of Jesus’ public ministry. He is again +surrounded by the people. In Jericho a multitude gathers to +see him pass through. By the healing of a blind beggar, +the son of Timæus, the people are convinced that he is +the great Forerunner, just as they thought already in +Galilee. The jubilant multitudes prepare for him a festal +entry into Jerusalem. As the one who according to +prophecy precedes the Messiah they acclaim him with <i>Hosanna. +Hosanna in the highest,</i> however, is their acclaim of the +Kingdom about to appear. Therewith the same situation +is reached again as in the great days near Bethsaida: +Jesus is thronged by the multitudes expectant of the +Kingdom.</p> + +<p>The instruction contained in the parables which were +uttered at Jerusalem has to do with the nearness of the +Kingdom. They are cries of warning, with a note of +menace as well for those that harden their hearts +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page269">[pg 269]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg269"></a> +against the message. What agitates men’s minds is not the +question, Is he the Messiah, or no? but, Is the Kingdom so +near as he says, or no?</p> + +<p>The Pharisees and Scribes knew not what hour had +struck. They showed a complete lack of sensibility for the +nearness of the Kingdom, for else they could not have +propounded to him questions which in view of the +advanced hour had lost all significance. What difference does +it make now about the Roman tribute? What do the +farfetched Sadduceean arguments amount to against the +possibility of the resurrection of the dead? Soon, with +the advent of the Kingdom, all earthly rule is done away, +as well as the earthly human nature itself.</p> + +<p>If only they understood the signs of the times! He +proposes to them two questions, which should cause them +to ponder and hence take note that the time they live +in is pregnant with a great secret which is not dreamed +of in the learning of the Scribes.</p> + +<p><i>By what authority did the Baptist act?</i> If they but +knew that he was the Forerunner, as Jesus had +mysteriously suggested to the people, then they must know too +that the hour of the Kingdom had struck.</p> + +<p><i>How is the Messiah at one time David’s +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page270">[pg 270]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg270"></a> +Son—that is, subordinate to him; at another, David’s Lord—that is, +his superior?</i> If they could explain that, then would they +understand also how he who now labours lowly and +unknown in behalf of God’s Kingdom shall be revealed as +Lord and Christ.</p> + +<p>But as it is they do not even suspect that the messianic +indications harbour <i>secrets.</i> With all their learning they +are blind leaders of the blind, who, instead of making +the people receptive for the Kingdom, harden their hearts, +and instead of drawing out from the Law the higher +morality which renders men meet for the Kingdom, labour +against it with their petty outward precepts and draw +the people after them to perdition. Hence: Woe to the +Pharisees and scribes!</p> + +<p>True, even among them are such as have kept an open +eye. The scribe who put to him the question about the +great commandment and welcomed his reply is commended +as “having understanding” and therefore “not far from +the Kingdom of God,”—for he shall belong to it when +it appears.</p> + +<p>But the mass of the Pharisees and scribes understand +him so little that they decree his death. They had no +effective charge to bring against his behaviour. A disrespectful +word about the Temple—that was all. +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page271">[pg 271]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg271"></a> +<i>Then Judas betrayed to them the secret.</i> Now he was condemned.</p> + +<p>In the neighbourhood of death Jesus draws himself up +to the same triumphant stature as in the days by the +seaside,—for with death comes the Kingdom. On that +occasion he had celebrated with the believers a mystic feast +as an anticipation of the messianic banquet; so now he +rises at the end of the last earthly supper and distributes +to the Disciples hallowed food and drink, intimating to +them with a solemn voice that this is the last earthly meal, +for they are soon to be united at the banquet in the +Father’s Kingdom. Two corresponding parables suggest the +secret of the Passion. For him, the bread and wine which +he hands them at the Supper are his body and his blood, +for by the sacrifice of himself unto death he ushers in the +messianic feast. The parabolic saying remained obscure +to the Disciples. It was also not intended for them, its +purpose was not to explain anything to them,—<i>for it was +an enigma-parable.</i></p> + +<p>Now, as the great hour approaches, he seeks again, as +after the Supper by the seashore, a lonely spot where he +may pray. He bears the Affliction for others. Therefore +he can say to the Disciples beforehand that in the +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page272">[pg 272]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg272"></a> +night they shall all be offended in him—and he does not need +to condemn them, for the Scripture had so determined it. +What endless peace lies in this word! Indeed, he +comforts <i>them:</i> after the Resurrection he will gather them +about him and go before them in messianic glory unto +Galilee, retracing the same road along which they had +followed him on his way to death.</p> + +<p>It still remained, however, within the scope of God’s +omnipotence to eliminate the Affliction for him also. +Wherefore, as once he prayed with the believers, “And +lead us not into the Temptation,” so now he prays for +himself, that God may permit the cup of suffering to pass +his lips by. True, if it be God’s will, he feels himself +strong enough to drink it. He is sorrowful rather for the +Three. The sons of Zebedee, to gain the seats upon the +throne, have boasted that they can drink with him the +cup of suffering and receive with him the baptism of +suffering. Peter swore that he would stand by him even +if he must die with him. He knows not what God has +ordained for them,—whether he will lay upon them what +they desire to undertake. Therefore he bids them remain +near him. And while he prays God for himself he thinks +of them and twice wakes them up, bidding +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page273">[pg 273]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg273"></a> +them remain awake and beseech God that he may not lead them through +the Temptation.</p> + +<p>The third time he comes to them the betrayer with +his band is near. The hour is come,—therefore he draws +himself up to the full stature of his majesty. He is alone, +his Disciples flee.</p> + +<p>The hearing of witnesses is merely a pretence. After +they have gone the High Priest puts directly the question +about the messiahship. “I am,” said Jesus, referring them +at the same time to the hour when he shall appear as +Son of Man on the clouds of heaven surrounded by the +angels. Therefore he was found guilty of blasphemy and +condemned to death.</p> + +<p>On the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan, as they +ate the Paschal lamb at even, he uttered a loud cry and +died.</p> + +<p><span class="tei tei-pb" id="page274">[pg 274]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg274"></a></p> + +<h2 id="mbp_toc_11">POSTSCRIPT</h2> + +<p class="drop">THE judgments passed upon this realistic account of +the life of Jesus may be very diverse, according to the +dogmatic, historical, or literary point of view of the critics. +Only, with the <i>aim</i> of the book may they not find fault: +<i>to depict the figure of Jesus in its overwhelming heroic +greatness and to impress it upon the modern age and +upon the modern theology.</i></p> + +<p>The heroic recedes from our modern +“Weltanschauung,” our Christianity, and our conception of the +person of Jesus. Wherefore men have humanised and +humbled him. Renan has stripped off his halo and reduced +him to a sentimental figure, coward spirits like +Schopenhauer have dared to appeal to him for their enervating +philosophy, and our generation has modernised him, with +the notion that it could comprehend his character and +development psychologically.</p> + +<p>We must go back to the point where we can feel again +the heroic in Jesus. Before that mysterious Person, who, +in the form of his time, knew that he was creating +<span class="tei tei-pb" id="page275">[pg 275]</span><a class="tei" id="Pg275"></a> +upon the foundation of his life and death a moral world <i>which +bears his name,</i> we must be forced to lay our faces in the +dust, without daring even to wish to understand his nature. +Only then can the heroic in our Christianity and in our +“Weltanschauung” be again revived.</p> + +<h2>TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES</h2> + +<p>I have used scans of two copies of the original version of the book: +one from the New York Public library (scanned by Google) and one from +the University of Princeton. This was necessary because both books had +considerable hand-written additions/changes that obscured the original +text. Both are available from the Internet Archive.</p> + +<p>The formatting of both the .htm and .txt files has followed that of a +similar book, The Quest of the Historic Jesus, already in Project +Gutenberg. Evidently this was a poor choice since several of the problems +identified in my first submission were copied from that book. +</p> + +<p>I have made several changes to the printer's text, which are listed below. Each change +has been surrounded with [] characters, if the change was only an addition of some +characters. If some characters have been changed, the correct word is placed after +the incorrect word and surrounded with [] characters. Scripture references +in the original book are formatted as (chapter)<sup>(verse)</sup>. In the .txt version +I have used the more common form (chapter):(verse).</p> + +<p>Within the printed book both ill success and illsuccess appear. The two-word +version seemed the better choice. (see 4. below)</p> + +<p>Several terms appear in both two-word and hypenated forms: high-priest, morning-glow, +world-clock, modern-historical, far-reaching, passion-idea, coming-one, jesus christ. I +left all these as they are in the book. I decided to harmonize fore-ordained (see below).</p> + + +<ul> + <li>1. page 5: self-(line break)consciousness becomes selfconsciousness (as on page 138).</li> + <li>2. page 64: Mk 2:23-3, 6 becomes Mk 2:23-[3:6]</li> + <li>3. page 67 (twice), 152, 157, 167: ff) changed to ff[.])</li> + <li>4. page 68, 69, 87, 116, 259, : illsuccess changed to ill[]success</li> + <li>5. page 89: comission changed to com[m]ssion</li> + <li>6. page 90: Corazin changed to C[h]orazin</li> + <li>7. page 117: [not] inserted into Mt 10:5, 6</li> + <li>8. page 120: dominination changed to domination</li> + <li>9. page 140: scripture reference corrected from Joel 3:28 to 2:28</li> + <li>10. page 213: casual changed to causal</li> + <li>11. page 236: Isaiah 40:66 changed to Isaiah 40-66</li> + <li>12. page 242: changed fore-ordained to foreordained</li> + +</ul> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75886 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + diff --git a/75886-h/images/cover.jpg b/75886-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..36cfa93 --- /dev/null +++ b/75886-h/images/cover.jpg |
