diff options
Diffstat (limited to '75886-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 75886-0.txt | 5831 |
1 files changed, 5831 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/75886-0.txt b/75886-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d5403b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/75886-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,5831 @@ + +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75886 *** + + + + + + + THE MYSTERY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD + + THE SECRET OF JESUS’ MESSIAHSHIP AND PASSION + + BY + + ALBERT SCHWEITZER + + Author of “The Quest of the Historical Jesus” + + TRANSLATED WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY + + WALTER LOWRIE + + NEW YORK + + DODD, MEAD AND COMPANY + + 1914 + + + + + + DEDICATED WITH SINCERE + + RESPECT AND DEVOTION TO + + _Dr. H. J. Holtzmann_ + + BY HIS GRATEFUL PUPIL + + ALBERT SCHWEITZER + + + + + + +[pg 003] + +PREFACE + + +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! + +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? + +The last years of research have revealed on [pg 004] 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. + + +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 +_secret?_ 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? + +The more one thinks about it the more clearly one recognises how +little the assumption that Jesus took himself to be the Messiah [pg +005] 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? + +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? + +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 [pg 006] +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! + +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. + +This new conception of the life of Jesus has [pg 007] 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 _sketch,_ 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.” + +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. + +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 [pg 008] 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. + +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. + +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! [pg 009] 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 [pg +010] 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. + + +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. + +_Strassburg, August, 1901._ + +[pg 011] + +Contents + + +Author’s Preface [3] +Translator’s Introduction [17] +Footnotes +CHAPTER I THE MODERN “HISTORICAL” SOLUTION +1. Summary account of it [59] +2. The four assumptions upon which it is based [63] +3. The two contrasted periods (first assumption) [64] +4. The influence of the Pauline theory of the atonement upon the +formulation of the Synoptical prediction of the Passion (second +assumption) [70] +5. The Kingdom of God as an ethical entity in the Passion Idea +(third assumption) [73] +6. The form of the Prediction of the Passion (fourth assumption) [80] +7. Résumé [81] +CHAPTER II THE “DEVELOPMENT” OF JESUS +1. The Kingdom of God as an ethical and as an eschatological fact [84] +2. The eschatological character of the charge to the Twelve [87] +3. The new view [92] +CHAPTER III THE PREACHING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD +1. The new morality as repentance [94] +2. The ethics of Jesus and modern ethics [99] +CHAPTER IV THE SECRET OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD +1. The parables of the secret of the Kingdom of God [106] +2. The secret of the Kingdom of God in the address to the people +after the mission of the Twelve [110] +3. The secret of the Kingdom of God in the light of the Prophetic +and Jewish expectation [112] +4. The secret of the Kingdom of God and the assumption of a +fortunate Galilean period [115] +5. The secret of the Kingdom of God and the universalism of +Jesus [117] +6. The secret of the Kingdom of God and Jesus’ attitude towards +the Law and the State [119] +7. The modern element in Jesus’ eschatology [120] +CHAPTER V The Secret of the Kingdom of God in the Thought of the +Passion [124] +CHAPTER VI THE CHARACTER ASCRIBED TO JESUS ON THE GROUND OF HIS +PUBLIC MINISTRY +1. The problem and the facts [127] +2. Jesus is Elijah through his solidarity with the Son of Man [135] +3. Jesus is Elijah through the signs which proceed from Him [139] +4. The victory over demons and the secret of the Kingdom of God [143] +5. Jesus and the Baptist [145] +6. The Baptist and Jesus [147] +7. The blind man at Jericho and the ovation at the entrance of +Jesus to Jerusalem [156] +CHAPTER VII AFTER THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE LITERARY AND HISTORICAL +PROBLEMS +1. The voyage on the lake after the return of the Twelve [164] +2. The supper by the seashore [168] +3. The week at Bethsaida [174] +CHAPTER VIII THE SECRET OF MESSIAHSHIP +1. From the Mount of Transfiguration to Cæsarea Philippi [180] +2. The futuristic character of Jesus’ messiahship [185] +3. The Son of Man and the futuristic character of Jesus’ +messiahship [190] +4. The resurrection of the dead and the futuristic character of +Jesus’ messiahship [201] +5. The betrayal by Judas—the last disclosure of the secret of +messiahship [214] +CHAPTER IX THE SECRET OF THE PASSION +1. The pre-messianic affliction [219] +2. The idea of the Passion in the first period [223] +3. The “Temptation” and the divine omnipotence [226] +4. The idea of the Passion in the second period [230] +5. Isaiah 40-66: the secret of the Passion foretold in the +Scripture [236] +6. The “human” element in the secret of the Passion [240] +7. The idea of the Passion in the primitive Church. The shifting +of the perspective [242] +CHAPTER X +Summary of the Life of Jesus [253] +Postscript [274] + + +THE MYSTERY OF +THE KINGDOM OF GOD + + + + + +[pg 017] + +AN INTRODUCTION +BY THE TRANSLATOR + + +1. An Account of Schweitzer’s Work and Its Reception. + +THE work which is here translated was published in 1901 as the +_second_ part of a treatise entitled _Das Abendmahl._ The full title +reads: _The Lord’s Supper in connection with the Life of Jesus and the +History of Early Christianity._ This second part was issued separately +and bore also the following sub-title: _Das Messianitäts und +Leidensgeheimnis. Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu._ + +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 [pg 018] 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. + +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 _reckoned_ +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 [pg 019] 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. + +Schweitzer, however, _compelled_ attention by the publication in 1906 +of a much larger work entitled, _“Von Reimarus zu Wrede,”_ 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 +_“Neue Linien”_ (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_(_1_)_acute criticism of the messianic element in the Gospels +[pg 020] and with the denial by Drews_(_2_)_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: _Das messianische Bewusstsein +Jesu,_ 1907. + +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._(_3_)_In 1910 this second work of Schweitzer’s was +translated into English and published under the title: _The Quest of +the Historical Jesus,_ 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 [pg 021] Oxford in 1909._(_4_)_Whereupon Professor +Sanday, in a pathetic article in the _Hibbert Journal_ 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 _yet_ read the “Sketch,”—and von Dobschütz’ +criticism after all is not very impressive. + +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 [pg 022] 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. + +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.”_(_5_)_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: _Die Mystic des Apostles +Paulus._ 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. + +[pg 023] + +Professor Schweitzer found time also to prepare a new and much +enlarged edition of his _Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung_ (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 _time_ 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. + +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 [pg 024] 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 _Hibbert Journal_ 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.” + + +2. The Significance of Schweitzer’s Work. + +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 _Quest of the Historical Jesus,_ +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 [pg 025] 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),_(_6_)_was a direct preparation for Schweitzer. +Johannes Weiss had already stood out as the foremost champion of +eschatology in the Gospel._(_7_)_His recognition of eschatology was +confined, however, to the _teaching of Jesus._ 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 [pg 026] 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. + +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.”_(_8_)_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 [pg 027] the other hand sceptical +works have multiplied so rapidly that it would be difficult to +enumerate them here. After Kalthoff_(_9_)_ and Drews_(_10_)_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. + +“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 +[pg 028] 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. + +“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 [pg 029] knowledge and proof—simply because it is +there, it exists. + +“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. + +“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. + +“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 [pg 030] 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. + +“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. + +“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. + +“We were in danger, too, of presenting to [pg 031] 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. + +“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. + +“Therefore there is hopeful significance in the fact that modern +theology with its study of the life of Jesus, however long it may +resist [pg 032] 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. + +“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. + +“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 [pg 033] 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 _knows_ 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.” + +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 [pg 034] ourselves that +“strong” and “weak” in this connection mean no more than _consistent_ +or _inconsistent_ with the _assumptions_ 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. + +Nor is this the only positive and comforting element in Schweitzer’s +view. In the Postscript he has himself laid stress upon the [pg 035] +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. + +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 [pg 036] power which were _not yet_ +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 1:21 ). 3. The conception of the +Kingdom of God as a _gift,_ 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 _before_ 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 [pg 037] 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 _necessity_ of his death, his resolution to die +at Jerusalem, and his conception that he was giving his life as “a +ransom for _many.”_ + +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. [pg 038] 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 _acceptability._ On the other hand, many of us have +felt that the liberal life of Jesus was becoming increasingly more +_unacceptable._ + +Canon Sanday confesses_(_11_)_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 _too_ “thoroughgoing.” It +seems indeed as though the Author were inclined to press this word to +an extreme, proposing to explain _all_ the words and acts of Jesus +with reference to his eschatological outlook. But that is only a +threat. What he _has_ done falls very far short of it, and it is upon +_that_ we have to pass judgment. _That,_ 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. [pg 039] +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 _true_ +emphasis. It described the conduct appropriate to man in this present +world _so long as this world shall last_—a conduct which is justified +here by the expectation of a better world to come, “beyond good and +evil” if you will. + +“Thoroughgoing eschatology” is surely not incompatible with the +recognition of a deeper [pg 040] 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 +_immediately._ And when his acts were influenced and his speech +coloured by the eschatological outlook, what was that ultimately but +the consciousness of God’s _nearness?_ 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. + +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 [pg 041] 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. + + + “This is the finger of God, + The flash of the will that can, + Existent behind all laws, + That made them, and lo! they are.” + + +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. + + + “Those obstinate questionings + Of sense and outward things, + Fallings from us, vanishings; + Blank misgivings of a creature + Moving about in worlds not realised + High instincts, before which our mortal nature + Did tremble like a guilty thing surprised.” + + +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 +[pg 042] 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? _There_—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 _Interimsethik_ if you like. The conduct +it requires of us is conditioned by the hope of a future [pg 043] 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 [pg 044] 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 _we_ +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 [pg 045] with our modern +thought; and for this reason we feel forced to put _every_ 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,_(_12_)_ +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 [pg +046] 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. + +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. + +In his “Concluding Reflections” Schweitzer says: “Every full view of +life, cosmic philosophy, _Weltanschauung_ (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 _will_ has pervaded +and [pg 047] constituted the conceptual material furnished it by +history. This latter is subjected to change. Hence there is no +_Weltanschauung,_ 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 _Weltanschauung._ May +the conceptual material alter never so much, with consequent diversity +between the new _Weltanschauung_ 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 _Weltanschauungen_ which in their +nature correspond with one another and coincide. + +“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 +_Weltanschauung_—that is, since the individual learned to take into +consideration the totality of being, the world as a [pg 048] 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. + +“The primitive, late-Jewish metaphysic in which Jesus expressed his +_Weltanschauung_ 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. + +“In truth there can be no question of making distinction between +transitory and permanent, but only of transposing the original +constitutive thought of that _Weltanschauung_ into terms familiar to +us. How would the Will of Jesus—apprehended in its immediateness, in +its definiteness and in its whole [pg 049] compass—how would it +vitalise our thought material and construct from it a _Weltanschauung_ +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? + +“If one tries, as has been done hitherto almost invariably, to +reconcile Jesus’ _Weltanschauung_ 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. + +“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. + +“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 _Weltanschauung_ as a whole +and to make Jesus’ significance for us to consist in [pg 050] 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 _Weltanschauung_ 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. + +“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 _Weltanschauung_ is +determined in its direction by the will, which constitutes the primary +and the inexplicable ultimate essence of the persons and ages in +question. + +“If our age and our religion have not apprehended the greatness of +Jesus and have [pg 051] 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 _Weltanschauung._ 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 _Weltanschauung_ from the late-Jewish terms of thought into their +own. + +“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 [pg 052] 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. + +“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.” + +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’ [pg 053] 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 _we_ 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 +_how_ (for the fact itself was [pg 054] 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 _Büchlein vom Leben nach dem Tode,_ or more +largely from his _Zend-Avesta,_ or his _Tagesansicht._ 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 [pg 055] 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? + +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: + +“In the last resort our relationship to Jesus is of a mystical sort. +No personality of the past can be installed in the present [pg 056] 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. + +“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. + +“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 [pg 057] 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 +_Weltanschauung_ 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. + +“The names by which Jesus was called in the thought material of late +Judaism—Messiah, Son of Man, and Son of God—have [pg 058] 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. + +“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. ...” + + +FOOTNOTES + + + 1 _Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien,_ 1901. + + 2 _Christusmythe._ + + 3 _The Life of Christ in Recent Research,_ 1907. + + 4 _Eschatology of the Gospels,_ 1910. + + 5 _Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung,_ 1911. + + 6 _Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu,_ 1st ed., 1888. + + 7 _Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes,_ 2d ed., 1900; also _Das + älteste Evangelium,_ 1903. + + 8 _Quest of the Historical Jesus,_ cap. XX. + + 9 _Das Christus-Problem,_ 1902. + + 10 _Op. cit._ + + 11 _Hibbert Journal,_ Oct., 1911, p. 84. + + 12 _Vide The Living Word_ by Elwood Worcester, 1908. + + + + +[pg 059] + +CHAPTER I + +THE MODERN “HISTORICAL” SOLUTION + + +1. Summary Account of It. + +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. + +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. + +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 [pg 060] 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: + +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 10:45 +) 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. + +If one takes due account of this influence, the historical saying (Mk +10:45) contains the [pg 061] 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. + +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 [pg 062] 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 11:25-27). + +Then came the time of defeat. The opposition was contrived and carried +out from Jerusalem (Mk 7:1). 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 7:1-23). 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. + +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. [pg 063] 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. + +2. The Four Assumptions of the Modern-Historical Solution. + +1. The life of Jesus falls into two contrasted epochs. The first was +fortunate, the second brought disillusion and ill success. + +2. The form of the Synoptical Passion-idea in Mk 10:45 (his giving +himself a ransom for many) and in the institution of the Lord’s Supper +(Mk 14:24: his blood given for many) is somehow or another influenced +by the Pauline theory of the atonement. + +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. + +[pg 064] + +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. + +Are these assumptions, considered individually, justified? + +3. The Two Contrasted Periods. (First Assumption.) + +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 2:1-12), over the question of fasting (Mk +2:18-22), and that of the observance of the Sabbath (Mk 2:23-[3:6]). +Already in Mk 3:6 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 3:20-22, Mk 3:31-35). +At Nazareth he is rejected (Mk 6:1-6). + +In the same period occurs the attack which shocked him most +profoundly. The Pharisees discredited him with the people by [pg 065] +charging that he was in league with the devil (Mk 3:22-30). 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 10:25). + +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 5:11, +12). Now he leads his Disciples to expect oppression and distress (Mt +10:17-25). Faithfulness to him involves the endurance of enmity (Mt +10:22), the severance of the dearest ties (Mt 10:37), and the bearing +of the cross (Mt 10:38). The Galilean period is to be regarded as a +_happy_ one: the commission to the Twelve is _pessimistic_ in tone. +How does that agree? + +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 [pg 066] the Day of Judgment, in which it shall be more +tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for them (Mt 11:20-24)! + +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. + +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 11:25-27). 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 7:1-23) does not furnish what was expected [pg 067] of it. Jesus +had already at an earlier time come into much hotter conflict with the +theologians of the capital (Mk 3:22-30). In the question about the +laws of purification it was not he that was worsted. + +Jesus’ defeat has been inferred from the fact that the “flight” to the +north followed this scene (Mk 7:24 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 _we_ 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. + +No importance need be attached to the fact that subsequently Jesus +again appears on two occasions surrounded by a multitude (Mk 8:1-9: +feeding of the 4000; and Mk 8:34 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 _doublette_ of +the feeding of the multitude. + +[pg 068] + +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? + +If one insists upon speaking of a successful period, it is the +_second_ 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 [pg 069] the +second period. It was indeed a fatal one. + +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 6:25-34), seem hardly +intelligible except as the reflection of a glad and cheerful sense for +the beauty of nature. + +With this is associated, in the second place, an _historical +postulate._ 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. + +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. + +[pg 070] + +4. The Influence of the Pauline Theory of the Atonement upon the +Formulation of the Synoptical Prediction of the Passion. (Second +Assumption.) + +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 10:45 and Mk 14:24 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. + +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 _you_ (1 Cor. 11:24). In the same manner Luke has: My body +which is given for _you;_ the blood which is shed for _you_ (Lk 22:19, +20). Both the older Synoptists invariably write instead of this: for +_many._ Mk 10:45 = Mt 20:28: to give his life a ransom for _many._ Mk +14:24 = Mt 26:28: my blood of the covenant which is shed for _many_. +In the one case the persons who are to benefit by the Passion are +definitely determined: they [pg 071] are the Disciples. In the other +case it is a question of an indefinite number. + +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 _many,_ according to Paul, of _his +own?_ 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. + +The early Synoptic “for many” is uttered, however, from the +_historical standpoint._ 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 [pg 072] 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. + +Inasmuch as this _“for many”_ has held its place, in spite of the fact +that Paul, writing from the churchly point of view, felt instinctively +the necessity of substituting _“for you”_ (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. + +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 +[pg 073] “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. + +5. The Kingdom of God as an Ethical Entity in the Passion Idea. (Third +Assumption.) + +(a). Mk 10:41-45. Service as the ethical conduct prescribed in +expectation of the coming Kingdom. + +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. + +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 18:4), and the ruler is he who serves. Self-humiliation and +the meekness of service, such is the [pg 074] new morality of the +Kingdom of God which comes into force through Jesus’ service unto +death. + +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 _now_ be as a child! He who +advances a claim to a position of rule therein must _now_ serve! The +more lowly the position of humble service which one _now_ 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, [pg 075] which they also must +taste who would reign with him! + +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. + +1. Whosoever would become great _among you,_ shall be _your_ +servant—Mk 10:43. + +2. Whosoever _of you_ would be first, shall be bondservant of _all_ +(others)—Mk 10:44. + +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 _many_—Mk 10:45. + +The climax is a double one. The service of the Disciples extended only +to _their_ 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 +_subjection:_ in the case of Jesus it meant the bitter _suffering of +death._ Both count as serving, inasmuch as they establish a claim to a +position of rule in the Kingdom. + +The ordinary explanation does not satisfy the early Synoptic text but +only that of Lk 22:24-27. This text has torn the narrative from [pg +076] its proper connection, so that it appears as a dispute among the +Disciples “which of them is accounted to be the greatest.” + +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 22:26). +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 22:27). 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 _expectation of the +Kingdom of God._ Service is the fundamental law of _interim-ethics._ + +This thought is much deeper and more vital than the modern play upon +words which we attribute to the Lord. Only through lowliness [pg 077] +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. + +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 10:39, 40). + +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. + +(b). The idea of the Passion and the Eschatological Expectation. + +The investigation of the accounts of the Lord’s Supper [in the first +part of this work] revealed a close connection between the +eschatological [pg 078] conclusion (Mk 14:25) and the expression about +the blood shed for many (Mk 14:24). The other passages about the +Passion suggest a similar connection. + +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 14:62: 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 26:64: Thou hast said: +_nevertheless_ I say unto you, _henceforth_ shall ye, etc. The +eschatological reference is lacking in Luke: he has omitted it also +from the word about the cup. + +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 8:34- 9:1). 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 [pg 079] 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! + +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 9:30-32),—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 9:33-37). That was after he had spoken for the +second time about his Passion. + +On the way to Jerusalem the same scene was reenacted in closest +conjunction with the third prediction of the Passion. (Mk 10:32-41). +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. + +[pg 080] + +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 _again,”_ as it is called. This +expression is entirely false. Jesus never spoke of his coming _again_ +but only of his _coming_ or of the _advent_ 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 _and_ 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 _eschatological_ notion of the Kingdom, not the +_modern-ethical_ notion, dominates his idea of the Passion. + +6. The Form of the Prediction of the Passion. (Fourth Assumption.) + +If the modern historical solution be correct [pg 081] in its +conception, Jesus must have communicated the thought of the Passion to +his Disciples in the form of an ethical _reflection._ 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. + +As a matter of fact, however, he imparted to them the thought of the +Passion, not in the form of an _ethical reflection,_ but as a +_secret,_ 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. + +7. Résumé. + +1. The assumption of a fortunate Galilean period which was followed by +a time of defeat is historically untenable. + +2. Pauline influence cannot have conditioned the form of the early +Synoptic sayings about the Passion. + +3. Not the ethical but the hyper-ethical, the eschatological, notion +of the Kingdom [pg 082] dominates the Passion as Jesus conceived it. + +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. + +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 _real_ significance +in Jesus’ death. + +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 [pg 083] 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. + +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. + +How is that to be understood? Only the history of Jesus can throw +light upon it. _In place of the modern-historical solution we advance +now the eschatological-historical._ + + + + + +[pg 084] + +CHAPTER II +THE “DEVELOPMENT” OF JESUS + + +1. The Kingdom of God as an Ethical and as an Eschatological Fact. + +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 _one_ process +of thought? + +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 +_(Jesus-Christ et les croyance messianique de son temps._ 1864, pp. 94 +ff., 169 ff.) and G. Volkmar _(Die Evangelien._ 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. [pg 085] The excision of them is an act of +violence. + +No more successful has been the attempt to evade the problem by +_sublimating_ 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 _(Die eschatologischen +Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien,_ 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. + +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 [pg 086] 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. + +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. + +[pg 087] + +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! + +2. The Eschatological Character of the Charge to the Twelve. + +“The Kingdom of God is at hand” (Mt 10:7)—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. + +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 [pg 088] 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. + +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—_the dawning of +the Kingdom of God with power._ + +When they persecute you in this city flee [pg 089] 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 10:23). 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. + +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 10:1). 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 [pg 090] 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 11:20-24). This saying addressed to the people shows what +significance Jesus ascribed to the signs in view of the eschatological +embassage. + +Thus the Disciples were to preach _the Kingdom, Repentance, and the +Judgment._ 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 10:34-36). Whosoever would be loyal to the Kingdom of God +must be ready to tear from out his heart those who were dearest [pg +091] to him, to endure reproach, and to bear the cross (Mt 10:37, 38). +The secular authority will bring upon them severe persecution (Mt +10:17-31). 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 10:32, 33). + +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 _after his death._ 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 [pg 092] and pessimism which the current +interpretation finds so unaccountable. It is the sign manual of every +eschatological _Weltanschauung._ + +3. The New View. + +The idea of Passion is dominated _only_ by the eschatological +conception of the Kingdom. In the charge to the Twelve the question is +_only_ about the eschatological—not about the ethical-nearness of the +Kingdom. From this it follows, for one thing, that Jesus’ ministry +counted _only_ 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. + +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 [pg 093] 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. + + + + + +[pg 094] + +CHAPTER III + +THE PREACHING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD + + +1. The New Morality as Repentance. + +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 _repentance_ 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 (_μετάνοια_). 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—_it is a moral renewal in prospect of the accomplishment of +universal perfection in the future._ + +Thus “the repentance in expectation of the Kingdom” comprises all +positive ethical requirements. [pg 095] 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. 1:16, 17). 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. + +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. [pg 096] 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. + +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 7:21). 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 7:22, 23). 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 7:24-27). + +The Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-12) 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 [pg 097] that with the appearing of the +Kingdom of God they will be found to belong to it. + +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 +13:44-46) 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. + +Thus already in the ethics of the Galilean period we find the “now and +then” which accounts for the estimate put upon serving (Mk 10:45). _As +repentance unto the Kingdom of God the ethics also of the Sermon on +the Mount is interim-ethics._ 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. + +[pg 098] + +We encounter again the _Leitmotiv_ 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 +12:34). 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 _Kingdom,_ 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. + +Reasoning from our ethical point of view [pg 099] 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 +_immediateness_ 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. + +2. The Ethics of Jesus and Modern Ethics. + +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, [pg 100] 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. + +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. + +So there has been created the insoluble [pg 101] 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. + +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 [pg 102] overcome. Hence all moral criteria are to be +abolished. _The Kingdom of God is super-moral._ + +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. + +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 +12:25)? + +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. + +[pg 103] + +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. + +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 [pg 104] 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 +_our_ 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 _then_ 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. + +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 _fact_ that this new +community stands in an organic relation with the final stage was for +him as [pg 105] 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 _divine secret,_ +which he illuminated only by pointing to analogies in the processes of +nature. + + + + + +[pg 106] + +CHAPTER IV + +THE SECRET OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD + + +1. The Parables of the Secret of the Kingdom of God. + +WE have to do here with the “secret of the Kingdom of God” (Mk 4:11), +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. + +This attractive interpretation of the parables takes from them, +however, the character of _secrets,_ 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. [pg +107] 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. + +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? + +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. + +The detailed interpretation of the description of this loss, and the +application to particular classes of men, as it lies before us in [pg +108] Mk 4:13-20, 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. + +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 _of itself_ brought forth the +blade, the ear, and the full corn?—That is the secret. + +3. A grain of mustard seed was sown; from it sprouted a great shrub, +with [pg 109] 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. + +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. + +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 +_signals._ 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 [pg 110] 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. + +Therefore, when it was the season of the harvest, he sent his +Disciples forth to proclaim: The Kingdom of God is at hand. + + +2. The Secret of the Kingdom of God in the Address to the People after +the Mission of the Twelve. + +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 11:14, “If you are able [pg 111] to conceive it,” Mt 11:15, “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 11:12-15). + +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. + +It is a question of the secret of the Kingdom of God,—hence the hint: +He that hath [pg 112] 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: 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22). +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. + +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 _incommensurateness_ 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. + +3. The Secret of the Kingdom of God in the Light of the Prophetic and +Jewish Expectation. + +Jesus’ ethics is closely connected with that of the Old Testament +prophets, inasmuch as [pg 113] 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. + +After the Exile this thought was still operative in the conception of +the Law. By the observance of the Law the promised glorious [pg 114] +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_b_. +Wünsche, _System der altsynagogalen Palästinensischen Theologie,_ +1880, p. 299). Here we meet with the early prophetic thought in +legalistic form. + +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. + +Jesus, however, reached back after the fundamental conception of the +prophetic period, and it is only the _form_ 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 [pg 115] 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 8:38- 9:1). + +_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._ 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 _waiting for_ 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 +_bringing to pass_ the expected event through the moral renovation. +_Eschatological ethics is transformed into ethical eschatology._ + +4. The Secret of the Kingdom of God and the Assumption of a Fortunate +Galilean Period. + +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 [pg 116] +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. + +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. + +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. + +[pg 117] + +5. The Secret of the Kingdom of God and the Universalism of Jesus. + +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 10:5, 6): 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. + +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 [pg 118] 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 12:41-42). + +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. + +[pg 119] + +6. The Secret of the Kingdom of God and Jesus’ Attitude towards the +Law and the State. + +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. + +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 [pg 120] 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 +12:17)—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 12:24). + +7. The Modern Element in Jesus’ Eschatology. + +“Let it be the maxim in every scientific investigation for one to +pursue undisturbed the due course of it with all possible exactitude +[pg 121] 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. _Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. _ Ed. +Reclam, p. 129.) + +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, [pg 122] 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. _Every moral-religious +performance is therefore labour for the coming of the Kingdom of God._ + +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 [pg 123] +secret of the Kingdom of God contains the secret of the whole +Christian Weltanschauung. The ethical eschatology of Jesus is the +_heroic form_ in which the modern-Christian Weltanschauung first +entered into history! + + + + + +[pg 124] + +CHAPTER V + +THE SECRET OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD +IN THE THOUGHT OF THE PASSION + + +IN the last period of his life Jesus again uttered parables of the +Kingdom of God: God’s vineyard (Mt 21:33-46); the royal marriage (Mt +22:1-14); the servant watching (Mt 24:42-47); the ten virgins (Mt +25:1-13); the talents (Mt 25:14-30). + +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. + +The second period contains instead the _secret of the Passion._ 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 [pg 125] highest pitch by the proclamation of his suffering. + +_The secret of the Passion takes up, therefore, the secret of the +Kingdom of God and carries it further._ 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—_the redeeming death of Jesus._ 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. + +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. + +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 [pg 126] +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. + +How comes it that the secret of the Kingdom of God takes the form of +the secret of the Passion? + +Why must the atonement of Jesus be added to complete the moral renewal +and the penitence of the community which believes in the Kingdom? + +In what sense has the redeeming death of Jesus an influence upon the +coming of the Kingdom? + + + + + +[pg 127] + +CHAPTER VI + +THE CHARACTER ASCRIBED TO JESUS ON THE +GROUND OF HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY + + +1. The Problem and the Facts. + +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. + +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 [pg 128] 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. + +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. + +Mt 9:27-31: 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. + +Mt 12:23: After a miraculous healing the people whisper to themselves +whether this is not the Son of David. + +Mt 14:33: After their experience at sea in the boat the Disciples fall +down before him saying, “Truly thou art the Son of God.” + +Mt 15:22: The Canaanitish woman addresses him as the Son of +David,—whereas [pg 129] according to Mark she simply falls at his feet +and cries for help. + +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. + +In the second place, it is a question of the speeches of the +demoniacs. According to Mk 3:11 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 1:24, Mk 5:7). 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. [pg 130] Who +believed the devil and the wild speech of the possessed? + +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. + +According to Mark, Jesus twice employed this expression as a +self-designation _before_ Cæsarea Philippi (Mk 2:10 and 2:28), and it +occurs in the same sense in a series of passages peculiar to Matthew +(Mt 8:20, 11:19, Mt 12:32, 40, 13:37, 41 and 16:13). In judging these +passages also one must proceed from the sure ground which is furnished +by the reply of the Disciples at Cæsarea Philippi. + +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. + +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. + +The problem in the second period is still harder. The Disciples knew +his secret, but they dared reveal it to no one. But how [pg 131] about +the people? Did they now have a presentiment of the messianic dignity +of Jesus? + +The problem has to do therefore with three facts: + +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. + +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 [pg +132] remarkable in their evidence—upon which too little weight has +been laid—consists precisely in the fact that _they in no wise charge +him with wishing to be the Messiah._ 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! + +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. + +The entrance into Jerusalem was—according to the common +apprehension—_a messianic ovation._ Therefore the people must have had +a presentiment of Jesus’ dignity. + +The High Priest put to him the question, whether he were the Messiah. +Therefore he knew of Jesus’ claim. + +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 [pg +133] 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. + +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. + +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 [pg 134] 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. + +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? + +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? _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 [pg 135] of fulfilling his +mission! It is thus that history puts the problem._ + +2. Jesus Is Elijah through His Solidarity with the Son of Man. + +_What character could and must the people ascribe to Jesus on the +ground of his public ministry?_ That is the question with which we +have now to do. + +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. + +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. _If the Kingdom was future, so also was the Messiah._ +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. + +[pg 136] + +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 10:23). In Mk 8:38 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 +25:31). + +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, _Jesus of Nazareth_ and +the individual who was the subject of his discourse, the _Son of Man,_ +remained two entirely distinct personalities. + +Before the people Jesus merely suggested the _absolute solidarity_ +between himself and the Son of Man whom he proclaimed. + +It was only in this form that his own gigantic personality obtruded in +his preaching of [pg 137] 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 8:38- 9:1, Mt 10:32-33). One must be ready +to give up the dearest things to follow him, for only so can one show +one’s self _worthy of him_ (Mt 10:37, 38). 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 10:22), 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 10:17-31). If this man, therefore, +because Jesus cannot intervene in his behalf, is not sure “to inherit +eternal life” (Mk 10:17), those, on the other hand who, confessing him +and his message, endure death are certain to save their life, _i. e._ +to be found as members of the Kingdom at the resurrection of the dead +(Mk 8:37). Hence in the beginning of the sermon on the mount he +pronounces them blessed who [pg 138] for his sake suffer reviling and +persecution, because thereby, like the meek and the merciful, they are +designated as members of the Kingdom (Mt 5:11 f.). + +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 +_one_ personality,—Elijah, the mighty Forerunner,—for his +manifestation stretched out of the present into the messianic [pg 139] +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 _could not,_ from Jesus’ +appearance and proclamation, come to any other conclusion about him. + +3. Jesus Is Elijah through the Signs which Proceed from Him. + +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. + +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 [pg 140] 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. _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._ + +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 (3:28 [2:28] ff.). Peter in his +sermon at Pentecost appealed to this passage (Acts 2:17-22). 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 [pg 141] Messiah in the Resurrection, and the Kingdom +will soon dawn. + +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 4:5-6). +Moreover, the selfsame refrain unites these two fundamental passages +of pre-messianic expectation: Mal 4:5 is the same as Joel +2:31—“Before the coming of the great and terrible Day of the Lord.” +_The Forerunner without miracles in an unmiraculous age was therefore +unthinkable._ + +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 [pg 142] that men took him for Elijah +or for the Baptist (Mk 8:28). 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 6:14). + +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. + +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 3:22 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 [pg 143] +the age of signs which the Scripture had prophesied. + +4. The Victory over Demons and the Secret of the Kingdom of God. + +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 _influencing the coming of +it._ 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 3:23-30). + +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 _first_ bind the strong +man, and _then_ 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 [pg 144] 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 +10:1). 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. + +Thus the parables of the secret of the Kingdom (Mark 4), the parable +in Jesus’ apology to the Pharisees (Mk 3:23-30), and the parable in +the eulogy of the Baptist (Mt 11:12-15) 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 3:27 = Mt +11:12). + +[pg 145] + +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. + +5. Jesus and the Baptist. + +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—_Jesus!_ 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 +11:14). 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 +11:12). Hence he concludes both these sayings with the oracular +phrase: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear (Mt 11:15). + +The people, however, were very far from [pg 146] 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 11:32). + +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 11:33). + +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 9:9-11). Thereupon Jesus replied to them that John +was this Elijah, even though he was delivered into the power of men +(Mk 9:12, 13). + +[pg 147] + +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. _Only for Jesus was John the promised +Elijah._ + +6. The Baptist and Jesus. + +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 [pg 148] put the question to Jesus whether he were the +Messiah (Mt 11:2-6). This supposition seems to us perfectly natural +because we always represent to ourselves the two characters in the +relation of Forerunner-Messiah. + +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. + +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. + +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 [pg 149] 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? + +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, _he himself_ 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: “_he +himself_ 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. + +[pg 150] + +“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. + +By this reference the scene now receives a far more intense colouring. +First of all, it becomes clear why Jesus speaks about the Baptist +_after the departure of the messengers._ 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 9:11). + +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 [pg 151] give the +people to understand in his “eulogy over the Baptist,” if they can +receive it. + +John reached this surmise about Jesus in the same way as did the +people. That is to say, as he heard _of the signs and deeds of Jesus_ +(Mt 11:2), 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. + +Herewith, however, the proclamation of the Baptist is put in an +entirely different light. He never pointed to the coming Messiah, _but +to the expected Forerunner._ So is to be explained the proclamation +about “him that is to come after him” (Mk 1:7, 8). 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 [pg 152] with water, he will baptise with the Holy Ghost (Mk +1:8). + +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 _before_ 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 2:28 ff[.]). +Before the coming of the great Day of the Lord he will send Elijah the +Prophet (Mal 4:5). 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. + +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 [pg +153] 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 8:38). + +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. + +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 [pg 154] because we assume the messiahship of Jesus; +but that in order to discover the historical relationship we must +calculate and apply the right perspective. + +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. + +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 3:1) is already applied to +[pg 155] John. According to Matthew, the Baptist hears in prison of +“the works of the Messiah” (Mt 11:2). 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 _Forerunner,_ 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 _Christ_ +(Jn 1:20)! + +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 [pg 156] +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! + +7. The Blind Man at Jericho and the Ovation at the Entrance to +Jerusalem. + +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. + +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 11:9). The second refers to the expected coming +of the Kingdom: [pg 157] “Blessed be the coming Kingdom of our father +David. Hosanna in the highest!” The Son of David is thus not mentioned +at all! + +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 21:9). 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. + +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 19:38). + +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 118:25 ff[.], was employed in Jesus’ +time for the Messiah. It has been shown, however, that _the Baptist as +well as Jesus applied it rather to the Forerunner Elijah._ It is +therefore unhistorical when Matthew represents the people as +acclaiming in the same [pg 158] breath both the Coming One and the Son +of David. + +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 _Hosanna_ and _Hosanna in the highest_ (“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. + +_The entrance into Jerusalem, therefore, was an ovation not to the +Messiah but to the Forerunner._ 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.” + +Here again it is a question of Synoptical detail by which the scene is +totally changed. [pg 159] 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, _but by Mark it is excluded._ + +According to the Matthean account, two blind men sit by the wayside +and cry, Have mercy upon us, Son of David (Mt 20:30). + +In Luke the cry runs: Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy upon me (Lk +18:38). Thereupon Jesus comes to a stand before him, converses with +him, and heals him. + +According to Mark, the blind beggar, son of Timæus, is sitting behind +the multitude at the edge of the road. _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,_ of one calling upon the Son of +David for help. Jesus comes to a stand and sends _to have him +fetched!_ 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, [pg 160] 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! + +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. + +The _address_ 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. + +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 [pg 161] 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. + +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: + +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. + +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 [pg 162] of his account,—especially when it +results in so clear and consistent a picture as is here the case. + +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? + +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! + +5. Our translation also has a prejudicial [pg 163] effect. The word +_ἐρχόμενοζ_ 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. + +We arrive therefore at the conclusion: _Until the confession before +the council Jesus was publicly regarded as the Forerunner, as he had +been already in Galilee._ + + + + + +[pg 164] + +CHAPTER VII + +AFTER THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. LITERARY +AND HISTORICAL PROBLEMS + + +1. The Voyage on the Lake after the Return of the Twelve. + +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? + +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 +[pg 165] scenes begin to stand again in a clear and natural +relationship. + +First of all we have to do with two obvious doublettes: the feeding of +the multitude and the subsequent journey on the lake (Mk 6:31, 56 = Mk +8:1, 21). 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 7:1-23), in the second case it is the +requirement of a sign (Mk 8:11-13). The first series concludes with +the departure for the north, where in the neighbourhood of Tyre and +Sidon he meets the Canaanitish woman (Mk 7:24-30). In the second +series the journey to Cæsarea Philippi (Mk 8:27) follows upon his +encounter with the Pharisees. + +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 [pg 166] 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 7:31: After leaving the region of Tyre he came +through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee. Mk 9:30, 33: 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. + +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 [pg 167] the multitude makes reference +to the first in the word “again” (Mk 8:1): the reconciliation is in +fact carried so far that Jesus in one word addressed to the Disciples +assumes both miracles (Mk 8:19-21)! 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. + +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 6:32, 45, 53). + +The second cycle is incomplete and fallen somewhat into disorder. +Jesus is back on the west coast after his voyage. Mk 8:10 ff. +corresponds with Mk 6:53 ff. and Mk 7:1 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 8:13). It is +not till they reach Bethsaida that he starts with his Disciples +northward (Mk 8:27). The first cycle on the other hand relates _this +voyage to Bethsaida as an episode of the famous coasting voyage and +places it immediately after the feeding of the multitude_ (Mk 6:45 +ff[.]). And as a matter of fact the second narrative series also shows +[pg 168] that this was the original connection. For here, too, as in +the first series, the conversation upon landing deals with the +foregoing miracle. Mk 6:52: “For they understood not concerning the +loaves, but their heart was hardened.” Mk 8:19-21: “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. + +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. + +2. The Supper by the Seashore. + +The Disciples’ proclamation of the immediate approach of the Kingdom +must have [pg 169] 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 +6:32, 33: “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.” + +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. _The +occasion was a solemn cultus-meal!_ 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. [pg 170] 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 +6:41: He took the loaves, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, +and he gave to the Disciples to set before them. Mk 14:22: He took a +loaf, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them. + +Hence the _solemn act of distribution_ 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 6:35: 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. _The celebration, however, was the same._ + +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. [pg 171] That this +meal took the place of the evening repast likewise corresponds with +the fact. But that through a supernatural process the multitude was +_filled_ by it,—that belongs to the miraculous character which the +later age ascribed to the celebration because its significance could +not be apprehended. + +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. + +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 6:52 and Mk 8:14-21, it appears that the +Disciples have understood nothing. + +He celebrated, therefore, a sacred cultus-meal [pg 172] 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. _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._ 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 [pg 173] +food was conscious of being the Messiah and acted as such. + +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! + +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. _Now for the first time one is able to understand how the +nature [pg 174] of the Last Supper can be independent of the two +parables._ + +3. The Week at Bethsaida. + +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 6:45-52). + +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. + +At this point, however, we encounter a difficult literary problem, in +the Synoptical narrative of the period immediately preceding the +departure for Jerusalem (Mk 9:30). [pg 175] According to Mk 8:27-33, +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 9:30 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 8:34- 9:29), 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 9:30 ff.) +he can march through Galilee alone with his Disciples and +unrecognised. + +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 9:28)! + +The literary context in which the section stands is absolutely +impossible, for this cannot have been enacted in _heathen territory,_ +[pg 176] but only in _Galilee!_ But as Jesus subsequently had only a +fleeting contact with Galilee, passing through it incognito, this +piece belongs in the Galilean period _before the departure for the +north, and more precisely, at the time of the return of the +Disciples,_ for it is then that he was constantly surrounded by a +throng of people and was seeking to be in solitude with his Disciples! + +The situation, however may confidently be defined with still greater +exactness. Jesus dwelt in a village (Mk 9:28) in the neighbourhood of +which there was a mountain to which he betook himself with the three +Disciples (Mk 9:2). All this agrees, however, most certainly with the +sojourn in _Bethsaida._ The mountain which he seeks with the Three is +_the mountain on the north shore of the lake where he prayed in the +night when he came to Bethsaida!_ + +The passage Mk 8:34- 9:29 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 8:34- 9:1) +seemed to form a most natural conclusion to [pg 177] the prediction of +the Passion at Cæsarea Philippi (Mk 8:31-33). + +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 8:34 ff. may fairly be said to imply such measures +as were adopted the evening before (Mk 6:45-47). 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 9:28). The next day he calls the people about +him with the Disciples (Mk 8:34) 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. + +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 [pg 178] 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. + +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 9:25-27) the crisis begins, after which Jesus takes by the hand +the lad, who was lying as dead, and raises him up. + +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. + +It will now be perfectly clear how unhistoric [pg 179] 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 6:53-56). That they deserted +him, that they even showed the least motion of doubt or defection, the +texts give no intimation. _It was not the people that deserted Jesus +but Jesus that deserted the people._ + +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. _The +journey into the north country is not a flight, rather it has the same +motive as the voyage on the lake._ + + + + + +[pg 180] + +CHAPTER VIII + +THE SECRET OF MESSIAHSHIP + + +1. From the Mount of Transfiguration to Cæsarea Philippi + +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. + +If, however, as has been proved above by literary evidence, this scene +was enacted some weeks after the mission of the Twelve and _before_ +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 [pg 181] +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. + +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 9:2-6). Does the voice out of the cloud (Mk +9:7, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye him”) repeat in some sort Jesus’ +experience at his baptism? + +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’ [pg 182] 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 9:8), 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. + +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. + +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 [pg 183] and the +High Priest at the trial could come into possession of this secret. + +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 8:29). 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 16:17). + +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 8:32 and 8:33). + +Why this agitation of Peter over Jesus’ disclosure about the fatal +journey to Jerusalem? [pg 184] 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. + +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? + +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 [pg 185] down to the smallest +details. The revelation to the Twelve was preceded by the disclosure +to the Three of the secret of Jesus’ messiahship. + +2. The Futuristic Character of Jesus’ Messiahship. + +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 9:32), and as they company with him they +appear to be aware that he carries within him a great secret. + +Are we to imagine then that after this revelation of his secret Jesus +was henceforth regarded by his disciples as the Messiah? No, _not yet_ +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 [pg 186] 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. + +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. + +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. + +What we lack is the “Now and Then” [pg 187] 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. + +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 [pg 188] 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 10:35). 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. + +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: _System der +altsynagogalen Theologie,_ 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. + +[pg 189] + +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. + +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 12:35-37)? + +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. + +This saying of Jesus to the people in the Temple—(only Matthew has +made of [pg 190] 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 +_he_ is that so speaks. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear! + +3. The Son of Man and the Futuristic Character of Jesus’ Messiahship. + +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. + +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.” + +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 9:7-9). + +Peter proclaimed him before the others as “the Anointed one” (Mk +8:29). Jesus immediately [pg 191] proceeds to instruct them about the +fate of the “Son of Man” (Mk 8:31). + +“Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed?” the High Priest asked +him (Mk 14:61). “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 9:30-32 and Mk 10:32-34) and in the +saying about serving (Mk 10:45). + +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 10:23). He spoke +to the people of the coming of the Son of Man as an exhortation to be +faithful to him, Jesus (Mk 8:38). + +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 [pg 192] 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. + +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. + +“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 [pg 193] +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 10:45). 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 +14:21, 41). + +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 [pg 194] of a definite personality of the future,—and not +of man in general, even though the expression in both cases would be +the same. + +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. + +Mt 8:20,—The Son of Man hath not where to lay his head. +Mt 11:19,—The Son of Man is come eating and drinking (in contrast to + the Baptist). +Mt 12:32,—Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a worse crime than + speaking evil of the Son of Man. +Mt 12:40,—The Son of Man will be three days in the earth, like Jonah + in the belly of the fish. +Mt 13:37, 41,—The Son of Man is the Sower; the Son of Man is the + lord of the reapers. +Mt 16:13,—Who do the people say that the Son of Man is? + +Here the expression is philologically impossible. For if Jesus had so +used it, his hearers must simply have understood him to [pg 195] 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 7:13-14. 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. + +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, _previous to Cæsarea Philippi_ (or, for the +Three, previous to the Transfiguration), [pg 196] he designates +_himself_ 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 10:23 and Mk 8:38). 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”? + +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 [pg 197] created these +philological and historical impossibilities. + +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. + +What chiefly reveals their secondary character is: the transformation +of the simple question asked at Cæsarea Philippi (Mt 16:13); the +application of the parable of the sower (Mt 13:37, 41); and the false +interpretation of the saying about Jonah (Mt 12:40). + +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 12:32), 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 8:20 and Mt 11:19 the expression is +arbitrarily used, for Jesus merely wishes to say: _I_ have nowhere to +lay my head; and, _I_ eat and drink, in contrast to the ascetic +practice of the Baptist. + +[pg 198] + +It is quite a different case which is presented by the two +unhistorical “Son of Man” passages in St. Mark’s Gospel. + +Mk 2:10—The Son of Man hath authority to forgive sins upon earth. +Mk 2:28—The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath. + +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. + +1. Man as such can by works of healing declare the forgiveness of sins +upon earth. + +Man as man is lord of the Sabbath. + +2. In view of the coming of the Son of Man forgiveness of sins is +already available, as the works of healing show. + +In view of the coming of the Son of Man a higher factor already +emerges to modify the legalistic observance of the Sabbath. + +The Law yields to something higher. The case of David shows it. + +However one may explain these passages, [pg 199] 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.” + +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 [pg 200] +expression in Jesus’ mouth could have only the significance of an +arbitrary self-designation, appropriate in all situations where he +spoke of himself. + +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 7:56) 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. + +[pg 201] + +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. + +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. + +4. The Resurrection of the Dead and the Futuristic Character of Jesus’ +Messiahship. + +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 _ex eventu_ into predictions of the Resurrection. + +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 [pg 202] 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 3:21) 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. + +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 9:9). 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 9:10)? That is to say, the conditions thereof, so +far as they can see, are not yet [pg 203] fulfilled. Elijah is not yet +come (Mk 9:11). 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 9:12-13). + +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 [pg 204] messianic event both correspond +chronologically: resurrection and coming on the clouds signify only +the revelation of Jesus’ messiahship on the great Resurrection Day. + +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. + +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 12:1-12). The whole history of [pg 205] 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. + +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 11:23-24). + +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 12:25), is +to be understood as descriptive of conditions in the Kingdom of +heaven, into which they enter through the Resurrection from the dead. + +The “Resurrection of the dead” was, in [pg 206] 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.” + +Wherefore, to the living, Jesus speaks of the way that leadeth unto +“life” (Mt 7:14). 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 18:8, 9). The rich +young man asks what he must do “to inherit eternal life.” Jesus [pg +207] 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 10:17, 25). + +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 8:35). + +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 10:28). + +St. Paul furnishes a classical instance of this same connection +between the eschatological expectation of the early Church and [pg +208] the Resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:50-54). 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. + +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. + +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 [pg 209] 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. + +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. + +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. + +[pg 210] + +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. + +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 2:22), him did God raise up (Acts 2:32) and hath +made him both Lord and [pg 211] Messiah, this Jesus whom ye crucified” +(Acts 2:36). + +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. + +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 _before_ the messianic age! That is +the fateful shifting [pg 212] of the perspective. Therein lies the +tragical element—but the magnificent as well—in the whole phenomenon +of Christianity. + +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. 15:20). 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. + +The Christian historical tradition sought another way out. It assumed +a sort of preresurrection which coincided with the resurrection [pg +213] of Jesus. It lent to this the colouring of the messianic Day. Mt +27:50-53 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. + +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 [pg 214] 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 _Jesus was the Messiah._ The title for this new view of the +Gospel history was written by St. Paul. It reads: _“Jesus +Christ,”_—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. + +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. + +5. The Betrayal by Judas—the Last Disclosure of the Secret of +Messiahship. + +What did Judas actually betray? According to the accounts of our +Gospels it [pg 215] 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. + +As a matter of fact, however, the principal difficulty lay in an +entirely different direction. Not to _arrest_ him but to _convict_ 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 [pg 216] 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. + +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. + +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 14:11). + +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, [pg 217] 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. + +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. + +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 [pg 218] 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. _He was +condemned as Messiah although he had never appeared in that rôle._ + + + + + +[pg 219] + +CHAPTER IX + +THE SECRET OF THE PASSION + + +1. The Pre-Messianic Affliction. + +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. + +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 [pg +220] is the thought which concerns the Disciples on the way to +Jerusalem. + +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. + +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 +10:34-42), 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. + +Hence the harsh accord heard throughout [pg 221] 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 5:11, 12). + +“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 [pg 222] 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. + +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. + +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 [pg 223] +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 8:35-38). + +2. The Idea of the Passion in the First Period. + +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. + +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! + +[pg 224] + +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). + +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 [pg 225] 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. + +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 [pg 226] be delivered to the Council and by it condemned to +death! That was the new thing which remained a secret for the +Disciples. + +3. The “Temptation” and the Divine Omnipotence. + +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 8:33). 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 [pg 227] 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. + +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. + +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 10:27). + +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. [pg 228] He might by this +infringe upon God’s omnipotence (Mk 10:35-40). + +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. + +The Lord’s Prayer thus exhibits in the [pg 229] 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. + +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 [pg 230] God not to lead them through the +“Temptation,” but straightway to release them from the power of the +world. + +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. + +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 +14:36). 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. + +4. The Idea of the Passion in the Second Period. + +With the revelation at Cæsarea Philippi cease all intimations that the +believers must [pg 231] 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 14:26-28). + +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 14:29, 31). + +[pg 232] + +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. _He suffers in +their stead, for he gives his life a ransom for many._ + +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. + +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. + +[pg 233] + +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 +9:12-13). + +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 _historical event._ That is a sign, which +indicates how it will be fulfilled upon himself. + +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. + +The report with which they returned [pg 234] 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. + +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. + +The conception of the final Affliction contains [pg 235] 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. + +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 10:45). 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, [pg 236] even though it was in another sense than +that which Anselm’s theory assumes. + +5. Isaiah 40[-66]: The Secret of the Passion Foretold in the +Scripture. + +“How is it written of the Son of Man? That he must suffer many things +and be set at naught” (Mk 9:12). 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. + +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. + +The passage commences with the proclamation [pg 237] 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. + +The Elect is there. He proclaims righteousness in truth. God has put +his spirit upon him (Isai. 42:1 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. 49:1 ff.; Isai. +52:1 ff.; Isai. 53:1 ff.). + +[pg 238] + +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. + +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 [pg 239] 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. + +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. + +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. + +[pg 240] + +6. The “Human” Element in the Secret of the Passion. + +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. + +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. + +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 [pg 241] deliver us from the Evil,” is now +fulfilled in his Passion. + +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 10:38-40). Peter, however, swore that he would not deny him; +even if all others should forsake him, he desired to die with him (Mk +14:31). 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 [pg 242] 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. + +7. The Idea of the Passion in the Primitive Church. The Shifting of +the Perspective. + +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. + +While Jesus’ secret brought his death and the dawning of the Kingdom +into the closest [pg 243] 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. + +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. + +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 2:38). 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 +[pg 244] 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. + +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”? + +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 [pg 245] 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. + +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 _as in the days of the Baptist._ + +This dechristianising was manifest especially in the matter of the +final Affliction. [pg 246] 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 _before_ 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 _person_ of Jesus, no longer +through his _spirit,_ as was the case in the secret of the Kingdom of +God and in the secret of the Passion. + +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 [pg 247] 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. + +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. + +[pg 248] + +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.” + +For Jesus and his Disciples his death was, according to the +eschatological view, merely a _transitional_ event. As soon, however, +as the event occurred it became the _central fact_ upon which the new, +uneschatological view was built up. In primitive Christianity the old +and new were still side by side. + +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. + +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 [pg 249] 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. + +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. + +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 [pg 250] of Jesus and +of primitive Christianity we commit the same blunder as were we to +paint the sunrise without the morning glow. + +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. + +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. + +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 [pg 251] of him as “Messiah” and “Son of God” outside of +the Jewish framework. + +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 _His_ mighty spirit pervades it. + +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. + +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 [pg 252] 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. + +As Jesus gave up the ghost, the Roman centurion said, “Truly this man +was the Son of God” (Mk 15:39). 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. + + + + + +[pg 253] + +CHAPTER X + +SUMMARY OF THE LIFE OF JESUS + + +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. + +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. + +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. [pg 254] He +is a prophet,—that was the universal opinion. + +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. + +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. + +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 [pg 255] one may know of it, for he must remain unrecognised +till the new æon dawns. + +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. + +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. + +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 [pg 256] 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. + +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. + +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. + +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, [pg 257] he has no excuse. The signs and wonders condemn +him, for they plainly attest that the power of ungodliness is coming +to an end. + +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. + +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 [pg 258] 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. + +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 [pg 259] 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. + +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. + +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. + +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 [pg 260] these he recognised that the time +was come. For this reason he sent forth the Apostles just as they were +returning from Nazareth, _for it was harvest time._ + +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. + +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. + +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 [pg 261] +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.” + +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, _all is ready._ 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. + +[pg 262] + +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. + +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. + +Thereupon he sent them away. He ordered the Disciples to skirt the +coast to Bethsaida. [pg 263] 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. + +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. + +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 [pg 264] is to be Son of +Man must suffer many things and be set at naught. So the Scripture +will have it. + +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. + +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 [pg 265] 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 _invent_ a period of Galilean defeat in order to +establish some connection between the recorded facts,—as if a section +were missing in our Gospels. _That is the weak point of all the “lives +of Jesus.”_ + +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. + +Why is the Baptist executed by the secular authority before the +messianic time has dawned? + +Why does the Kingdom fail to appear notwithstanding that the tokens of +its dawning are present? + +The secret is made known to him through the Scripture: God brings the +Kingdom [pg 266] about _without the general Affliction._ 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. + +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. + +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. [pg 267] 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. + +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. + +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 [pg 268] 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. + +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 _Hosanna. Hosanna in the highest,_ 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. + +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 [pg 269] 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? + +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. + +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. + +_By what authority did the Baptist act?_ 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. + +_How is the Messiah at one time David’s [pg 270] Son—that is, +subordinate to him; at another, David’s Lord—that is, his superior?_ +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. + +But as it is they do not even suspect that the messianic indications +harbour _secrets._ 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! + +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. + +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. [pg 271] _Then Judas betrayed to them the secret._ Now he was +condemned. + +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,—_for it was an enigma-parable._ + +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 [pg 272] 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 _them:_ 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. + +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 [pg 273] them remain awake and +beseech God that he may not lead them through the Temptation. + +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. + +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. + +On the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan, as they ate the Paschal +lamb at even, he uttered a loud cry and died. + + + + + +[pg 274] + +POSTSCRIPT + + +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 _aim_ of the +book may they not find fault: _to depict the figure of Jesus in its +overwhelming heroic greatness and to impress it upon the modern age +and upon the modern theology._ + +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. + +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 [pg 275] upon the foundation of his life and +death a moral world _which bears his name,_ 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. + + + + + +TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES + +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. + +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. + +I have included page numbers in the format [pg xxx] for +both .htm and .txt. + +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)(verse). In the .txt version I +have used the more common form (chapter):(verse). + +Within the printed book both ill success and illsuccess appear. The +two-word version seemed the better choice. (see 4. below) + +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). + + 1. page 5: self-(line break)consciousness becomes selfconsciousness + (as on page 138). + 2. page 64: Mk 2:23-3, 6 becomes Mk 2:23-[3:6] + 3. page 67 (twice), 152, 157, 167: ff) changed to ff[.]) + 4. page 68, 69, 87, 116, 259, : illsuccess changed to ill[]success + 5. page 89: comission changed to com[m]ssion + 6. page 90: Corazin changed to C[h]orazin + 7. page 117: [not] inserted into Mt 10:5, 6 + 8. page 120: dominination changed to domination + 9. page 140: scripture reference corrected from Joel 3:28 to 2:28 + 10. page 213: casual changed to causal + 11. page 236: Isaiah 40:66 changed to Isaiah 40-66 + 12. page 242: changed fore-ordained to foreordained + +In the .txt version I have used utf8 encoding and the following markers: + + 1. italic text surrounded by _ + 2. footnote references in the form _(_number_)_ + + + + + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75886 *** |