^H OF P«l«^ Zot (JGlOALSf. ^v*5 NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. MESSRS. CLARK beg to forward to the Subscribers to the Foreign Theological Library the second issue for 1870, viz., Delitzsch's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 2 (completion), and Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament. The first issue for 187 1 will be Delitzsch on the Psalms, Vol. I, and probably also Vol. 2. They beg to thank the Subscribers for the continued support they receive. They will be obliged by an early remittance of the sub- scription for 187 1. Edinburgh, N'oiiembcr 1870. CLARK'S FOEEIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. FOURTH SEEIES. VOL. XXVII. ?d;mili'g 33iblt(al Ci)colo2i) of tlje J2eh) ^Tcitament EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. IUDCCCLXX. PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIEB T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, .... JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, . . . C. SCRIBNER AND CO. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. BT CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH'sCHMID, D.D., LATE PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, TUBINGEN. TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION, EDITED BY C. WEIZ ACKER, D.D., BT G. H. V E N A B L E S. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 3c^, GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXX. 17 b INTRODUCTION, CONTENTS. FIRST PART. The Messianic Age, 15 FIRST DIVISION. The Life of Jesus, ....... I. The Early History of Jesus, . . . . • II. Christ's Preparation for, and Entrance upon, His Public Ministry, ....... III. The Public Career of Jesus, ..... IV. The Conclusion of His earthly Ministry, 25 25 39 51 81 SECOND DIVISION. The Teaching of Jesus, 90 I. The Glorification of the Father in the Son, 93 God the Father, 93 The Son, 107 The Spirit, . 145 Father, Son, and Spirit, IGl II. The Redemption of Man, 170 III. The Kingdom of God, . .... 242 Vi CONTENTS. SECOND PAET. The Apostolic Age, ....... 270 FIRST DIVISION. The Life of the Apostles, ..... I. The Apostolic Life, ..... 11. The Development of the Apostolical Community, III. The Commencement of Outward Action in the Apostolic Com munity, ....... SECOND DIVISION. PAGE 273 274 291 316 The Teaching of the Apostles, ..... 323 I. The First Fundamental Form of the various Apostolical Systems of Teaching ; or, Christianity considered in its Unity with the Old Testament. 1. The Apostolical Teaching of James, . . . 338 2. The Apostolical Teaching of Peter, . . . 374 XL The Second Form of Apostolical Teaching ; or, Christianity in its Distinction from the Old Testament. 1. Apostolical Teaching according to Paul, . . 417 2. The Apostolical Teaching of John, . . . 519 BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. INTEODUCTION. § 1. Neiu Testament Tlicology. UE subject is the Christian religion as we find it dis- tinctly laid down in the New Testament Scriptures. Hence it follows that it treats only of such parts of the Bible as relate to the Christian religion ; and especially, that opinions, either non-religious or non-Christian, — those peculiar to the Jews for instance, — which are occasionally mentioned, concern us here only so far as they tend to throw light upon Christianity. We are bound, moreover, in the treat- ment of our subject, to adhere closely to the stamp set upon Christianity in the Kew Testament in opposition to more modern theories, except where these may help to elucidate the former. Our science embraces the New Testament dogmas and morality, consequently the whole of Christianity as contained in the New Testament. We claim for it the title of an historical exposition, as it at once accepts the Christianity of the New Testament as a matter of fact, and as such seeks to investigate it and to set forth its gradual development. The term Biblical Theology, however, is hardly precise enough, because it does not sufficiently dis- tinguish between our science and either exegesis or systematic theology. But if for the name adopted w^e were to substitute Biblical Dogmatics, then on the one liand a confusion miglit readily arise between our science and systematic theology, and on the other hand the term is too narrow, because our subject is not confined to mere dogma. As regards its relation to other branches of theology, our science must be looked upon as only a A 2 INTRODUCTION. [§ 1. part of biblical theology generally ; for biblical theology deals with both the Old and New Testament, and therefore sets forth religion as laid down in the whole Bible. But on account of the great dis- tinction, both external and internal, between these two essentially different stages of development and forms of biblical religion, it is more convenient to keep them separate ; and the more so, as every attempt to discuss them together sets their real divergence in a clearer light. Our subject stands, therefore, in a close rela- tion to exegesis, both being concerned with the investigation of the Scriptures. Its aim is to reproduce the thoughts therein ex- pressed, taking the statements of Scripture as its basis. But the exegetical function which it performs is of the highest and most advanced kind. Por exposition is at its lowest stage when it deduces a doctrine from the interpretation of an isolated precept : it is a stage more advanced when it ascertains the sense and pur- port of whole books and sections ; or, out of several doctrinal passages which treat of the same subject, by comparison and looking at them as a whole, developes the precise ideas and dogmas which they contain. The third and highest stage is reached when it ascertains the ideas and doctrines conveyed by a whole body ot didactic discourses and passages, by taking a comprehensive view of its different portions in their relation to each other. It is not, however, contented with isolated ideas and propositions, but taking an aggregate of doctrinal ideas and dogmas, it presents both their unity and their variety in a life-like doc- trinal whole, which at the same tune exhibits the systems of thought as distinguished by their organic gradation. This is pre- cisely the province of biblical theology, and is the point to which exegetic theology, it conscious of its vocation, is always tending, and the result in which it is summed up. The relation in which our science stands to systematic theology is somewhat different. Biblical theology has been frequently understood to mean nothing else than a certain kind of positive divmity, which, without re- gard to ecclesiastical interpretations, is founded mainly upon the New Testament alone. But although its aim certainly is a systematic summary of its subject-matter, yet it is essentially distinct from the above-mentioned dogmatics by reason of its historical character. It is still further removed from ecclesias- tical, speculative, or descriptive dogmatic. It is nevertheless allied to dogmatic and aU systematic theology, in so far as this § 1.] KEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. 3 is based upon New Testament Christianity and presupposes the question, What it is. The historical character of our science connects it with his- torical theology generally ; but it is not identical with church history, because the subject of the latter is the founding of the church, and the establishment of rules for its guidance in all time to come. Although the absolute interest of our science depends upon its place in the organism, so to speak, of the theological sciences, yet by the circumstances and wants of the age, it is peculiarly enhanced both in an historico-critical and a dogmatic point of view. If the living development of Christianity is to be com- prehended, above all things it is necessary for the living germ to be clearly perceived ; and to this end an historical investigation of primitive Christianity is needful. The greater the difficulty which, through the inquiries of criticism, surrounds this task, the more important does it become to represent faithfully the scope of the original records, and especially of the doctrinal systems founded upon them ; for by so doing we shaU obtain the firmest grasp even of the critical questions involved in the New Testa- ment. Take for example the question of the gospel narratives. Attention has of late been chiefly directed, especially by Strauss, to the external historical purport of the gospels, and the conflict on this point has lasted for many years. It will, therefore, be well to throw additional light upon the critical question from the side of the doctrinal element contained in the gospels, and by giving the greatest prominence to this element, to carry on the discussion with more calmness and candour than have hitherto marked it. A careful development of our Lord's teaching will enable us to form a judgment as to the relation between the Synoptists and St. John as regards His doctrines, be the differ- ence small or great between them. We shall also be able to compare the teaching ascribed by the evangelists to Jesus, with that contained in the other books of the New Testament known to us as apostolical. The result will, moreover, help us to solve the question, whether the doctrine of Jesus, as transmitted to us by the evangelists, really bears the same relation to the apos- tolical doctrine of the other New Testament writers as the foun- dation does to a finished building ; or whether no such distinction is shown, and it is therefore possible that what the evangelists 4 INTRODUCTION. [§ 1. ascribe to Jesus Himself as His own teaching, is in truth nothing but the doctrine of the apostles. We shall arrive at some noteworthy results on both these questions. With regard to the latter, it will be shown that what is handed down to us as the teaching of Jesus is in fact of a nature calculated to serve as the foundation of all other doctrine ; and that the apos- tolical teaching in the rest of the New Testament writinQs is obviously the offshoot and development of this. In the didactic discourses of Jesus we have the pregnant germ and kernel, the root, and the simple yet solid groundwork : in the apostolical doctrine, as presented in the other New Testament scriptures, we have the shoots and branches, the plant developed from the germ, the finished building resting on that simple but firm foundation. The precepts of our Lord in the gospels claim our acceptance as original, pregnant, and bearing the first impres- sion of the mould in which they were cast ; and the apostolical doctrine appears to be no less living and life-giving, — both being in accordance, the latter with the circumstances of its further development, the former with the personal details of our Lord's life on earth. But as touching the relation between John and the Synoptists, it will be seen, unless we allow ourselves to be misled by mere form, how, notwithstanding all differences, essen- tial unity underlies them ; and that the form itself, even in its manifold diversity, furnishes the key to its own solution. Modern criticism has recognised only four of St. Paul's epistles as genuine, chiefly on the ground that the later epistles do not agree in doctrine with the earlier. New Testament theology will therefore analyze and compare the doctrine of the earlier and later epistles on the points of alleged disagreement. Conse- quently, this part of New Testament theology will be found to aid us materially in deciding upon the genuineness of the later epistles. The two epistles of St. Peter have been also attacked and represented as an imitation of St. Paul, by which the later followers of St. Peter were to be persuaded that the teaching of the two apostles was identical. We shall presently inquire whether the doctrines of these epistles, especially of the first, are only an aggregate of Pauline and Judaistic elements, or whether, on the contrary, an independent system of doctrine is not contained in them. In like manner the doctrinal statements in the epistle of St. James are of great importance. § 1.] NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. 5 The interest of our science witli regard to systematic theology is, however, peculiarly enhanced by the need of a higher use of Scripture, which need has shown itself generally in the develop- ment of systematic theology, and especially in the increased cidti- vation of its ideal and speculative elements. Systematic theology has, indeed, at times made very light of referring its views to Holy Scripture, especially to our Lord's teaching in the New Testament. For, on the one hand, it has been thought justifiable to take for granted a general acknowledgment of the identity between what is commonly understood as theological system with the New Testament in general, and Christ's precepts in particular ; and, on the other, it has sometimes been regarded as of little moment whether this agreement was acknowledged or not, and whether, therefore, the truths which systematic theology asserted were known to be drawn from other than scrij)tural sources. The re- sult of this has been, that the exegetical function of systematic theology was often very unsatisfactorily performed. The same may also be said of most methods of treatment even in modern times, especially those which deal with the subject from its speculative side, in which theology is taught as a speculative system supported merely by a few quotations from Scripture. But even where attention was paid to the exegetical function of systematic theology, the difficulty to be encountered is propor- tionately greater ; for so many tilings had to be taken into account, and the subject-matter was so varied and intricate, that it often appeared necessary to limit the exegetical function as much as possible, in order that the scientific statement might not be too much drawn out. Nothing is gained, however, for systematic theology by such treatment. In its very nature it stands essentially related to Christianity as laid down in the New Testament Scriptures, it must draw its material from this source, and, whatever scientific form it may assume, prove the identity of its doctrine A\ith biblical Christianity. In this alone is presented the divine revelation, — Christianity itself, indeed, in its original depth and purity, attested by authentic documents and with the demonstra- tion of the Spirit and of power. No treatment, therefore, can be satisfactory, there can be no true reform and remodelling of systematic theology, which is not based upon Holy Scripture, not on the mere letter, but the s])iiit Avliich is contained in it. If 6 INTRODUCTION. [§ 1. systematic tlieology be compelled to own that it has forsaken this source, it may on that very account be doubted whether what it teaches deserves the name of Christianity at all. And for this very reason the necessity has become more plainly apparent that the exegetical function of systematic theology should be duly pre- pared on exegetical ground. This exegetical treatment of the Old and ISTew Testament Scriptures, especially the latter, and therein chiefly of our Lord's own precepts, if shaped so as to constitute it a preparation for the exegetical function of systematic theology, is not limited to isolated exegesis or to mere biblical commentary, but really extends to the development of entire biblical systems of thought as they lie before us in the ISTew Testament ; first in the teaching of Jesus in His discourses, and then of the different apostles in the epistles or other apostolical writings. These systems of thought are to be so investigated that in the first place the individual ideas and precepts contained in all allied writings and statements may be separately examined, and their organic connection brought out by a comprehensive view. But even this is not enough. It is important also to ascertain the mutual relation of these several systems of thought as one of essential agreement, no less than of a certain difference ; for by so doing the characteristic peculiarities of their authors are suc- cessively brought to view. In this Avay truths and ideas them- selves identical are found to be exhibited under various aspects, in different combinations with other truths, and under different modes of arrangement. It is exactly this which gives such a many-sided vitality to the Christianity of the New Testament, and by which such a large measure of fruitfulness is ensured. But systematic theology cannot, of course, undertake inquiries of this nature, which belong to exegesis, and furnish a theme for its highest point — -the biblical theology of the Old and New Testa- ment. New Testament theology, in dealing with the various New Testament Scriptures, enables them to be used as a single record of divine revelation. It sets forth the different systems of thought in their unity and manifold variety, and shows us how their total result presents a united record of the divine word ; not, however, a unity devoid of difference, but rather the harmony of difference, — that is to say, a unity which preserves its harmony through the organic interlacing of differences, and is itself rich in the detail of its component parts. Consecjuently, Avhero this § 1.] NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. 7 function of New Testament theology is first in operation, the way is opened for that use of Holy Scripture which has become a necessity to systematic theology. But in order that our science may prove competent to its task and maintain its high interest, it must adhere closely to the historical method involved in our very notion of it as distin- guished from any dogmatic treatment. This latter was for a long time its usual mode of treatment. Men proceeded on the idea of Scripture being a divine book, the w^ork of the Holy Spirit, a codex of divine revelation possessing a strict character of unity ; whence it followed that biblical theology was necessarily treated dogmatically and not historically. Now, although Christian theology must undoubtedly admit a dogmatic conception of Holy Scripture, yet this forms only one side of it. The other side is that the Scriptures are composed by men under certain historical conditions : they must therefore be regarded as affected by the time of their aj)pearance, and, consequently, not as possessing absolute unity, but a unity subject to a variety in historical development. It is a mistake to suppose that these two sides contradict each other : so far from it, one idea closely followed up will lead to the other. The dogmatic idea can, however, only be the gainer by our adopting here the purely historical mode of treatment, and treating the Scriptures like any other book whose purport is to be ascertained by a critical and exegetical process. The historical method, however, must not of course keep merely to the idea of what is actually recorded. History is the unfold- ing of life, in which a unity is broken up into details, and thus represents a certain regvdar course of events. It will thus be the province of New Testament theology to trace out the organic con- nection of New Testament teaching. And further, inasmuch as all history gains by the comparison of other facts analogous to _ its own subject-matter, this branch of inquiry must not here be lost sight of, and we shall have specially to deal with the parallels afforded by the Old Testament. Nor must reference to the re- ligious idea be neglected, without, however, disturbing the his- torical point of view, and thereby allowing the distinctive method of our science to be transformed either into speculative inference or dogmatic treatment. Its system must descend to even miuute division and classifications of the subject-matter itself, and of the combination of parts Avhich is inherent in its historical character. 8 INTRODUCTION. [§ 2. But a merely external juxtaposition of tlie parts is as much for- bidden as would be their fusion into one indiscriminate mass. For the very reason that Christianity itself is our subject, there can be no question as to the impropriety of treating it from an outwardly historical point of view, in which persons or writings are merely taken as a basis of division, and dealt with accordingly. It is not individualities but the life in them with which we are concerned ; not Holy Scripture per se, but the religion contained in it. Our subject must be treated and regarded as an historical phenomenon, as indeed it shows itself to be. Apologetic, polemic, and other tendencies may of themselves claim a place in the treatment of the subject ; but then- only right use is as accessories^, not impairing the force of the historical procedure. § 2. J}icw Testament CJirisiianif//. The writings of the New Testament are what we regard as the historical sources from which our knowledge of primitive Chris- tianity is derived. In our system, although Christianity is con- sidered as a religion which is historically presented to us, it will not be followed tlu'oughout the whole course of its historical development, but only so far as it is presented in the writings of the New Testament. For the New Testament is to us the com- plex of the most ancient memorials of Christianity, wherein it appears in its earliest form. What these New Testament Scrip- tures consist of must here be taken for granted as the result of our introductory inquiry : only we must bear in mind, that it is almost impossible to arrive at any conclusion on this point which can be regarded as of universal validity. Perhaps only the first four of the Pauline epistles can be accepted as unquestioned in their authenticity. Therefore all that we are entitled to demand, is the acknowledgment of the New Testament Scriptures as the oldest memorials of the Christian religion. At any rate, they present it with a fulness and power of thought, which favours the supposi- tion that they proceed from the most gifted amongst the ancient witnesses of Christianity. Eeady as some are to place them as late as the second century, the question still remains, where are the men to whom we can ascribe the genius requisite to produce them ? Are the writings of the apostolical fathers calculated in any way to invite us to adopt the above-named supposition ? But even if we widen the lunits for tlieir origin so as to reach § 2,] NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY. 9 the middle of the second century, yet they still remain the oldest monuments which have come down to us. On the other hand, if no more than those four Pauline epistles were unquestionably genuine, we should still have in them an ample test for deciding the question of what is or is not apostolic doctrine. Indeed, so sufficient would this little be, that we could gladly make it our groundwork in the investigation of primitive Christianity. As a new religion, Christianity appears in contrast to all earlier ones, according to the words with regard to the " fulness of time" (Gal. iv. 4 ; Eph. i. 1 0). According to the latter of these pas- sages, Christ gathers together in one all which was before con- fused in a scattered and manifold variety. That Christianity stands in a positive connection with the Old Testament, needs no special proof : the individual doctrinal systems show that it is, and in what sense it is, everywhere regarded as the fulfilment of the Old Testament. On the other hand, its relation to Gentile religions seems at first sight to be only that of contradiction, as when Christ (Matt. vi. 7, 8, 32) contrasts the Christian praying with that of the heathen as based upon an entirely different con- ception of God, or when He forbids religious community with the heathen (Matt, xviii. 17). His view of the Samaritan religion also includes a like judgment upon heathenism (Matt. xv. 24), No less does this opposition express itself in apostolical dicta, such as Eph. ii. 3, Gal. iv. 8 (cf. 1 Pet. iv. 3), and also in the apostolical discourses in the Acts of the Apostles, which speak of the darkness (xxvi. 18) of the times of ignorance (xvii. 30), or, less strongly, of the " own ways " (xiv. 1 6) of the heathen. But as on the other side, also, Christianity everywhere is con- trasted with the state of childhood (Gal. iv. 3, 9 ; Col. ii. 8), the curse (Gal. iii 1 3, cf. 2 Cor. iii. 9), and the letter which " killeth" (2 Cor. iii. 6 sq.) of legal religion, it must equally be borne in mind that the heathen no less than the Jews are regarded as re- ceptive of salvation (Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Luke xxiv. 47 ; CoL i 23 ; Gal. ii. 7-9 ; Eom. xi. 13 ; Eph. iii. 1). Jesus not only acknow- ledges the same (Matt. xv. 28, cf. 24; Luke vii. 9), but He also announces the future participation of the heathen as a great fact (Matt. viii. 10 sq. ; John x. IG). The apostolical view also is early brought out in the fact, that the heathen were not obliged to be first admitted through Judaism (Acts xv. G-11, x. 44-48). And this capability of salvation on their part was very soon 1 0 INTRODUCTION. [§ 2. established as an historical fact. From this position of suscep- tibility thus much at least follows as the view taken in the New Testament, that the underlying religious element is not absolutely destroyed by the influence of heathenism, and consequently that something besides unmixed error may be found in it. Now comes the question, whether this element is consciously recognised in the New Testament. We find Jesus Himself in actual contact with those heathens only who received miraculous help from Him. And it is only on the supposition that the Greeks (John xii. 2 0 sq.) were really heathen who took part in the feast after the manner of proselytes of the gate, that contact of a more general nature can be said to have taken place. But since He refers them to the future, it follows that, as regards any conscious recognition on His part, it was merely with a view to the future that He put His religion within then- reach. The Apostle Paul, however, pronounces more closely as to the above-named positive relation, discovering real points of union with the heathen, and on that account confessing himself able to conform to some of their usages (1 Cor. ix. 19-22). In the Epistle to the Eomans he depicts the natural, religious, and moral disposition of the heathen, and in the Areopagus at Athens alludes to this disposition and to their guesses after truth, — quoting, indeed, the utterance of one of their own poets, by the confession contained in which the tendency of his apostolic discourse is suggested. He addresses himself to their conscience (Eom. ii.), and therefore refers them in the Areopagus to the future judgment. But with all this, Christianity remains throughout the New Testament the only true and perfect religion (John viii. 32, xvii. 14, 17 ; 1 John i. 2 ; Gal. iii. 1; 2 John 1 ; Eph. i. 13; Col. i. 5, 6; 2 Thess. ii. 10 sq.; 1 Pet. ii. 6), standing ever3n;\'here in contrast to "weak and beggarly elements" (aroc-^eLa, Gal. iv. 9 ; Col. ii. 8, 2 0), amongst which the Old Testament religion itself is included. Christianity, although a system of doctrine, is never confined to mere doctrine. It is only in its low forms that religion pre- sents itself in symbol and myth as a bare expression of feeling and imagination. Even the Old Testament is of a much more didactic character than the heathen religions ; and still more so Christianity, a special attribute of which is producing and moiild- ing into shape a connected and intelligible system. Still the gospel message itself is a sufficient proof that every later scho- § 2.] NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY. 11 lastic and rationalistic view which conlcT find in it nothing hut doctrine, takes a one-sided view of the question. The word is from beginning to end the explanation of a fact, — of the fact that the kingdom of God is come near, and that the Saviour has appeared, — that He has perfected His work, and poured out His Spirit upon all who believe in Him. Nothing, therefore, could be further from the truth than the rationalistic distinction between the religion of Jesus and His religious teaching. Jesus Himself teaches, but His whole rich store of precept is nothing else than the announcement of Himself as the manifested Christ. Everything besides is merely preparation for, or explanation and application of, that one statement. In St. John's Gospel it is clear that all the teaching relates to the Person of Jesus ; but in the other three also this Person is the centre and groundwork of the whole new religion: Him we must confess (Matt. x. 32), and suffer for His sake (Matt. V. 11). Here also we have, as the real essence of Christianity, a fact on which all the teaching is based, the history of an actual life. The whole body of aj)ostolic doctrine has reference to the same fact, especially to the turning-point of the life of Jesus. To this, however, is added a further historical basis, the communication of the Holy Spirit, and the life of the community of believers in Jesus which is founded thereon. These two leading facts, then, are the groundwork and hypothesis on which all development of apostolic doctrine must rest. li we take them away, the ISTew Testament teaching is without either foundation or vital power, a plant decaying of itseli. The simple view of the New Testament Scriptures leads us to the same result. They arc partly histori- cal, partly doctrinal writings. The historical -writings have been admitted into the canon because Christians regard as the very source of their belief the historical appearance of the Llessiah of Nazareth, and the advent and development of the life proceeding from Him, and depending on the communication of His Spirit. As a first consequence of this fact, Christianity presents itself on one side as a system of doctrine, and on the other as an estab- lished community. The teaching is an essential element, because some announcement of the fact is necessary. The teaching of Jesus is the statement of His self-consciousness, and in like manner the apostolic doctrine expresses the consciousness of the life gradually developing itself in the community. The historical life wliich constitutes Christianity appears in the 1 2 INTRODUCTION. [§ 2. New Testament as life from God. The life of Jesus depends upon His being in the Father, and the Father in Him ; the ful- ness of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily, and streaming forth from Him. The life of believers owes its existence to God, and depends upon a birth from the Spirit, the awakening of men through the word of truth. Hence the word which contains the announcement of this historical life is itself endowed with a divine life-giving power (cf. Eom. i. 16), and is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. i. 24). As life from God, it is the living manifestation of God, and indeed the one perfecting manifestation which redeems mankind (John vi. 45-47 ; Matt, xi. 25-27). The doctrine and fellowship which are developed from it, are therefore divine teaching and a divinely established fellowship, the foregoing fact remaining equally the source of both. Such is the general aspect of Christianity in the New Testament. It thus finds its parallel in the Old Testament, where also fact rather than doctrine takes the foremost place. This fact is the old preparatory covenant between God and man, — at first, indeed, limited to one family, and afterwards to one nation. Old Testament theology has, therefore, to represent this revelation of the covenant first in patriarchal times, and then in the national development, as Mosaism, Prophetism, and lastly Judaism. Both Testaments rest on a common foundation of the divine revelation, the first with particular limits in kind and degree, the second with the character of universal religion. The fundamental fact which when received into human con- sciousness is also the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, is the life which proceeds from God, or, God manifested for the salvation of mankind. The treatment of this falls naturally under two heads : {\.d) the appearance of this life, unmediately followed by (2rf) the commencement of its great work for man's salvation ; — or, firstly, its manifestation in Jesus Christ ; and, secondly, the foundation of the primitive apostolic church. Thus we have two periods, the Messianic and the apostolic, which are distinct both as to time and character. The first comprehends the days of the Son of man (Luke xvii. 2 2 ; John viii. 5 6 ; Heb. V. 7; Matt. ix. 15; Mark ii. 19; Luke v. 34), and its subject is Jesus Christ come in the flesh (1 John iv. 2), and the mani- festation of God in Him (John xvii. 6 ; Matt. xi. 2 7). The apostolic period, which is established through the Spirit (Acts i. § 2.] NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY. 1 3 8 ; John xiv. 26 ; Matt. x. 20), embraces the time of the apostles' testimony (Acts i. 21), and carries on the representation of the revelation as having for its object to make known and glorify the Father and the Son in and through the Spirit (John xv. and xvi.). But inasmucli as Jesus spoke of the communication of this Spirit only under the form of a promise, John remarks (vii. 39) that the Holy Ghost was not yet given (cf Luke xxiv. 49 ; Acts i. 8). Thus the ISTew Testament itself distinctly recognises two periods of the revelation it unfolds. At first the divine life is contained exclu- sively in the person of Jesus and streams forth from Him alone ; subsequently it appears as an independent life in all believers. Some persons, indeed, have despaired of being able to carry out the above-named distinction, and therefore represent everything as apostolic doctrine, because a line cannot be clearly drawn between the latter and the historical purport of Christ's teaching and appearance.-^ But the apostolic church itself was conscious of possessing a true conception of Jesus. This she has presented in the gospels ; and New Testament theology must accept it from her, although still permitted to investigate its historical truth. But neither has its general credibility been seriously shaken hitherto, nor will it ever be possible to give a really historical representation of the origincs ot Christianity without adhering to this distinction. The very nature of Christianity requires that it should in every age first appear as life in an historical form ; then, and not till then, as doctrine. Every period will thus be divided into an historical and a didactic portion. The former of these, however, will not be an enumeration of every isolated fact ; for this would not suffice us. What we require is New Testament Christianity as such, that is to say, the characteristics of the di^'inely human life of Jesus, and of the inspired lives of those who believe in Him. It is not a question of outward events, which are only taken into account so far as they are manifestations of this peculiar life. Hence arises the selection of the facts and the mode of their representation. In treating of the Messianic period, we do not therefore propose to give a biography of Jesus, but to trace in the details of His history the unity of the divine life in Him. "We shall, therefore, notice in the first place those facts only in which this divine life is manifested ; but ^\here many facts reveal 1 So Mattliiii, and more recently Ilahn. 14 INTRODUCTION. [§ 2. only one side of it, they may be gronped together under one head, so that, instead of treating the miracles and discourses of Jesus separately, our subject would be His effectual working in both combiaed. Similarly, in the apostolic period, we are concerned not so much with the persons of the apostles as with the new life in the apostolic church, and consequently with the statement of those facts which are calculated to throw light upon the nature of the new life of the Spirit. We must also at this point endeavour to draw out the spirit from the history before us. A mode of treatment might be devised by which the historical and doctrinal elements might be exhibited in a form of internal unity ; but since this unity is not directly represented in the New Testament itself, there would be danger of treating the subject rather from a dogmatical than from an historical point of view. It will there- fore be better to take the historical element by itself, which can be done the more briefly, inasmucli as it is concerned only with traits of character. i FIKST PART. THE MESSIANIC AGE. ^ 3. Introduction. — Our Sources of Knoivleclge. HE direct sources of information for the Messianic period of New Testament Christianity, are the four canonical gospels and some few passages of the other New Testament Scriptures. Inasmuch as light is thrown upon the contents of these prin- cipal sources in more than one Avay through comparison, partly with the apostolic period of New Testament Christianity, partly with the oldest non-biblical accounts of the Messianic period, we are also indirectly concerned with the consideration of certain collateral and subsidiary sources. These are of three kinds : (1.) Those ^vritings of the New Testament which relate to the apostolic period ; (2.) Eecords of the tunes of Jesus not comprised in the canon, especially the Jewish history of that period; and (3.) Traditional accounts of His life. Among these sources, that matter is of the greatest importance which we have at our com- mand in respect to the Jewish history of the period, whether in classical writers or in the known Jewish authors of the time ; whilst other writings of obscurer origin, whether Jewish or mixed, as the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, are of more doubtful credibility. Less importance attaches to the special extra-biblical sources for the life of Jesus. This is due partly to their scanti- ness,— a defect which attaches not only to the few traces of a knowledge of the person of Jesus to be found in the classics, but even to the traditional fragments which have been handed do^vn amongst Christians ; partly also to the manifest distortion of his- torical truth which appears, for instance, in the apocrj^hal gospels, and in the traditions based upon them. The canon contains four gospels, in accordance with the system which everywhere runs through it of giving a plurality of vnii- 15 1 6 THE MESSIANIC AGE. [PART I. ings, wliicli set forth the genius of primitive Christianity, and respectively throw light upon and supplement one another. They are not biographies, for they give the life of Jesus only with a view of proving His Messianic character. Consequently they aim at producing a true, but not a complete, picture, by a systematic grouping of characteristic features ; and thus they combine some- thing of a dogmatic with their historical character. This shows itself most in John and Matthew (but compare the beginning of Luke witli the end of John). They may, therefore, one and all be said to represent the public life of Jesus from His baptism onwards, not offering reflections upon the facts related, but only putting them together in such a way as to exhibit the true cha- racter of the Messianic life. The Hellenistic language is at the same time common to them all. The Synoptists, however, are distinguished from John by describing our Lord's ministry in Galilee only, extending their account subsequently to Persea and the final scene at Jerusalem. John, on the other hand, repre- sents the appearances of Jesus in Judea and Galilee alternately. In John the discourses are more central, in the Synoptists less so. From the sixth cliapter onwards John gives for the most part the direct testimony of Jesus Himself as to His person and His work ; the others abound more in such discourses as stand in preparative reference to this. The Sermon on the Mount is of this kind : it introduces us to the moral spirit of the kingdom of God, and so far cannot be said to be entirely uncentral in its character, yet its precepts do not aim at directly representing that spiritual kingdom, the righteousness of which it describes, as the kingdom to be founded, ruled, and perfected by Him, Jesus Christ. Intimations to this effect are not wanting, but they appear more in the background. Of discourses of this kind the synoptic gospels contain also, for instance, certain collections of parables (Matt. xiii. ; Luke viii., xiv. ff.). But inasmuch as the synoptic gospels also are not wanting in elements of doctrine, which are entirely of the nature of central truths, because they treat directly of the Messiah's person, or of the relation of Jesus of Nazareth to His work, they too favour the conviction that with due regard to time and circumstance our Lord always incorporated both kinds of doctrinal elements in His discourses. And although those re- corded by John appear to bear more immediate reference to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the aoyrrjp rov Koa/jLov, this exactly § 3.] OUR SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. 17 falls in witli the whole scheme of this gospel, which from begin- ning to end aims at representing the divine manifestation of the Logos made flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. But this does not occasion any deficiency of matter, which, although quite characteristic of John, yet shows the most decided points of con- tact with elements of doctrine found in the synoptic evangelists ; and this statement will be fully borne out in the following pages. In John, again, there is more precision of historical structure ; for not only does he give the progress of events in exact chrono- logical order, but he shows also their development from the very first towards the final catastrophe, in the gradually increasing hostility to Jesus, of which, as well as of its consequences, He Himself is represented as fully conscious. In short, John's stand- point is more universal in its character ; that of the synoptics more national. This distinction, however, is not absolute: even the author of the fourth gospel plainly shows himself to belong to the Jewish nationality. Amongst the Synoptists j\iatthew shows the most regard to events, and often attends more to facts than to their chronological order. Luke shows that he has combined fragments collected from external sources, but at the same time deals with our Saviour's youth as a systematic and beautiful whole. If Matthew writes for the Jewish Christians, Luke on the other hand "writes from the Pauline standpoint for the use of Gentile converts. Mark is distinguished by little else than his brevity. Although we no longer possess the original of IMatthew's Gospel, which, according to the unanimous tradition of Christian antiquity, was written in the Aramaic language, yet the Greek text has been always unhesitatingly acknowledged to be identical with the gospel written by ]\iatthew, and there is no sufficient ground for not regarding it as a genuine translation of that Aramaic original. It may be easily supposed that this original was at an early period altered by the Jewish Christian sects, and thus lost in its integrity, on which account the translation in which alone it was accessible acquired all the more value. The quota- tions from the Old Testament in many cases do not correspond either with the LXX. or with the Hebrew text, and in this very probably follow the Aramaic gospel, which no doubt even in quotations paid regard to the interpretations of a passage which prevailed in the current paraphrases of the day. The statement B 1 8 ~ THE MESSIANIC AGE. [PART I. that we have nothing more of Matthew's own than a collection of discourses, does not seem probable from the testimony adduced on the subject. The objections, however, which have been made to the historical part of the gospel admit of a different explana- tion. The didactic element is certainly the strongest, and a preference is shown by its author for the combination of more numerous or longer discourses. Wlien, therefore, he condenses the historical element into a few leading features, this is suffi- ciently explained by the predominant direction of his mind, and by the design of bringing prominently forward the conception of the Messiahship of Jesus, which was the guiding principle in his selection of topics. The other Synoptists are, like him, silent as to the earlier period of Christ's ministry in Jerusalem, although allusions to it are to be found both in Matthew (xxiii. 3 7) and in Liike (xiii. 34); cf also Luke x. 38 ff. This has been already accounted for in a general Avay by the structural feature visible in them all, whereby we are led on, from the preparation and consecration of Jesus, through the characteristic events of His public ministry to the closing scene. Now, as it is certain that Matthew afforded a type for the other gospels, his late call also affords a point of explanation (Matt. ix. 9) ; and, further, the cir- cumstance that without doubt Jesus was not accompanied by the whole number of His disciples on all His journeys even to Jeru- salem (cf. John vii., and the sending forth of the disciples, Matt. X. ; also Luke x.). Now, if Matthew was either partially or wholly absent at the festival visits, this sufficiently accounts for his only mentioning what occurred in Galilee and Persea. No doubt he had, as an apostle, delivered the purport of his gospel by word of mouth many times before he committed it to Avriting. In this way, then, the narration of his own experience naturally fell into its present shape, and this was passed on as a type from him to the others. The Gospel of ]Mark, although it displays less originality than the others, yet contains enough that is peculiar to itself, partly in particular narratives, partly in the independent treatment of individual circumstances, to show that it cannot have been en- tirely formed from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, although it may have been partially derived from them. But other sources besides must have been at his command. And individual traits, such as the statement of events at Gethsemane, in which he alone § 3.] OUR SOUECES OF KNOAVLEDGE. 19 has the address to Simon, are best explained by adhering to the tradition of his connection with Peter. The deficiency of earlier history in his gospel may be accounted for in the same way. This is strange even if his work were origmal, but incomprehen- sible if the other gospels lay before him, unless we suppose that he Avas guided by the recollection of the method adopted by Peter in his didactic discourses, as we know them from the Acts of the Apostles. In Luke, the parabolic element specially prevails, and he has, besides, many narrations in which the didactic and historical elements are combined. His history of the resurrection is par- ticularly copious, as well as the account, peculiar to himself, in the ninth chapter, of a circuitous journey to Jerusalem. This gospel has a strong historical testimo^iy in its favour, in its early misuse by Marcion, and also in its connection with the Acts of the Apostles, wliich are evidently -waitten in part by an eye- witness. And if Luke was really for any considerable period the companion of the Apostle Paul, this would account for his being able to make personal investigation in Palestine of the events related in the gospel. As regards our fourth gospel, the testimony of Christian anti- quity, bearing partly on the gospel itself, and partly on the first of the epistles connected Avith it, and also its internal distinc- tiA'^e features, authenticate it as the genuine Avork of the Apostle John sufficiently to overcome the doubts even of modern criticism. As internal evidence in its faA^our, may be mentioned not only individual traits, Avhich betray an eye-Avitness's exact ImoAvledge of facts, but, above all, the historical unity of the whole, in Avhich a development so much in accordance Avith facts is revealed. Its universality of scope, and freedom from national limitations, haA'e in particular been thought suspicious ; but this arises only from the fact of their having been exaggerated and represented from a one- sided point of vicAV. Moreover, it depicts the JcAvish surround- ings of Jesus both as a Avhole and in detail with sharply defined JeAvish characteristics. John relates only a smaller number of characteristically selected miracles, but these Avell represent the whole miraculous agency of Jesus. The evangelist shows himseK to have a thorough insight into the latter as a whole, and gives to it the importance due to it amongst the causes of Jesus' success. Thus, for example, in Jerusalem (ii. 23, viii. 30 11); 20 THE MESSIANIC AGE. [PART L and also in Galilee ; for the activity in tliat place is plainly enough put forward (iv. 45, vi. 1-15, cf 66). That the con- ception found of Jesus Himself is not a really different one in the Synoptists and in John, has to be shown by the setting forth of the teaching so as to form one single conception of Him de- rived from both sources. Again, the general course of our Lord's career is not differently represented in the two accounts ; — at least, any one must have greatly prejudged the question who could venture to maintain that, according to the Synoptists, there were no drawbacks to the success of our Lord's ministry, even up to the time of the final catastrophe ; and like^vise that John's conception of the character of Jesus is stiff, lifeless, and unvary- ing. In conclusion, we must remark that the evangelist knew how to distinguish the discourses and doctrine of Jesus from his own ideas. We are in a j)Osition to show that it is quite possible to exhibit separately the Apostle John's system of doc- trine, and that of Jesus as set forth in tliis gospel ; albeit a cer- tain colouring in the rendering of the discourses may belong to the narrator. The gospels generally give the grandest picture of a divinely-human personality, whose superhuman claims are yet comprised in all their ethical greatness, and pervade the whole mass of the narrative. To have produced such a picture far exceeds the power of a mere narrator. But, in John's Gospel especially, the discourses of Jesus are drawn so much out of the inmost depths of this life itself, that there can be no difficulty in deciding whether to acknowledge their authenticity or to ascribe them to an author of the second century. Not even to an apostle could we venture to attribute them. To speak, in the next place, of the dift'erent ways in which these writings have been understood. The allegorical interpreta- tion sprang up on a field foreign to Christianity ; it was soon con- tinued in the Church only in the form of edifying application, and subsisted in this way for a long time side by side with the historical mode of interpretation, and on the same basis. It was reserved for the last century to resuscitate the revolting hypo- thesis of a dece]3tive design brought forward by the exasperated and desperate enemies of Christianity ; but this soon succumbed to the verdict of public opinion. On the other side, the so-called natural explanation was involved in difficulties Avhich soon made it impossible. Thus nothing remained for those who would not § 3.] OUR SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. 21 acknowledge the historical truth of the gospels, but the assumption that they were traditions which had their origin in the inventive and poetizing spirit of the people. And this view was adopted more eagerly in proportion to the interest taken in the traditions of antiquity. But it is, moreover, on external grounds impossible that tradition should have been able to substitute a mass of fictions for genuine historical records in the Church. For, as the most imsuspected apostolical testimony in the epistolary portions of the New^ Testament shoAv, the life of Jesus was never left to be attested by tradition of this land ; but, being at first in the hands of the apostles themselves, was handed down from them by means of a well-ordered ecclesiastical ministry. The more impossible it became on historical grounds to regard the whole existence and life of Jesus as a myth, the more inducements there were for endeavour- ing to assume signs of -a mythical element in the narratives them- selves. These signs, however, are not restricted to the universal criteria of historical truth ; but those which possess most force and widest application are always deduced from a view of nature and history, which excludes miracles, or from a lower view of the per- son of Jesus, which is opposed to everything that tends to glorify Him, and consequently bases the history on nothing better than dogmatic hypothesis. But what tells most decisively against the mythical view, is the fact which cannot be got over, that the origin of these myths does not admit of a sufficient explanation, either on a retrospective or prospective view of the history. For, as regards the first, the Christian Messiah was, notwthstanding the basis laid for Him in the ground of the Old Testament, an entirely different person from him whom the Jews expected ; and, as for the second, tlie original Christian conception, from which Jesus is said to have sprung, is based simply on history. The characteristic of this conception plainly is, that it has its origin in a redeeming life. And the fact of the redemption of mankind, wliich lay from the beginning in the Christian consciousness, does not consist in the existence of the idea, but in the reality of the life sought for. Without this, Christianity would sink to the level of ante-Chris- tian religions ; it would be, like them, an endless seeking after truth, instead of wearing as its distinctive characteristic that it has found it in Christ. Apart from the external evidence in tlicir favour, wliich lies in the style and recognition of the gospel writings themselves 22 THE MESSIANIC AGE. [PART I. and is referred to in biblical introduction, tlie decisive ground for their acceptance as real history lies in the existence of the apostolic church, and in its inner growth and incorporation with the life of Jesus. This apostolical church, however, offers us direct as well as indirect proofs. In the apostolic letters, as didactic and hortatory epistles addressed to already existing communities, we cannot, of course, expect to find any description of the life of Jesus ; but the principal facts of His life are con- stantly referred to as historically known and certain. Cf. on the subject of His life and parentage, 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Phil. ii. 7 ; Eom. i. 3, cf. ix. 5 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; Gal. iv. 4 ;— on His suffer- ings, death, and resurrection, 1 Cor. ii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4 ; Eom. vi. 9, 10 ; — on His dignity and sinlessness and His work, Eom. viii. 3, 4 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; Eom. viii. 17, 34, xiv. 9, 10, cf. ii. 6, 16 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Eom. iv. 25, v. 11 ff. ; 1 Cor. xv. 45 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Eom. viii. 9 ff. U^^on this rests the whole Pauline Christology. Now Paul was certainly not an eye-witness, and his evangelical announcement was quite an original one (Gal. i.) ; but yet he was in communication with eye- witnesses of the facts (Gal. ii.), and must have collected from them information about what had happened. We see, for in- stance, how, with regard to the Last Supper, he appeals to some definite information on the subject (1 Cor. xi.) ; and, in speaking of the resurrection, to the minutely detailed external testimony on which it rests (1 Cor. xv.). He is also careful, where precepts of life are concerned (1 Cor. vii.), to distinguish between matters actually determined by Jesus, and his own or any other opinions respecting them. Thus we find both requisites, — that he rests upon history, and that he deals with it in the most conscientious manner. Equally strong testimony to the same principal facts is borne by the Apostle John, who, in his first epistle, speaks of himself in the most positive terms as an eye-witness ; and the evidence of Peter (1 Epist.) and of James is of the same Idnd. So also, outside the canon of Scripture, the unvarying tradition of the ancient church speaks of a firmly rooted and abiding conviction on this subject. The very silence of Josephus is a testimony for the life of Jesus ; for, had he been able to disprove the validity of the Christian statement, he would certainly have done so. The con- clusion is irresistible, that the existence of the Christian church and of the idea on which it rests is a fact which can be explained § 3j OUR SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. 23 in no other way than by the extraordinary personality and history which are claimed for it. It is contrary to all historical analogy that a number of obscure individuals should have been the authors of these world-transforming ideas, except under the genuine guid- ance of a master spirit. And without doubt it w^ould have far exceeded the capability of such narrators, and still more of the disciples in general, to work out by their own imaided powers the conception of such a personality ; and herein exactly lies its historical probability, or, indeed, truth. All objections to the miraculous element in the appearance of Jesus are easily removed, if we look at the grand inner harmony of the picture of His life which is presented to us. It is a per- fect human personality which meets us there. Where it tran- scends the limits of mere humanity, it still exhibits amidst all its personal power a discretion so meek and lowly, that we are compelled either to regard Him as a fanatic or an impostor ; or, failing to reconcile either of these suppositions with His human character, to acknowledge that He was neither one nor the other, but that His supernatural claim rests in the inmost depths of His consciousness, and w^as therefore a true one. Understood in this way, this absolutely unique personality agrees with the historically unique character of Christianity. But, notwithstand- ing its miraculous nature, it also forms a part of an organized system, which 'has its roots in the whole period of revelation antecedent to the appearance of Jesus, and, in its subsequent effects, buds, blossoms, and bears fruit. Indeed, it has been thought to be a characteristic of the myth, that the fact shows itself as the highest development of an historically antecedent idea. But why should not God carry out the purposes for which He has so prepared the way ? The effects are, however, quite homogeneous to the miraculous beginning. The more firmly, therefore, the main fact is established, the greater right we have to demand that the first question asked by an impartial inquirer should be, What has taken place ? and then, How is it to bo accounted for ? Also, that characteristics should not be pre- supposed of everything which has taken place which run counter to the very character of the facts, and make them antecedently impossible, because a certain philosophical view looks upon every miracle as impossible. But the rejection of all that is miraculous cannot constitute itself the law of historical inquir}'. ?A THE MESSIANIC AGE. [PART I. The true critic will hold fast to the main historical facts and all that is necessarily involved in them ; and, in the next place, he will apply to the accounts in question the test of their internal agreement. These accounts exhibit some points of difference. But this is the case with the most notorious facts of profane history, without any one dreaming of its being necessary on that account to call in question the facts themselves. Many difficul- ties, arising from this varied mode of presentation, vanish of themselves as soon as the task of forming a judgment is simply set about with an honest purpose. So far as some of these state- ments bear a peculiar stamp, the fact is explained by the copious- ness of form and expression assumed by the grandeur of our Lord's personality. On the other hand, we see in tlie above-cited example of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. vii.), how conscientiously, in apostolic times, the authentic discourses of Jesus were selected and handed down. With this agrees the careful transmission of the discourses in Matthew ; and even in John it can be shown how well he distinguishes the discourses of Jesus and their type of doctrine from his own. The subjective nature of the repre- sentation takes nothing from its historical character. It is itself only an indirect proof of the powerful influence which was at work. But, where the same circumstances are differently re- ported, the critic has to decide whether the facts are really identical or not, only he must do this on historical, not on philosophical grounds. No theory of inspiration can prevent our acknowledging the existence of such elements of uncertainty. The method of biblical theology is of necessity purely historical, and hence the manner alone in which the Scripture exj^resses itself can here be considered. And here the general possibility must be admitted, that even a decided theory of divine inspiration may be compatible with the admission of individual elements not strictly authentic, provided only that the transmission of that which regards the nature of Christianity lies under no suspicion. DIV. I. § 1] THE LIFE OF JESUS. 25 FIEST DIVISION. THE LIFE OF JESUS § 4. Nature of the Sahjcct. Christianity in the Messianic period is essentially bound up v,-itli the person of Jesus of Nazareth ; and herein a distinction must be drawn between His historical appearance and the didactic expression of the Messianic consciousness in the teaching of Jesus. Now, all that is aimed at here being to describe the essential features of Christianity during this period, our sketch will certainly embrace the whole life of Jesus, but not in its details. Hence it is clearly not a biography of Jesus, — a subject, however, which has possessed a copious literature of its own since the last quarter of the 18th century. The essential facts are what we are most concerned with, and tliese are the turning-points in our Lord's history, as His birth related by two, His death, resurrection, and glorification by all four, evangelists ; and also a compendium of historical details, so far as tliey display tlie nature of the IMessianic person. It is not necessary, for instance, to describe every individual miracle, but only in general our Lord's activity in works of that kind, and its characteristic features as an essential phase of His historical manifestation. The early history of Jesus must also form a part of our pre- sent plan ; and it Avill be necessary to investigate the question, in which sense the birth and youth of Jesus form essential parts of His personal manifestation. I THE EARLY HISTORY OF JESUS. § 5. yl General View of the Above. The accounts of Jesus' early years, compared with those of Ilis public life, stand in a different relation to the gospel preaching of 2 6 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [rART I. the apostles and their coadjutors. For only the later events could form the topic of a discourse intended to make proselytes. It was the public life only which could found a new faith ; other things could do no more than contribute to its support. And it was of importance before unbelievers that the facts should be attested by contemporary evidence. On this account Mark and John begin with the public life, and even in the Acts, John's baptism is adhered to as the starting-point of the apostolic testi- mony (Acts i. 21, 22, X. 36-41, 37, 39, xiii. 24); and for the same reason also the feast of the Epiphany is prior in historical importance to that of Christmas. But, as the interest a believer takes in the subject is different from that of an unbeliever, it be- comes necessary to trace the life of Jesus to its source ; and this requirement had to be satisfied in the gospels written for the church. A more general Christian interest than that exhibited in St. Matthew must be presupposed in the man to whom Luke's Gospel is addressed. The evangelist himself evidently possessed the extensive scheme and comprehensive grasp of the true his- torian ; and his aim had in view the whole province of the attain- able. Although this might have been possible by fictitious narrative, either intentional and conscious, or unintentional and mythical, yet authentic traditions and historical investigation would be equally available for the same purpose ; and these were accessible to the apostles and their contemporaries, who had our Lord's mother living amongst them (Acts i. 14, cf John xix. 26, 27). The objection that even the family of Jesus had no belief in Him (John vii. ; Mark iii.) cannot be maintained. In the expression of doubt concerning Him recorded by Mark (iii. 21) Mary herself took no part ; and it is quite in the nature of things that she should prefer to ponder in her own thoughtful spirit over the earlier events, rather than make theni known prematurely even to her nearest relatives. In the case of our Lord's brethren, the proverb about the prophet in his own country Avas certainly ful- filled to the letter ; yet they also believed after the resurrection. Whether the accounts relating to this period are to be re- garded as trustworthy, obviously depends upon the genuineness of the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke. (a) The genuineness of the first two chapters of Matthew has been often attacked and defended since the last quarter of the last century. The external reasons against them founded on the nature DIV. I. § 5.] GENERAL VIEW OF HIS EARLY HISTORY. 27 of the manuscripts will not Lear investigation. The use of the chapters in question amongst the fathers extends as far hack as Justin, who, in his dialogue with Trypho, quotes as from ]\Iatthew the Old Testament passages therein referred to, and manifestly makes free use of him himself Celsus, on the other hand, as we learn from Origen, disputed the genuineness of these accounts. They make good their claim, however, to be regarded as original portions of Matthew's Gospel, not only by their language, which might be laid to the account of the Greek translators, but also by their whole general mode of expression. The Ebionites and the Gnostics alike rejected them on dogmatic grounds. For these dogmas made them necessarily averse not only to the history of our Lord's birth, but also to the genealogy (in which, ver. 16, ]\Iary is mentioned), and to the story of the magi ; for, according to the Ebionites, who held that Jesus first became the Messiah at His baptism. His star could not have shown itself so early. (5) Against the genuineness of the first two chapters of Luke only Marcion can be adduced, but his criticism proves nothing at all. The only inference which can be drawn from the Jewish vein of thought which runs through them, is that Luke met with some earlier sources of information, which he regarded as com- pletely trustworthy. It only remains, therefore, to apply the principles of internal criticism to the narrative itself, and that chiefly on the formal ground of the relation which the two accounts bear to each other, and their discrepancies or incompatibility. Loth accounts are undeniably of a fragmentary character. The only circumstances they possess in common are the proof of our Lord's descent from David (but dealt with in different ways), the account of His super- natural generation, and of His birth at Bethlehem. Matthew's narrative, however, is given from Joseph's standpoint, Lulce's from that of Mary; and the two are therefore quite independent of each other. Matthew's object is to demonstrate the Messianic character of Jesus from His earliest youth by means of the history of the magi, and of His rescue from the consequent peril of His life, no less than by the genealogy and proof of His supernatural birth. He is satisfied when he has attained this object, which he clearly indicates by referring back to the Messianic prophecies themselves. Luke has essentially the same object in view, re- tracinsj as he does the connection between Jesus and Joliu the 28 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. Baptist to its source, adding some scenes from the childhood of the former, Avhich had imj)ressed themselves deeply on the mother's heart. ISTow, the fragmentary character of such a history of his youth almost necessitates that one statement should deviate from the other even to the extent of appearing to contradict it. But there is no real discrepancy. For we can easily suppose that the presentation in the Temple may have taken place before the ar- rival of the magi. The statement at first sight opposed to this (Luke ii. 39) is merely the form in which the evangelist passes on to his main subject, the events which took place at Nazareth. The return to Nazareth, by a journey of several days, imme- diately after the presentation, is not in itself very probable ; but the presentation must by no means be regarded on that account as having taken place after the flight into Eg}^3t. The fragment- ary character, therefore, of these notices explains the difficulty of the return to Nazareth appearing, according to Luke's account, to follow upon the presentation, whereas it took place, as Matthew relates, from out of Egypt ; and also the appearance, according to St. Matthew, of Bethlehem having been their earlier abode. But v/e must also notice that Jose^^h, from whose standpoint Matthew proceeds, certainly belonged to Bethlehem, even though he may have had no house there. (As to the double pedigree, see below.) Thus much, at least, is proved by the existence of two accounts, that there was not originally any one of sole and undisputed authority, — a fact perfectly consistent with the credibility of the various existing narrations, of which each of the two evangelists has handed down a portion in internal agreement with the other, Matthew giving greater prominence to its retrospective bearing on the Old Testament, Luke to matters of more purely historical interest. Thus the chief objection to the accounts, entertained even by biographers of Jesus who otherwise admit the historical character of the individual, — which, too, has afforded such facilities for attacks like that of Strauss, — lies entirely in the tenor of the accounts them- selves. People demur to the supernatural occuiTcnces which are related, not considering that the same objection, if valid, attaches to the whole life no less than to the early childhood of Jesus : the one is not more full of wonders than the other. If the truth of the former be admitted, — of the noble and harmonious picture of the life of Jesus as it is presented in the gospels, with every re- DIV. I. § 6.] HIS DESCENT AND BIRTH. 29 quisite not only for leading captive but also for completely satis- fying the human soul, the only picture which is at all adequate to the true idea of Christianity and its world-wide importance and activity, — then must we allow that the early history in Matthew and Luke fully corresponds to the harmonious whole. It is entirely owing to this miraculous manifestation that the higher life has attained even its present degree of development in human nature. And it is a sufficient answer to the speculation which finds this miracle impossible, to point to the course of history developed during the last two thousand years as the superstructure resting on that foundation. It must, indeed, be allowed that these accounts occupy a dif- ferent position to that of the apostolic testimony to our Lord's later life. For, as regards these earlier events, the apostles were not eye but ear witnesses. "We have, therefore, only two accounts of this history, and there is but little which is related in both. This circumstance, however, does not affect their credibility. § 6. Descent and Birth of Jesus. The principal fact of the conception is unequivocally and unanimously indicated by both evangelists. Matthew implies it (i. 16) by the omission of the form iyevvrjae in the genealogy, and verse 18 leaves no doubt on the point. The preposition e'/c excludes every other explanation, as, for instance, in conformity with the Holy Ghost, i.e. with foregoing prophecy, or in a manner well pleasing to the Holy Ghost, approved of God, and not criminal in the eyes of man. In addition to this, however, all such interpretations are excluded by the historical connection in re- gard to the behaviour of Joseph. A natural conception by another man, — a crime, according to national ideas, wortliy of death, — does not agree with either of the above-mentioned explanations. The sense is therefore clear. It is a conception brought about without man's participation by the creative power of God. And precisely the same fact is undeniably asserted by St. Luke also. The negative side of it is expressed by Mary (i. 34), and tlie positive by the angel (i. 35). The aytov (neuter, because it is the yet impersonal foitus) will be the Son of God, in the same immediate creative sense as Adam (iii. 38) ; so tliat here also wc are referred to the creative power of God, to the exclusion of any masculine human agency. 30 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I The foremost objection urged against these accounts is, that they are internally contradictory. Although the details follow one another easily and conformably to fact, — viz. the announcement to Mary, Mary's visit to Elisabeth, the announcement to Joseph, and our Saviour's birth, — still a contradiction is supposed to lie in the fact, that the second angelic message followed as a simple repeti- tion, without reference to the first, and with no blame for disbelief in the earlier one, and that between Mary and Joseph themselves no explanation had taken place. Now, there could have been no such reference or blame if Joseph were unaware of the earlier angelic message. But if he knew of it, the mere agreement be- tween the two messages would doubtless have at once removed all uncertainty from his mind. And yet the very naturalness of the doubt, in the face of the unprecedented nature of the fact, would have removed all cause for blame. Besides which, it is uncertain whether Mary had thus early communicated it to him. But, in our ignorance whether she had in the interval any oppor- tunities of confidential intercourse with him on the subject, or was not rather obliged to leave it in higher hands, we nmst pronounce her too free from blame. Thus no blame attaches in any case to either, and the accounts are natural and consistent. But the event itself has of late been impugned on physico- theological grounds, — the attack being directed (1) physiologically against the circumstance of the miracle ; (2) theologically against the piu'pose of it. As regards the latter, others have adopted Schleiermacher's view, that the exclusion of the merely paternal participation would not have sufficed to secure perfect sinlessness in the new life, which end, however, might have been attained by the mere purification of both sources of parentage alike. But this view quite overlooks the main point involved, namely, the exclusion of the sensual act of generation, which exclusion would entirely alter the maternal participation (cf. John i. 13). Thus, then, the fact appears quite adequate to the object in view ; and, this object being parallel to that of creation itself, it is difficult to understand why a creative act, setting aside the laws of nature, could not possibly have been performed, those laws being them- selves established only by the act and purpose of creation. A further objection against the supernatural conception is of an historico-exegetical character, and is founded partly on the silence of the rest of the New Testament on this point, partly on doctrines DIV. I. § 6.] niS DESCENT AND BIRTH. 31 and facts held to be opposed to it. {a) The evangelists Matthew and Luke, it is said, make no further allusion to it. But this was unnecessary, since they had already given such decided promi- nence to the fact. And when the expressions parents and father occur (Luke ii. 41, 48), we must surely assume that they are used in the sense required by the immediately preceding narra- tive. In the same way, the fact of the Davidical genealogies running through Joseph is a proof that the evangelists at least did not regard these genealogies as contradicting the conception. Again, to suppose that Jesus Himself, in the face of depreciatory expressions as to His descent, should have referred to the mode of His origin, is nothing less than absurd ; for this would only have exposed Him to fresh obloquy. He did all that could pos- sibly be required in bearing witness to Himself simply as the Son of His heavenly Father, in the only true sense of that expression. (b) AUoAving that the epistolary portion of the New Testament does not mention the fact (not even Eom. i. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Heb. vii. 3), the omission is of no importance. For it was not neces- sary to put this truth prominently forward in founding Chris- tianity, but it was much more to the purpose of the apostles' teaching first to plant a faith in the higher nature of Jesus, from which faith the admission of the fact in question woidd neces- sarily follow, (c) But it has also been said that John's view of the incarnation, and of the indwelling of a divine hypostasis in Jesus, contradicts the conception by the Holy Ghost. So far from contradicting, his doctrine even requires it ; for how could the result have been brought about without such a conception ? This argument becomes irresistible when supported by the statement in John's Gospel, that what is born of the flesh is flesh, {d) Nor is it of any importance that Mark also, in his abridgment, passes over this fact unmentioned. To the untenableness of the above-named objections, must be added the difficulty of assigning a mythical origin to the narrative. The facts brought forward to connect it with Old Testament ideas are of an entirely diiferent nature. Something beyond a differ- ence in degree must surely exist between distinguished men born of aged parents, and also the term son of God as aj^plicd to kings and heroes on the one hand, and to Him who owed His origin to no human father on the other. It is not only probable, from the scantiness of our information, but, from Justin's Dialogue with 32 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. Tiypho, it is certain, that Isa. vii. was not interpreted messiani- cally by the Jews. We must also bear in mind that the truth in question was most violently attacked by the Ebionites ; and that the LXX. has been blamed for its translation irapOevo'^ in this passage. But if the Jewish line of reference is closed against us, still less can the origin we are contending for be explained by an appeal to heathen analogies of sons of gods and various incarnations, all resting on entirely different hypotheses, apart from the ex- trinsic improbability of the idea as regards a narrative which belongs to the Hebraistic elements of St. Luke. This much alone is evident from these analogies, that the premonitory tendency of subjective religion is towards a reunion of the divine and human, which finds its completion in the divine origin and person of Christ. The Christian doctrine of a regeneration by the Spirit, the whole tenor of which being so entirely different, cannot have given occasion to the narrative. And still less can it be referred to an over-estimate of the unmarried life ; for the gospels presup- pose that a real marriage between Mary and Joseph was after- wards consummated. Thus the mythical view is refuted by its internal impossibility. On the other hand, it may be assumed that the whole course of New Testament development, which leads on from facts to ideas and doctrines, will not prove to have belied itself Even the conferring of the name of Jesus is, if not a convincing, yet a supporting proof, of the historical nature of the occurrence. The significance of the fact, — and that it has significance is evident from the "therefore" (Sio) of Luke i. 35, — lies in its being the starting- point of a new life for manldnd, a life of pure humanity. The projDortions of the synoptic view have not yet reached the point of the incarnation, nor is absolute sinlessness as yet asserted any more than in the case of Adam. But, by the exclusion of the generative act from the origin, a higher degree of purity was at all events secured for the offspring. The personality, which was thus spared from being interwoven with the continuity of our sinful nature, adopted from it so much only as was homogeneous to its divine origin, and consequently bears within itself a purity and power resulting from the divine consciousness, enabling it to become a new starting-point for humanity. This is the synoptical idea, answering to the Pauline comparison of Christ with Adam, and to his apprehension of Him as the Lord from DIV. I. § C] niS DESCENT AND BIRTH. 33 heaven (1 Cor. xv. 47), and as the life-giving Spirit (xv. 45, cf. Eom. V. 12 ff.). The reverse of the generation without paternity is the descent from the race of David. Matthew and Luke give genealogies which aim at proving Jesus to have been descended from David, as in the character of the Messiah He must have been, and also from Abraham as the first recipient of the theocratic promise. But whilst Matthew confines himself to this, Luke goes back to Adam. Ijy connecting Jesus with the first man, he also places Him in historical connection with all mankind, thus proving himself to be a universalist of the Pauline school. The genealogy of Matthew traces the descent from David tln'ough Solomon and familiar royal names ; that of Luke, on the other hand, by a series of obscure names through Nathan. The latter has therefore been believed to be a genealogy of IMary, — an opinion the more readily embraced, becaiise it appeared to har- monize better with the story of the conception. An old tradition also speaks of the descent of Mary from David. This explanation, however, does not harmonize with the words in Luke iii. 23, wdietlier Heli be regarded as father-in-law or grandfather. Further, it appears to result from Luke ii. 4 and i. 27 that the evangelist ascribed a descent from David to Joseph only ; and, lastly, the genealogy of the mother w^ould, according to Jewish ideas, have had no weight at all. Por this very reason, the union of the con- ception with the genealogy, even if regarded as Joseph's, would be in no way opposed to Jewish views of legitimate descent. Nor do the two genealogies, even if they both refer to Joseph, exclude each other. Their existence side by side may be explained either by a marriage of two half-brothers, or more simply by assuming that one gives the natural, the second the legal descent through adoption. If we choose the latter supposition, tlie marriage of Mary as an heiress into the line of David would at any rate help to explain the old tradition of her descent from him. All that has been proved hitlierto is that such a mode of recon- ciling the genealogies is not improbable. Other difficulties re- main behind, such as the double mention of Zorobabel, and the omission of the three kings. But tlie genealogy may still be credible as a whole in spite of these difliculties, especially those of them which arise from the abridgments not unusual in such cases. Everything combines to prove that the descent of Jesus from G 34 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. David was not questioned by His contemporaries (cf. Matt. ix. 2 7, xii. 22 I, XX. 30 f. [Mark x. 47 ; Lnke xviii. 35 ff.], xxi. 9; [Acts ii. 30 ; Eom. i. 3, ix. 5 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; Eev. v. 5, xxii. 16]) ; nor is His own testimony (Matt. xxii. 41-46) in any way opposed to it. The importance attaching to this feature serves also to explain His acknowledgment as the Messiah ; and the fact "being once admitted, it became a matter of the deepest moment on historical grounds to trace out and compile the genealogies. In accordance with a prevailing idea founded on Micah v. 1, Bethlehem was the place of Jesus' birth. This is only mentioned incidentally by Matthew (ch. ii. 1) ; but Luke states in detail, that Joseph and Mary left Nazareth, their usual abode, and for the pur- poses of the census travelled to Bethlehem, where the birth took place. The supposition that Nazareth was their earlier dwelling- place is not contradicted by Matthew (ii. 22, 23) ; for it might very well have been a question with them at that time (having the child- Messiah committed to their care), whether it woidd not be better for them to live at Bethlehem on account of its near neighbourhood to the sanctuary, and in order to avoid the associations connected with Nazareth. That this is not more plainly expressed is due to the fragmentary nature of the account. But Luke enters more minutely into particulars, mentioning a Eoman census as the occasion of what followed. Now, it has been thought improbable that either of them, and especially Mary, should have gone to the place of their ancestry for such a pur- pose. Yet recent investigations have shown that among the Eomans every one was assessed at the place where he was a municipal freeman ; and, moreover, according to later enactments, women of independent fortune were liable to taxation. It is not, however, stated that Mary was obliged to appear : she might have followed so as to avoid being left behind without protection, and exposed to slanderous reports at Nazareth. The question now arises, whether at this time, under the government of Herod, a Eoman census could have taken place. This is affirmed by the fact that Augustus left behind him a complete rationarium and treviarium of the whole empire, which could be based only on a census ; that he availed himself of the opportunity to assimie universal proconsular power ; and that on another occasion excep- tions are cited to the universality of such a census, which prove universality to have been the rule. DIV. I. § 7.] FIRST COMING INTO PUBLIC NOTICE, AND EARLY LIFE. 3 5 We are here met by the difficulty that Quirinius (Liike ii. 2) was not proconsul at this time, and that under him undoubtedly a well-known census did take place (mentioned in Acts v. as well as by Josephus), which, however, occurred twelve years later. To avoid the necessity of altering the text, a distinction has been drawn between the planning or beginning of the census, and its actual carrying out or completion ; or Quirinius is not considered as pro- consul, but only as commissary. But a better expedient than either is to understand TrpcoTrj as a comparative, this usage occur- ring both in Hellenistic and classical Greek. But even then the expression would be ambiguous. Thus much, however, is certain, that Luke, who was very exact in his dates, cannot have mistaken the taxation twelve years later mentioned by himself, and that even a chronological inaccuracy in this respect could not upset the entire fact.-^ It need occasion no surprise that Bethlehem is not mentioned elsewhere in the gospels as our Lord's birthplace. If the con- temporaries of Jesus took offence at His being a Nazarene (cf John vii. 41), the most obvious way of convincing them of His Messiahship would have been to maintain against them the erroneousness of their supposition ; but it was much more to His purpose to do this in a different manner. On John i. 46 it is to be observed, that Philip might perhaps not have been aware of the birth in Bethlehem. And, moreover, had prominence been given to this fact in the gospels, critics would no doubt have inferred from it premeditation and untruthfulness. S 7. F'h'st coming into inMlc Notice, and early Life. Luke relates how the wondrous birth was made known to some shepherds of Bethlehem by a revelation of angels, and sub- sequently, at the presentation in the temple, to two very aged persons by a spiritual impulse from within. Mattliew tells of the appearance of an unusual star, under the influence of which some eastern magi, having arrived at the conviction of the birth of the Messiah, came to do homage to Him. According to Luke, the announcement was made to the shep- herds of Betldehem in the field by a vision of angels (first, ii. 9, 10, of one; then, 13, 14, of many). The angelic appearance can ^ [On this vexed and intricate question the treatise of A. TV'. Zuinpt, reeently republished in a more complete form, should by all means be consulted. — Ti;.] 36 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PARTI. excite no surprise in those who are at all conversant with the spirit of the Scriptures. The world of spirits is represented throughout the New Testament as forming with mankind the one family of God (Eph. i. 10, [iii. 15 ;] Col. i. 20 ; Luke xv. 10 ; John i. 52). In the present case, the appearance of angels fulfils its loftiest aim, first in the shepherds, whose Messianic faith is proved by their conduct ; next in tlie parents of Jesus, to whom they impart it ; and lastly in the whole Christian Church which takes part in it. All the circumstances are in harmony with the whole life of Jesus ; and there are no grounds for a mythical hyjjothesis founded on such inadequate analogies as are afforded by divine appearances to shepherds, and the glorification attend- ino; the birth of some great men. The second announcement is connected with the religious acts which were commanded, partly with reference to the mother, partly to the child (Lev. xii. 2-8 ; Ex. xiii. 2 ; Num. xviii. 15). The child, brought by His mother with this object to Jerusalem, two miles from Bethlehem, was there recognised l3y Simeon, a very aged man living in constant expectation of the Messiah (whom some without any ground have wished to identify with the father of Gamaliel), and also by an aged prophetess called Anna. No merely natural explanation of this incident will suffice. The whole is brought about by the stirring of the divine Spirit. Susceptibility to impression meets by divine arrange- ment with a fulfilment, which in the narrative is described as miraculous, by everything being directly traced back to the Avork- ing of the Holy Spirit. Simeon speaks as one deeply imbued with Messianic aspirations under the Old Testament dispensation ; and the manner in which the Avidow is introduced is full of historic truth, without a trace of mere embellishment and display. It were a disparagement of individual religious need to misjudge the divine purpose, on account of its limitation to these indi- viduals. Neither the parallel between this scene and that of John's circumcision, nor the desire of glorifying both, will at all explain how the account can have originated in a myth. So far from this, each event bears a construction of its own. The third announcement differs from the two preceding in referring to heathen, — certain Persian priests and astrologers, for this without doubt the magi were, — who, having had their atten- tion aroused by some celestial phenomenon, inquke after the DIV. I. § 7.] FIRST COMING INTO PUBLIC NOTICE, AND EARLY LIFE. 37 Messiah in Jerusalem, are directed to Betlilehem, and there find Him. Messianic hopes had spread from Israel over the whole eastern world. Here they became connected with astrology. These men were led either by an astrological conjecture, or by some extraordinary phenomenon in the heavens ; most probably the latter, for there is nothing surprising in the connection of such an appearance with the birth of Jesus. Thus the hopeful forebodings of men in widely different spheres received their fulfil- ment (Mic. V. 2), and were brought home to expectant hearts. The natural, and supernatural react upon each other in every part of this occurrence. What the magi experienced in Jerusalem, and what led them thence to Bethlehem, has a perfectly natural appearance. Again, the danger and delivery of the young child, wliich followed these events, form a narrative perfectly consistent in itself, and bearing the stamp of unvarnished history. Certainly some passages from the Old Testament are applied to it by a forced interpretation. This can only be due to the impression made by the facts on the public mind having called forth this interpretation. Here also the supernatural element steps in, but always in harmony with the natural course, as in the dreams which always further the progress of events. The history, too, harmonizes in a singular dcOTee with the well-known cruel and cowardly character of Herod. His calculations, resting on the guileless nature of the, magi, and guarding against the possibility of arousing any suspicion in their minds, were perfectly accurate, and must have succeeded but for the divine interposition. Josephus relates nothing of this, as, upon principle, he says nothing about Jesus. Tradition has, indeed, often associated scenes of danger with the early history of great men ; but this is no reason why all extraordinary destinies should be uutrue. There is nothing in the Old Testament on which such a myth can rest. The whole narrative is so simple and free from all the exaggeration of tradition, that it even gives no intimation of the full significatiou of the principal event. The history of the magi is followed by the settled residence of Jesus at Nazareth during His youth. Matthew derives His appellation of JSTazarene (ii. 23) from a passage in prophecy, pro- bably referring in his own mind to Isaiah xi., where the iNIcssiah appears as a tender branch [ivp (^nctscr)] springing out of an old and mutilated stem. Jesus dwelling in the dim obscurity of 38 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. Nazareth tlms appears to the evangelist, who is guided rather by- deeper associations of a general prophetic character than by the wording of any particular passage, but still retains the formula of quotation (Sia tmv TrpocprjToJv). We see, moreover, by his application of Hos. xi. 1, and Jer. xxxi. 15, that he has also in mind a deeper connection and the typical analogy of the sacred history. Luke mentions the gradual and undisturbed development of the boy, for which the retirement of Nazareth w^as exactly suited. Some excitement from without may be necessary to the develop- ment of a nature even the most original ; but the more original a nature is, the better the commonest conditions will suffice. These are here supplied in a pious family life, in the national traditions, and, above all, in the grand revelations of Holy Scrip- ture to which the youthful Jesus had access. It was perfectly natural for Him to visit the temple in His twelfth year, at which age children were considered old enough to do so ; and while there He mixes with the doctors, according to the usual custom of the disciples of the rabbis. In all this, as well as in a moderately wealthy rabbi taking an interest in the child, or even inviting Him to his house, there is nothing at variance with the spirit and customs of the time. The case of Samuel presents only a very general resemblance to this. A peculiar conscious- ness is shown in the reply of Jesus to His mother, especially on account of the antithetical tone of these words ; but He expresses nothing more than perception of a deeply-seated unity with God. Whether the Messianic idea was as yet joined wdth this in His self- consciousness, is of course uncertain ; but that idea is so simple and genuinely human in its imiversality, that it is difficult to see how it could be absolutely incompatible wdth the self-conscious- ness of a child. The narrative is also a voucher for the absence of all special means of cultivation in His earlier years. Even if the term rabbi was subsequently applied to Him from the very com- mencement of His public life, this proves nothing as to any special education, for any one setting up as a teacher might be so called. TtKTcov also may mean carpenter's son, but no objection can be founded upon His having shared Joseph's occupation. Nothing can be more unhistorical than to picture Him in connec- tion with any particular sect. DIV. I. § 8.] JIINISTEY OF THE BAPTIST. 39 II. CHEIST'S PEEPAEATION FOE, AND ENTEANCE UPON, HIS PUBLIC MINISTEY. ^ 8. Ministry of the JBcqotist. The gospel history was regarded by the evangelists as begin- ning with that of John the Baptist : this was also the view taken by Jesus Himself (Luke xvi. 16, etc.), and the evangelists there- fore gave it an early and prominent place in their accounts (]\Iatt. iii. 1-12; Luke iii. 1-20; Mark i. 1-8). Even John has in effect adopted the same plan, by commencing with the Baptist's testimony of Jesus (John i. 19—37); and his later history is inter- woven with the gospel narrative (Matt. xi. 1 ff., xiv. 1 ff. ; John iii. 2 3 ff.). The sources are copious enough ; and we have, in addition, the testimony of Josephus for it (Ant. 18). Luke only gives also John's early history, the extraordinary events of which are less to be wondered at, if looked upon as showing the divine arrangement, by their suitability both to the existing circum- stances and also to the prophecies of the Messiah's forerunner. The early history of John is, besides, so interwoven with that of Jesus, that the two must stand or fall together. The gospels understand his appearance not as something accidental, but as a high necessity attested by Old Testament prophecy. Isaiah (xl. 3) and Malachi (iii. 1, 23) had both predicted the forerunner; and, according to the latter, the expectation of Elias' coming had grown into a popular belief (Matt. xvii. 10 ; John i. 21). Jesus Himself declares this prophecy to have found its fulfilment in John (Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 12). Before the appearance of the Messiah, the fiery spirit and incorruptible judicial severity of Elias were to recall the people and their leaders to the true mean- ing and spirit of the old law, and the moral side of the ]\Iessianic expectation was thus to be introduced. Such was John's voca- tion (Matt. xvii. 11), not arbitrarily assumed, but delegated to him expressly from above (Luke iii. 2 ; John i. 33). The whole scope of John's preaching was in harmony with this design. By the requirement of repentance, he announced the near approach of the kingdom of God, and also its moral cha- racter ; showing his insight into the nature and divine economy of this kingdom, by declaring that it did not depend upon descent from Abraham, but upon a moral aud religious conversion. In 40 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. the universal requirement of repentance he taught the universality of sin, and accordingly depicted the Messiah as the all-searching Judge ; but he applied himself also to the various forms of sin, — to the most deeply seated corruption as well as to the special modes of individual wrong-doing. The Baptist, too, stood forth as the personal embodiment of repentance, and thus strengthened the effect of his exhortations. His chief course of action Avas the combination of symbolical baptism with his preaching. The direct and indirect objects of this baptism were, respectively, repentance and the forgiveness of sins. At the same time it pointed to the Messiah ; but, not being effectual for securing the Messianic salvation, merely having been a baptism of water in contradistinction to the baptism of the Spirit, only a symbolical character can attach to it. It was a divine summons to repentance with reference to belief in the Messiah ; and as a personal acknowledgment of the need of redemption, confession of sins was joined with it. If we ask on what grounds the choice of this symbol for the Baptist rested, Jesus Himself (Matt. xxi. 25) points in a sufficiently marked manner to the prophet's divine authorization. But this does not supersede the want of an occasion connecting the rite with some external cir- •cumstance. It was long thought that such a link had been dis- covered in the Jewish custom of baptizing proselytes ; but more careful researches have shown that the existence of this custom cannot be traced back further than the destruction of Jerusalem.-*- 'Nov would such an origin accord with the intention of John's baptism, which did not involve the idea of admission into a new community. The most probable explanation is, that it was a prophetico-symbolical act, such as we find recorded of prophets in the Old Testament, and connected with a prophetical type of the prior dispensation. Tlie idea of a moral purification was asspciated with the Messianic times, and this was expressly represented under the form of cleansing with water (cf. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, [xxxvii. 23 ;] ^ [This assertion can hardly be maintained. The hostility felt by the Jews to Christianity renders it highly improbable that, after the promulgation of the new faith, the Jews should have adopted so distinctively Christian a rite. There is good reason to believe that this simple and natural custom, so prevalent among all the religions of antiquity, was really in use from the captivity, if not, as some think, long before. Cf. Bengel, das Alte der Jud. Proschjtenlaiife, Tubingen, 1814.— Tk.] DIV. I. § 8.] MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST. 41 [Jer. xxxi. 31-34;] [Joel iii. 1 ;] Zech. xiii. 1, [xii. 10]). John embodied this type in the symbolical act of his baptism. The Messiah, whom John regarded as too high above himself to receive at his hands a service which was too menial even for a disciple to render to his master, is thus depicted by him in rela- tion to His work : (a) As the spiritual Eenewer who was to bap- tize with the Spirit and with fire. The idea of the spiritual baptism was arrived at, by combining the two Old Testament views of the outpouring of the divine Spirit on these times, on the one hand, and jyiatK the personal endowment of the Messiah, -ht be something still wanting to the activity of His Messianic con- sciousness. This is the perception of the explicit existence of His Messianic power. The Word made flesh may easily be conceived apart from His stepping forth thus into public life and action. And with this something new springs up within Him ; and just as external, no less than internal, causes contribute to every kind of natural development, so in this case also divine influence from without must needs be exerted, through which His latent Messiah- ship was roused into activity. In this public manifestation it assumes the decidedly prophetic form ; and the descent upon Jesus of the Spirit of prophecy constitutes this stage in the development of the God-man's personality. ^11. The Temptation of Jesus. There is an internal connection, independent of mere sequence, between the baptism of Jesus and His temptation (jNIatt. iv. 1 £f. ; Mark i. 1 2 f ; Luke iv. 1 ff.) ; for it is the Spirit which came upon Him on the former occasion that leads Him into tlie wilder- ness. Ere He makes His public appearance, He must first be inwardly proved to be the active Messiah. The temptation thus belongs to His Messianic position. But this act of temporary seclusion may be explained equally well on psychological grounds. After the consecration, a season of earnest contemplation must precede the Messianic activity He has now assumed. With this is connected fasting, as a help to contemplation and undisturbed communion with God. That it is a partial fast appears from a comparison of several passages, such as Matt. xi. 18, cf iii. 4; Luke vii. 33 ; Acts xxvii. 33. The solitude brings home to Him the position in which He stands as the Messiah, alone, and desti- tute of all human aid. Hence the features of Mark's account (i. 13). Here there is notliing accidental, but everything is brought about in accordance with a higher divine necessity. But 48 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PAET I. tlie evangelists are consciously giving a liistoiy of what really occurred. Thus tliey represent it, and assign it its proper place in relation to their Avhole statement. By them, at all events, it was regarded as a fact. John's account does not begin until after all this had occurred. But although the evangelists represent what they are relating as a real event, it still remains an open cj^uestion whether it was an external or an internal one. This much, at any rate, is cer- tain, that on the latter supposition the subjective origin of the temptation must be ascribed to Satan, since it cannot possibly be supposed to have arisen in the ]Derson of Jesus. We must abso- lutely reject the view that it was a mere inward operation, a mere conflict of opposing thoughts in the growing mind of Jesus Himself. The assumption of a dream is equally unsupported in the text. The theory of a vision wrought by Satan has more pro- bability, and even finds some support in the narrative, because an external manifestation of the person of Satan is unprecedented elsewhere in the sacred history, and because the change of loca- lities in the temptation may be thought to present difficulty if regarded as an actual occurrence. This, indeed, applies particu- larly to the exhil)ition of all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, which can hardly be regarded as a literal fact, unless we suppose a vision to have added completeness to it. The fact of Jesus being led by the Spirit into the wilderness has also been interpreted in the same way. We are not, however, tied down to this ^dew in either case, particularly as at other times Jesus Himself comes into supernatural contact with the spirit- world, as was the case at the transfiguration and in Gethsemane ; and also that Satan, if he exists, must also be capable of becom- ing visible. The possibility still remains that, in the intention of the evangelists, the event may have rested not on any outward and material perception, but on an internal view, of such a kind, how- ever, as not to interfere with the objective reality of the temptation. The acts of the temptation itself are three. The tempter assails Jesus in the threefold tendency of the universally prevail- ing impulses in human nature — the love of life, the desire for honour, and the thirst for rule and acquisition. The temptation has accordingly for its objects ungodly enjoyment, the tempting of God, and self-seeking in its most perfect form ; and so far is a moral trial universally applicable to human nature. The first DIV. I. § 11.] THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 49 temptation was connected witli a real need, and was intended to cause Jesus to forsake His earthly vocation of suffering. The object of the second was to induce Him to allow Himself to be singled out as the object of God's special care in a danger of His own seeking. The resources of individual temptation being exhausted, it re- mained only to present to Him all the splendour of world-wide dominion ; but here, too, Satan must needs manifest himself in his true character, by exacting divine homage. Jesus repelled him with the fundamental principle on which the Old and New Testament alike rest. Step by step had He unmasked the evil designs of the tempter, and at length opposed him with indigna- tion. Two points may be observed in the twofold character of tlie temptation. In the first place, Jesus remained free from all evil inclination within, and was only accessible to tem^ptation from without. He was, too, throughout conscious of its complete opposition to the divine order of things. Added to this, the fact that neither His understanding nor His will for a moment faltered, sufficiently proves the incorruptibility of His nature. Moreover, upon this discomfiture of the tempter a threefold principle is stamped, which we see running through the whole of our Lord's Messianic life : (1) never to employ the power which He possessed in that character for His own advantage ; (2) never arbitrarily to challenge extraordinary divine assistance ; and (3) never to make the least concession to the kingdom of darkness for the sake of attaining what seemed to be the most brilliant result. The unhistorical view of the temptation explains it partly as a parable, and partly as a myth. The first view is not only unsup- ported by the narrative itself, but all analogy forbids us to believe that without a figure Jesus would introduce His own person in a parable. ISTor is it much easier to admit that limitation of the historical sense, according to whicli Jesus related parabolically a real inward occurrence which was historically misunderstood by His disciples ; for this would be to regard Jesus as the autlior of such misapprehension, as He Himself on other occasions speaks of Satan objectively and didactically. It was, however, the reluctance to the embodiment of Satan which gave rise to this expedient. But in the distinctive teaching of Jesus this reluctance finds no support, and cannot therefore impel us to the mythical view which is derived from it. The explanation of the- narrative as a myth involves considerable difficulties resting on external points. The D 5 0 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. occasion and purpose of the forty days spent by Moses and Elias in the wilderness were both different ; and the fact of this num- ber being of old customary among the people, only shows that as a round number it might easily be applied to the narrative of this event. But not only is the Satanic temptation of the Messiah, which is the leading idea, without parallel in the Old Testament and the Jewish consciousness, but there are also certain indica- tions that in the latter it would have been inadmissible. For, on the one hand, they conceived too highly of the Messiah ; and, on the other, they regarded Him only as the outward conqueror of Satanic power, and that not in a mere ethical conflict. Neither can the purjDort of the individual temptations be derived from the Old Testament parallel of the temptation of the people in the wilderness, the second and third temptations especially ; but, in the case of the first also, the similarity is only apparent, inas- much as with Jesus the fact of hunger is merely incidental, the temptation essentially turning upon the working of miracles. The historical truth of the narrative is further confirmed by the com- plete harmony between the conduct of Jesus and the general scope of His teaching ; which harmony rivets the whole upon Himself This conclusion is confirmed if we inquire where the myth, if such it be, can have originated. Not certainly in a circle biassed by Jewish prejudice ; for the views presented by the tempter lay closer to the sentiment of that people than the ethical ideal of the Messiah emanating from Jesus Himself Conse- quently the myth could have proceeded from no other source than a narrow apostolical circle ; and here again such a violation of historical truth is inconceivable. Doubtless Jesus Himself imparted the history, hardly not till after the resurrection, as has been supposed, but on such occasions as Matt. xvi. 21 ff. As it is a fragmentary statement, He may perhaps have chosen from the temptations to which He had been exposed, the three in which the leading principles of His Messianic working were em- bodied. The event itself possesses both a dogmatic and an historico- clogmatic significance. With respect to the first, it proclaims in Jesus His true but sinless humanit}^, and the also purely divine and no less purely human character of His work. The suscepti- bility to temptation is a point in the progressive development of His life, at whicli its whole spiritual cajoacity must be gradually DIV. I. § 12.] niS PLAN. 51 absorbed in His divine life. Over against Him stands the world and sin concentrated in the person of Satan, who here comes in as the tempter of the second Adam, as he had once before done at the fall of the first, striving in both cases to frustrate the work of God, truth and righteousness in mankind. Historico-dogmatically the narrative indicates the time at which the idea of the JNIessianic work, which Jesus was now on the point of realizing, assumed within Him the form of a completed moral fact. And thus the baptism and the temptation (the consecration of the Messiah, the proving of the Messiah) may be regarded together as the starting-point and type of His public life just then commencing. In the one case, we have the manifestation of the Son's divinity in the person of Jesus, and His complete subjection to the Father; in the other, the most determined opposition to the spirit of the world, set forth in action by His persistence in the divine will. And thus both accounts become not heterogeneous, but homogeneous elements in the evangelical history ; and their omission by St. John (apart from their being excluded by the late commencement of his history) need cause no surprise, if we con- sider the decided way in which he gives expression to the con- sciousness possessed by Jesus, of the active opposition of Satan to His person and His work (John xiv. 30). III. THE PUBLIC CAEEEE OF JESUS. ^12. Jesus Han. In applying the word " plan" to the course which Jesus pur- sued, we must be careful to avoid the notion of anything arbi- trarily fabricated, or generally resulting from His own inward reflection. The ministry of Jesus was the unfolding of His per- sonality ; but, by His grasping in the requisite manner that which was inherent in Him, it assumed in Him the sliape of definite thought, and the work before Him became a decided resolution. Using the word " plan" with the above limitation, we shall avoid the error of applying it to any abstraction such as the kingdom of truth and virtue, but shall take it as reierring to the definite position in which the self-consciousness of Jesus stood to man- kind of a certain race and at a particular time. The develop- ment and guidance for thousands of years, firstly of the Israelitish 52 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I, people, and indirectly of tlie whole liiiman race, prepared tlie way for His work. His plan was therefore of a Messianic character. He has Himself declared as much by His connection with John the Baptist, by declaring Himself as the Messiah before the people (Matt. xxi. 15, 16), before individuals (John iv. 26, ix. 37, x. 25), and before the tribunal of judgment (John xviii, 37 ; Matt. xxvi. 64), as well as by the result of these declarations in the acknow- ledgment of the disciples after His death. The only point of diificulty here is, to determine how soon He declared Himself as the Messiah (cf § 30). In consequence, as is asserted, of John differing from the Synoptists, as well as the supposed uncertainty of their statements, it has been inferred that Jesus did not until a late period fully comprehend Himself as the Messiah (Matt, xvi.) ; that He was at first, perhaps, only a disciple of the Baptist, and then only timidly and gradually appropriated the Messianic idea to Himself, forbidding, and being alarmed at, its expression on the part of others. In this way also have been explained the different views into which popular opinion diverged concerning Him, the more decided declarations of His character having been transferred, as .is supposed, to an earlier period by mistake. But the hypothesis is erroneous, both that the declara- tions of Jesus as recorded by St. John, and also that the demean- our of men towards Him, were from the beginning fixed and invariable. Wliat at first brought disciples to Him was merely the testimony of the Baptist ; and then undoulDtedly the powerful impression produced by His own person, which nevertheless He confirmed in those who came to Him, not by any actual testimony to His Messiahship, but only by hinting at the incomparable height of His majesty (John i. 51), of which they were soon to have other and different proofs. Appeals of this kind, however, were only made to individuals peculiarly susceptible of them. He comported Himself differently before a mixed multitude. He performed miracles in Galilee, but did not declare Himself to be the Messiah; and similarly at Jerusalem He gave the sign of the cleansing of the temple, but what He said of His own person was still veiled in darkness ; and, indeed, it is expressly stated that He did not confide in them, because He knew what was in them (John ii. 24). He behaved differently in Samaria (ch. iv.), Avhere He was again met by a more open susceptibility, and the Jewish idea of a political Messiah did not confront Him. But to the DIV. I. § 12.] ■ HIS PLAN. 53 Jews in Galilee and Jndea He always speaks witli the greatest reserve as to the Messianic idea. In the 9th chapter we see Him after the miracle of feeding withdraw Himself from the excited multitude. He certainly speaks of the sublimity of His person and mission, but at the same time keeps the Messianic idea in the background, and clothes His discourse in an intentional obscurity. Ever3^thing, including the mention of His death, points to the idea of a spiritual aim, and is, in short, rather repellent to the general multitude. The same reserve already shown to Nicodemus, Jesus expressly manifests on principle in dealing with questions and appeals on the subject of His Messiahship, both from His own disciples (John vii. 2 and sq.), and from the people (x. 24, and cf. vii. 40). This procedure formed part of His plan. In Galilee He necessarily shunned the danger of fostering the idea of a political Messiah, and of bringing on in Jerusalem a premature catastrophe ; and the conduct of the disciples (Matt, xvi.) is quite in accordance w^itli that of their Master in this re- spect. Peter's confession was no fresh rising light, but the con- centration of all the rays which had liitherto shone upon them ; and was brought about by Jesus as a conscious confirmation of their faith against the shifting opinions of the multitude. If public opinion still continued to fluctuate concerning Him, this is accounted for not by any uncertainty in His own conduct, but simply by the fact that the people expected quite a different Messiah, — not a prophet going about the country teaching and working miracles, but one who would seize the reins of government. From all this we may conclude that Jesus, in unveiling His Messianic dignity, observed that wisdom without wliicli His ])lan could not (humanly speaking) have succeeded. Nowhere, how- ever, from the very first does He decline to acknowledge His Messiahship, but rather admits it on every occasion (Matt. viii. 10-13, 29-32, ix. 18-26, 27-29, xii. 23 f.). From the very first He gives Himself out as the Messiah, most decidedly in the sermon on the Mount, and in the discourse about John (]\Iatt. xi. 12 ff.); but at the same time the confession of Him must grow out of the contemplation of His deeds, for no otherwise could it rest upon its true inward foundation. Even ^\-hen He forbade the blazing abroad of isolated deeds, no inward uncertainty is implied, but, on the contrary, the most decisive self-consciousness which employs wise reserve as circumstances may require, either to 54 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. prevent a momentary success only injurious to the true aim of His ministry, or to lead those whom He healed to commune with their own hearts, whenever loud rejoicing might have made any deeper influence within them impossible. This intention is most plainly seen in the prohibition which followed His Transfiguration. Thus, then, everything leads us to the conclusion that, although Jesus from the first apprehended His work as Messianic, He was yet most carefully on His guard against allowing it to fall in with the Messianic ideas of the time, and thus to cloud the purity of His intentions. The more decidedly we can trace this pur- pose, and the perfect discretion and self-denial which it gave rise to, so much the more certain is it that from the very first He was at full accord with Himself on the point. The very opposition in which He thus placed Himself excludes the idea of any purely political scheme on His part, such as some, violating all history both of the gospel and the world, would have wished to ascribe to Him. The whole spirit of His life-teaching and ministry, no less than of His suffering and death, is against it. There is no trace of political manoeuvre of any kind : the choice of His apostles and disciples was clearly opposed to the idea. His last entrance into Jerusalem was not, indeed, a purely acci- dental circumstance, but intentionally pre-arranged, but yet is of an entirely symbolical and prophetic character. He thus essayed the last solemn impression of His person upon the people, but with no political design, since He entered only to work as a prophet by word and deed in the city and in the temple. But it has been said that although Jesus did not Himself wish to precipitate the catastrophe — the restoration of the throne of David — ^by external violence. He yet expected it to be brought about by divine arrangement through the interposition of angels and higher powers. But the dominion which Jesus ex- pected (Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke xxii. 30) was a renewal of the world, called by Matthew iraXcyyeveala, which comprehends the resurrection, into the alcov i^eWcov, in which, according to Luke (xx. 35, 36), men shall be as angels. This surely is no political expectation. Moreover (Matt. xxvi. 53), Jesus does not say that He expects angels, but just the contrary. He could ask for them, but then the Scripture would not be fulfilled (Matt. xvi. 2 7, xxiv. 30, 31, XXV. 31). The expected angelic appearances themselves are far from having anything in common with the aims of worldly DIV. I. §12.] HIS PLAN. 55 policy; and these are absolutely excluded by the fact that He looks for the inauguration of His kingdom at a time when His own suffering and death are presupposed (Luke xvii. 25 ; Matt, xvi. 27, 28, 21, xxiv., xxv., xxvi. 1 ff). It is this expectation also which forbids our limiting His plan to a moral, and conse- quently external,' regeneration of His nation ; and the testimony we possess to the universality of this renewal, no less than the decided expectation of the fall of the Jewish nation, are equally opposed to any such limitation. An attempt has been made to vindicate the political side of Jesus' plan, by assuming that in this respect His life is divisible into two periods. According to this view, His original purpose was to found a theocratic kingdom by spiritual means ; but this object He afterwards relinquished. Above all, a great contrast is pointed out between the cheerful, and the melancholy frame of mind Avhicli characterized the earlier and later portions of His life respectively. The contrast between earlier cheerfulness and later melancholy is not very well defined; compare only Matt. xi. 25-30, and also 20-24. And how clearly, according to Matthew (ch. xiii.). He represented the diverse effects of His word and everything connected with it even at an early period ; and in the sermon on the Mount He foretold the persecution of His disciples ; and in the conversation with Mco- demus He spoke of His death (cf. § 13, 1). Hence these ideas fall by their own weakness, since, as regards the assumption on which they rest, no trace of the existence of such periods is to be found in the evangelists. What Jesus had in view was, therefore, the foundation of God's kingdom as identical with the work of redemption (cf. § 39). In the sei-mon on the Mount, this kingdom was represented as the kernel and substance of His work, and is so far ethical in its character. And if this idea is not placed so prominently in the foreground in the discourses chosen by John, it is nevertheless borne ample witness to as a central idea in the conversation with Nicodemus and in the answer to Pilate. His aim was a spiiitual and universal kingdom, as the consideration of His teaching on the subject must show. And the cases of the centurion and of the Samaritan woman go to prove that His only reason for limit- ing His own operations, and, at first, those of the disciples, to the Jewish nation, was to gain a firm foothold and starting-point for His entire scheme ; but that He turned to the Gentile world 56 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. wlierever it could be done without liindrance to His higher aims. His commission to preach to the whole world is quite consistent with the fact that His disciples, even after His death, only gradu- ally learned to fulfil it. Their prejudice was merely that the Gentile world, in order to have a share in God's kingdom, must allow themselves to he admitted into the theocratic union. This theocratic union prescribed in the old covenant He Himself did not as yet desire to dissolve, but rather to fulfil. He does not, therefore, set Himself in revolutionary opposition to it ; indeed, keeps the law in His own person, seeing that the old covenant remains in force until superseded by the new, which it could not be until after His death. His task was from the national form to develope the eternal purport of the Jewish law ; and His own general expressions as to the object of His life identify it partly with the spiritual deliverance of the sinner, partly with the estab- lishment ot God's kingdom. Both are united by the doctrine that repentance or moral renewal is the condition of participation in the kingdom of God. Thus it is represented in the Synoptists ; and according to this, Jesus collects believers around Him, and urses them to union with Himself He seeks to awaken them to a sense of their moral need, and attaches Himself most closely to those who give the clearest tokens of it. His person appears still more in tlie foreground in John's Gospel, because His actions are there represented rather in their life-giving than in their saving- aspect, and He is thus their positive central-point. The fact of His person and its manifestation being the most important inci- dents in the scheme, proves the significance of the proposition that we must not attempt to take an abstract view of it. Not only must we hold firmly to its historical foundation, but also to the identity of Jesus' work with His historical appearance as that of the divine life in mankind. The universal and essential spirituality of His plan, taken in connection with its entire de- pendence on His person, gives it a perfectly unique character. 'No founder of a new religion, no lawgiver, no philosopher, has ever appeared with such an entirely universal aim, for none could ever believe that he could redeem mankind. History abounds with great projects of great men ; but the idea of the redemption of a world, as it was realized in Him, stands absolutely alone : it could only have proceeded from one whose nature was exalted far above humanity. DIV. I. § 13.] EXECUTION OF THE PLAN. 57 § 1 3, Execution of the Plan. In speaking of the difficulties of this plan, it must be borne in mind that Jesus was Himself perfectly aware ot them, and also that the word is in its strict sense inapplicable, since the so-called difficulties were included in the necessity of the divine scheme, and belonged to the scope and tenor of the plan itself. Ha\dng the deepest insight into human nature. He could not be deceived as to the kind of reception which awaited Him. But deeper still lay the knowledge of His intent to redeem the world. He there- fore sets Himself and His mission in direct antagonism to it, and regards the defeat of its opposition as His peculiar task. His view of this opposition was, however, most comprehensive. According to the parables in Matt, xiii., He foresaw not only that His word would meet with a very unequal reception in the field of the world, but also that the mass even of those who received it would retain its heterogeneous character, and that no separation of true believers before the judgment was advisable. He foresaw, too, that the progress of His work, where it made any, would be slow and gradual ; and, in accordance Avith these prospects, He early prophesied His own death, and predicted to His disciples the hatred of the world ; as, for instance, in the sermon on the Mount, and in the charge He gave to His disciples (Matt. x.). Thus He invited those who v/ould follow Him to take up their cross and deny themselves (Matt. xvi. 24, cf Luke xii. 50 K, xxi. 16, 17 ; John xv. 19, 20, etc.). With the clearest conscious- ness He sees consummated in Himself and in His work, the same opposition which the old covenant also had to encounter in the world (Matt. v. 12 ; Luke xiii. 34; Matt. xxii. 29, 32 ff.). Jesus' plan could only be carried into effect by the framer of it being also the divine Eedeemer and one with the Father, as represented by the evangelists ; and then the plan is merely tlie revelation, and its execution the development, ol His own being. And so it appears throughout the gospel history. Thus He invites (Matt. xi. 25-30) the weary and heavy-laden to Himself, but relers to the fact that the Father has committed all things into His hands, and that He knows Him. So also in John xvii. Hence the discourses which relate to the development and completion of the kingdom of God refer also to His second coming, because the completion of His work is identical with the gradual unveiling of 58 THE LIFE OF JESUS, [PART I. His person. The more inseparable His work is from His person, the less ground there is for the assertion that He relied upon the ethical force of what He did, which force would continue to operate without the influence of His life and name. On the contrary, He lived in the conviction of the abiding continuance of His name. The hypothesis that Jesus was connected with, or at the head of, a secret society, carries with it its own overthrow. For no traces of such a society are to be found in Palestine, with the exception of the Essenes (and with them Christianity has nothing in common as regards its origin), a sect characterized by an ideal and reformatory character. But whereas the fundamental prin- ciple amongst the Essenes was obedience, not to the Levitical law, but to an ascetic rule peculiar to themselves, the spirit of freedom, which is the very essence of Christianity, finds no explanation amongst them. There is another important difference between Christianity and the Essenes, the latter, as it appears, excluding any idea of a Messiah. And besides this, the supposition of a secret society finds no support in the gospel history. The conduct of Jesus is throughout entirely open. The fact that He frequently sought solitude, and that Nicodemus came to Him by night, may be otherwise explained. His every step was soon watched and scanned with hostile intent ; yet there is no trace of any secret system of instruction or discourse. Matt. x. 2 7 treats of the un- veiling of what had up to that time been hidden (cf. also ch. xiii.). In John xviii. 20, He refers to the publicity of His office as our instructor ; and He draws the attention of His disciples to this (Matt. X. 26, 27 (cf. v. 14-16); Luke xii. 3). In accord- ance with this, too, they lived and acted after His death. Thus, then. His ministry consisted in His prophetic life and in His death, which was thereafter to be accomplished. IV. EXTEENAL VIEW OE HIS PUBLIC MINISTEY. § 1 4. Choice and Education of the Disciiolcs. The synoptic accounts represent the public ministry of Jesus to have begun after the temptation, and almost immediately upon the imprisonment of John the Baptist, when Jesus withdrew into Galilee (]\latt. iv. 12). This was no doubt His second visit DIV. I. § 14.] CHOICE AND EDUCATION OF THE DISCIPLES. 59 tliitlier, preceding a short stay in Galilee, during wLich the miracle at Cana occurred, as weU as a sojourn at Jerusalem, when He purified the temple, and in Judea generally, where His disciples met with John ; all these incidents being related by the fourth evangelist. The synoptic statement mentions only one visit of Jesus to Jerusalem, at the last ptissover; whereas, according to John, He was often there. This is explained by supposing that Ma,tthew's scheme was the groundwork for the others (cf. S 3). The latter, however, was called to the apostleship later than others (ix. 9, cf iv. 22), and he, as well as the others, record a temporary absence of the disciples (Matt. x. ; ]\Iark vi. 7-13). Jesus might well have repaired to Jerusalem at such a time accompanied by a select few ; and tliis is rendered more probable by comparing Luke ix. 12 with John vi., according to which the miracle of feeding was preceded by a temporary absence of the disciples, as well as by a sojourn of Jesus in Jerusalem. The Synoptists, and I\Iatthew especially, only follow the chronological order so far as to make the end develope itself from a certain point (Matt, xvi.), the earlier discourses as preparatory to this being clearly distinguished from the later. Distinctly marked chronological periods are found in John only, who mentions altogether three passovers (ii. 13, vi. 4, and xi. 55 [xii. 1 ff.]). The feast mentioned at v. 1 is certainly not a passover ; and from this results a period of two years and a few months, in which Jesus' public ministry is comprehended. Jesus spent the greater part of this time in Galilee, a half-heathen district, which He no doubt chose on account of the powerful race who dwelt there, and because the inhabitants being less exposed to pharisaio influences. He was safer there from insidious attacks. On the other hand, the disaffection which prevailed there de- manded greater caution in unveiling His IMessianic purposes. It is hardly necessary to take into account the short sojourns in Samaria (John iv.), and in Syrophenicia (Matt. xv.). Herein Jesus acted on the principle pronounced in Matt. x. 5. A longer time, on the whole, is allotted to Judea and Jerusalem; for, although we cannot determine certainly how long He stayed there after the first passover, it appears, from a hint in His conversation with the Samaritan woman, to have been late in the autumn when He re- turned into Galilee. Some part of the second year, before the third passover, was spent in Perea (Matt. xix. ; Mark x. ; John x. 40-42) ; and in the interval Jesus attended several feasts at 60 THE LIFE OF JESUS. . [PART I. Jerusalem, of wliicli John mentions tliat of tabernacles (vii.), and of the dedication (x.) in the winter. Add to this the time of His sojourn at Jerusalem during the unknown feast, and at least a year remains for the duration of His active life in Galilee. This also explains the partial view of Christian antiquity derived from the synoptic account, that the whole of Jesus' public ministry lasted only one year, thus excluding tlie times of His attendance at the feasts. There are, however, some traces even in the Synoptists of an earlier sojourn in Jerusalem, before the final one (see § 3). Although Jesus selected Capernaum especially as the scene of His ministry, yet He also passed through Galilee in various directions, and made use of the institutions of the synagogue for giving lectures on the Sabbath. But, not limiting Himself to this, He taught in the open air, on the sea-shore, from a moun- tain, etc. Add to these His operations in Jerusalem, where at the feast He met with His countrymen coming from foreign countries (the "EW'r]V€<;, for instance, at the last passover), and could thus extend the sphere of His labours without abandoning the Jews as the primary objects of His mission. The general cha- racter of His ministry was the prophetic declaration of the divine will and counsel distinctly interpreted and forcibly applied. He came to announce the divine decree for the establishment of a new and different theocracy. For this very reason, it was not a ques- tion of raising the Jewish people at any fixed date above the position they had attained, or to help them over a difficult crisis in their history. His object was to complete what had been in preparation during the whole of the foregoing dispensation, and, by breaking through its husk of exclusiveness, to help into full and universal development the now Avell-matured germ which lay as a kernel within it. The form, therefore, of His preaching was not that ot isolated oracular utterances, but of a comprehensive de- velopment of doctrine. The task of all other prophets was merely to announce, but Jesus was in a higher sense a divine instrument, in that He had in the fullest measure to bring about and complete the divine decree. Thus is explained the exertion of His mira- culous powers, in which He bore witness to His own person, and at the same time to the nature of the divine kingdom as consisting essentially in a redemption, not only from sin, but also from the evil of sin ; and, moreover, confirmed the complete certainty of the realization of that kingdom. Herein His own person appeared DIV. I. § 14.] CHOICE AND EDUCATION OF THE DISCIPLES. 61 generally as the central figure ; and He consequently invited faitli in Himself, and made all promises depend upon that faitli. The older prophets, such as Elias, and the rahhis of His o'svn time, afforded Jesus a precedent for collecting a band of disciples round Him ; and this was necessary to ensure the continued and everlasting operation of His personality after the close of His short public career. The calling of the disciples as a whole (cf. John i., Matt, iv., ix. 9, and parallel passages), and of individuals, was not completed at one time, but gradually (John i., cf. Matt, iv.). Having been stirred up by Him, they still continued to live in their own country, and were not always in His company until the time indicated in tlie synoptic account. Their number had symbolical reference to the twelve tribes. Luke (ch. xi.) mentions seventy other disciples, and this number, too, has a similar mean- ing. It might represent either (according to Jewish notions) the seventy peoples of the earth, and thus prefiguring the n on- Jewish associates of God's kingdom (cf. John x. 16); or, which is still more likely, the seventy elders of Moses, and the number of the members of the Sanhedrim. The number and its symbolism is at any rate supported by that of the twelve, as well as by the internal probability of a larger circle of disciples, and their in- creased number immediately after the resurrection. All this corroborates Luke's account. What foresight Jesus showed in selecting His disciples we see from His rejection of an applicant (Matt. viii. 19 and ||). Peter He salutes at once as the Eock-man, Nathanael as the genuine Israelite, with a notice in the latter case (John i. 49) that He had previously observed him. His words in the naming of Peter, and call of the two brethren, to be fishers of men, were intended to fix the moment indelibly in their minds. His work in them thus began with the call itself. He chose them not merely to teach, but to educate them in the peculiar sense which the greatness of His person involved. They were certainly distinguished by instruction in many things which He either wholly withheld from the multitude, or imparted to them in a different manner. But the chief point was their constant familiar intercourse with Himself, and the lasting influence of His person in the contemplation of His life up to the final catastrophe of His death, followed by His resurrection and ascension, whereby, through the co-operation of His Spirit, they were themselves en- lightened and perfected. They must not, however, be regarded merely 62 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. as individuals, but as members of a confederacy founded by Jesus ; and upon this confederacy the Cliurcli — tlie society of believers in Jesus — was founded. They had to testify of Him (John xv. 27), and to labour in His name (Mark iii. 14 ; Matt. xvi. 18, 19, xviii. 18 ; John xx. 21-23). He therefore sent them forth, even in His lifetime, to make trial of their strength (Mark vi. 30 ff, and II ), and often put them to the proof (John vi. ; Mark ix. 3 8, 39, cf. Luke ix. 49). With regard to Judas Iscariot, we cannot suppose that Jesus was deceived in him, or that he was a traitor at the time of his calling. In his fall, as Hase observes, we still recognise the ruins of apostolic greatness. His downfall shows a powerful nature ; and he had within him the groundwork of an apostle's character. But this groundwork must needs be de- veloped to its perfection or ruin by his intercourse with Jesus. It was no more an act of cruelty in Christ to place him in this path, than it is in God when nations or individuals are placed in positions which lead to an unhappy moral issue. The confidence which became his ruin ought to have been his greatest moral preservative. That the natural disposition in Judas developed itself in opposition to Christ, is one of the mysteries of the divine free agency which it befits no man to call in question. Jesus was sensible of the disj)osition wliich Judas exhibited in his fall. S 15. Jesus as a Teacher. The purport of Jesus' teaching will be seen as we go on. Its fundamental characteristic is the testimony which it bore to Him- self, with which everything else is inwardly connected. If He "■ speaks of God, He does so with the clear consciousness that no man knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him (Matt. xi. 27), and that no one has seen the Father but the Son (John vi. 46). In giving instruction, therefore, about the Father, He at the same time imparts knowledge about the Son, — that is to say, about Himself. So also, when He bears direct witness to Himself, He proceeds to speak of the Father, and again reverts to Himself, as if He wished, so to speak, to exhaust the subject. God is the Father, so far as He has, and sends into the world, the only begotten Son, that whosoever be- lieves on Him may have life ; also Jesus specifies His own work, that He had come to seek and to save that which was lost. And this leads us to observe that He cannot treat even of the world DIV. I. § 15.1 JESUS AS A TEACHER. 63 in His teaching, without also pointing out its relation, not only to God, but essentiall)^ to His own person, since it is only through Him that the world has and can have life. He alone has power over all flesh to confer life eternal. Mankind is, as it were, wedded to Him. He is the bridegroom who has the power to lead home His bride. He cannot, therefore, speak even of the earlier divine economy among men, without returning to Himself as the one in whom all else finds its aim and end. He is the heir of the vineyard planted of old by God among mankind. He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil, — to bring about their essential realization ; in which, however, their original purpose is lost sight of in the higher potenc}^ now conferred upon them. Just as little can He speak of the perfection in store for the human race without distinct reference to His own person, since it is through Him alone that man's destiny can be fulfilled and consummated. He is the head and finisher of God's kingdom amongst men. Thus we observe that His teaching is throughout the unveiling and attestation of His own work and of His own person. The most connected and fullest of the discourses of Jesus are preserved to us in John's Gospel. Those recorded by the Synoptists are generally thought mucli simpler ; indeed, the commentators of the last seventy years appear to have found little enough in them. But they present peculiar difficulty, in the fact that, by reason of their apparent clearness and simplicity, their more hidden depth and copiousness may easily be overlooked. Moreover, the discourses of Jesus are so broken up into detached portions, that it becomes more difficult to ascertain their general scope, many of them consisting of single sentences and isolated precepts, whilst those of greater extent are still no more than brief statements of doctrine on separate subjects. There are, indeed, discourses of a more connected character to be found in John, Matthew, and Luke, of which the sermon on the Mount (Matt, v.-vii.) and the farewell addresses (John xiii.-xvi.) are the most noteworthy examples. Besides these may be mentioned groups of parables (Matt. xiii. ; Luke viii., xv., ?:vi., etc.), and the elements of more solid doctrinal teaching which belong' to our Lord's last visit at Jerusalem; especially also the eschatological discourses as we have them in the Synoptists (Matt, xxiv., xxv. ; Luke xvii. 20 ff.), together with the parables referring to the kingdom of God (Matt. XX.) ; lastly, other copious statements (e.g. Matt, xviii.) 64 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. which bear upon the relation of believers to each other in the Christian community. With all this, however, we do not meet with a complete whole in the gospels ; and the characteristic peculiarity of the didactic matter in the Synoptists on one side, and in John cm the other, increases the difficulty. Nor are the difficulties lessened, if, without endeavouring to bring the Lord's teaching into a kind of whole according to some self-devised scheme, we thoroughly examine the teaching itself, and investigate what the individual lines of thought may be, and how they may have been arranged in the consciousness of our Lord Himself. As regards the last point, we cannot of course represent that con- sciousness as it was in itself, but can represent His thoughts only so far as His own testimony extends, wherein He arranged them according to their comparative importance in connection with each other. The three fundamental ideas on which He rests are these : (1) the glorification of the Father in the Son ; (2) the redemption of mankind through the Son ; and (3) the establishment of the kingdom of God thereby. However various, therefore, the doctrinal statements of Jesus may appear, especially on a comparison of John with the Synoptists, their purport has constant reference to the above principles, and the germ of it may be traced even in the primary and summary announcement, " Eepent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The idea of the kingdom pre- dominates in the Synoptists, but that of the self-revelation is not wanting (Matt. xi. 27) ; nor is the idea of redemption, which is treated of partly in parables and partly in simple testimony to His connection with the world of sinners (Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28, etc.). In John's Gospel, on the contrary, the first idea — that of glorifica- tion and the self-testimony of Jesus — takes a prominent position. In speaking, however, of His person, He could not but speak also of man's need of redemption ; nor is the idea of the kingdom ex- cluded (John iii.). The more Jesus identified Himself with His teaching, the less susceptible would the people be to it, or, at all events, the more diversified would be their power of receiving it. Hence, in pro- portion to the distance between Himself and them, greater im- portance would attach to the form of His teaching as the medium of communication between His spirit and their capacity, by which form He bridged over the gulf between them. Hence the neces- sity of manifold forms, and such as did not at first allow His DIV. I. § 15.] JESUS AS A TEACHER. 65 immeasurable fulness to show itself, in wliicli lay His perfect capacity for the task before Him. He was clearly conscious of His task of being a perfect teacher of God's kingdom, and of bringing out old things and new from His treasure (Matt. xiii. 52), and also of the entirely new import of His doctrine (Matt. ix. 16, 17 ; Mark ii. 21, 22 ; Luke v. 36-39). In this consciousness He developes according to circumstances that plenitude of forms with which we see Him inexhaustibly supplied, and incessantly labours to bring home to His hearers the same truths in an endless variety of shapes, according to their several needs. His aim throughout was not merely to teach, in the narrow sense of the word, but to inform, awaken, enlighten, and emancipate soul and spirit, according to His own saying, that whoso- ever heareth and keepeth His words shall know the truth, and the truth shall make him^free (John viii. 32). It is only by a reli- gious appropriation of Him, which imparts spiritual life to men in general, that the object of His teaching is fulfilled. On that very account, however. He was obliged to select such a form of teach- ing as would lead not merely to a reception and recollection of His matter, but also to an internal appropriation and considera- tion of it in the mind and heart. And if this suitableness of teaching is called compromise, condescension to prevailing modes of thought, accommodatio, a-vyKara^acn';^ olKovofxia, we shall not oppose it ; although we cannot, of course, admit such a compro- mise as would involve the sacrifice of conformity to His own consciousness and to objective truth, without -s^Tonging His cha- racter in an unhistorical way. The adaptation in Jesus' teaching is partly in the form, His statements being shaped according to the wants of His hearers, and partly, as regards its purport, in its negative character. This negative side is shown by not always directly attacking certain errors and prejudices in those who are addressed, but, instead of this, seeking gently to transform them (especially half truths, such as the Messianic ideas prevalent in His time), and raise up some positive notions in tlieir stead. But His teaching is never positive in the sense of ap]n-opriating the erroneous ideas of His hearers, and thereby abandoning the truth. On the contrary. He aclmowledged that His mission was to bear Avitness of the truth, and acted accordingly even with the whole world against Him. In His public life He spoke and acted with the full conscious- E 6 6 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. ness that He would incur the world's hatred and forfeit His life. The impression which His words produced upon the people quite accords with this earnestness ; for they were thoroughly moved and struck by the power of His preaching, so unlike the studied and scholastic manner of the scribes (Matt. vii. 28, xiii. 54, 55, xxii. 33 ; John vii. 46, vi. 68 f.), and broke out sometimes into warm admiration. The first of His modes of teaching was the apophthegm or gnome, in detached self-contained sentences, which present some point exciting peculiar interest, and thereby impress themselves firmly on the mind and memory. These gnomes appear some- times singly, sometimes in connection with each other, forming a series, as in the Sermon on the Mount. At other times the sen- tence bears a subjective stamp, i.e. has reference either to the Speaker or hearers, and in the latter case assumes the form of an address. Even where the gnomic character is less constant, as, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus always reverts to it, and utters some isolated truths in the gnomic form in order to give pungency and force to His discourse. The expression is sometimes of an actual, sometimes of a figurative character ; indeed, the gnomic diction is fond of an admixture of figurative language. The figure was intended to bring home to the hearer an idea previously, either wholly or in part, closed to him. It does not exhaust the subject, but introduces to it, and enables the hearer to perceive it at least on one or more sides. He thus extracts from the analogy with the empirical subject as much of the ideal truth as he is at the time capable of receiving, intellectually and morally. The gnome or sentence, through the figure con- tained in it, grows into the parable. The parable is the most perfect biblical form of figurative re- presentation, and is frequently only a further developed figure, so that the boundary line cannot be distinctly drawn. The parable is based on an allegory; but this allegory is developed in the form of a narration. Ilapa^oXrj first signifies comimrison (Luke V. 36, vi. 39 ; Matt. xv. 15 ; Luke iv. 23, xiv. 7; Mark iii. 23), and then the proper parabolic narrative (Matt. xiii. 3, 10, 18, 24, 31, 34, 36, 53, xxi. 33, xxii. 1; Luke xv. 3, xviii. 9, xx. 9). In John's Gospel the word does not occur, but only irapotixia (x. 6, xvi. 25), for allegorical as opposed to direct representation, which contains a comparison, but no narrative ; as, for instance. DIV. I. § 15.] JESUS AS A TEACHER. 67 the good shepliercl, the door of the sheepfold, and the true vine. (Compare the Old Testament b^^, Judg. ix. 7 ff. ; 2 Sam. xii. 1 ff. ; 2 Kings xiv. 9 ; Isa. v. 1 ff. ; also Ezek. xvii. 1 ff., and especially ver. 2). Parables are distinguished from fables, not only by their religious and moral aim, and their loftier conception, but also by the fact of there being always a verisimilitude about the fictitious dress in which they are clothed : the circumstances are always such as supposably might happen, which is not invariably the case with fables. The parable, therefore, moves by preference in the world of men. Where the animal world is introduced at all, the comparison only expresses its relation to the rational being. The love of God towards morally lost and erring men is represented in the shepherd's conduct towards his lost sheep ; but the sheep itself takes no active part in the development. The same thing is represented with greater force as the conduct of a human father towards his erring son, who, in this case, is himself con- verted. When, too, the parable rises to the spirit-world, the position of man (as Lazarus) is the chief subject. The aim of the parable is nearly the same as that of the simple figure. By means of the analogy between the sensible and the supersensuous, the nature of the latter is made discernible ; and the parable works both by veiling and unveihng. It veils, in order that the full brightness of the idea may not dazzle and confuse the weak eyes of the beholder ; in which case, unless he were roused to appropriate reflection, his unsusceptible nature might receive no benefit. On the other hand, the veil is so transparent, that even if the idea itself is not exposed to view, its light penetrates the eye (Matt. xiii. 13). For these reasons Jesus does not explain His parables before the people (Matt. xiii. 11-15), but only lo the disciples, who being more susceptible might be able to grasp the truth (Luke viii. 1 0) ; but even in their case the parable was requisite in order to suggest the truth to them. It is the idea of God's kingdom which Jesus seeks especially to represent in parables, that being the one w^hich had for ages flitted before His people's eyes under a vague and inadequate form, and to the spiritual apprehension of which it was needful now to raise and educate them. The parables of Jesus are sufficiently numerous to furnish a general, although an inadequate idea of His doctrine. AlHed to the parable, but yet somewhat different in form, is the illustrative narrative, such as the story of the good Samaritan, 68 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. and tliat of tlie Pharisee and publican. Here botli tlie vehicle of instruction and what is to be learned from it are homogeneous : the subject is exemplified in a concrete case, and the example thrown into an historical form. ISTarratives of tliis class are thus distinct from parables. Another form of teaching, adopted by Jesus, is the historico- didactic, in which, without the employment of a material veil, the idea is based on some special matter of fact, — a situation in which one or more persons stand in the presence of Jesus, in a way quite consistent with His usual peripatetic mode of teaching. A general truth is set forth in its application to a concrete case. What it may thus lose in comprehensiveness it gains in perspicuity. Allowing itself to be separated from the concrete, the richest portion of its contents is first reached when the doctrinal idea on which it is based is brought to light ; but a union with the concrete form was, and still is, the way of leading hearers unpractised in the concentration of general ideas into a train of thoughtful meditation. These narrations are, therefore, weighty and rich for practical use. Nor are they less serviceable in the scientific investigation of the doctrine of Jesus. We have nume- rous examples of interesting occasional discourses of this kind, in the shape either of answers to questions from the disciples, replies to His enemies, or exhortations which accompanied His miracles. When addressed, as in the case of the rich young man (Matt. xix. 1 6 ff.). He is not satisfied with giving merely the neces- sary reply to the question, but adds some instructive conversation ; and even where the questioner had withdrawn, He does not let the occasion go by unimproved to His disciples (Matt. xix. 23 ff. ; Luke xvii. 20, cf 22-27). Frequently the discussion assumes a colloquial form. Besides its different forms, we have to notice also the progres- sive development of His doctrine. Teaching as He did while journeying, as opportunity offered, or according to the wants and capacity, sometimes of the people and sometimes of indi- viduals. He was compelled to shape His teaching according to this course of life. When He appeared in public. He found Himself standing in a peculiar relation to His nation, which relation offered both facilities and hindrances to His activity ,- both being caused by the whole preparation for His appearance lying in the Old Testament dispensation, and particularly in pro- Dir. I. § 15.] JESUS AS A TEACHER. 6 9 phecy. The whole of tlie Old Testament, with its laws and doctrines, might to a certain extent he presupposed ; and He based His teaching entirely on the religious idea as we find it exhibited in the old covenant. But here great diversities arose in His mode of dealing with different individuals, according as their character had been formed by the Old Testament economy or not, and had shown itself susceptible or otherwise of its influence. There were, on the one hand, the mourners and poor in spirit, who were weary and heavy laden under the yoke of the law, and quietly waiting for the consolation of Israel. There were, on the other hand, the rich and wise of this world, who felt not their need of anything He had to offer. There were others, too, whose hearts, already hardened by self-righteousness, were not suscep- tible of His influence. We see, therefore, how many different modes of address He was obliged to employ. Great difficidties were, moreover, thrown in His way by the political conceptions of the Messiah which prevailed amongst the people ; for He was thereby prevented from simply announcing Himself as the Mes- siah to those who were morally unsusceptible. They would have entirely misunderstood Him, and rendered His efficiency impos- sible ; so that He was obliged, in dealing with them, rather to veil than unveil His ]\Iessianic character, and at the same time to make use of His position, in order to rouse them to a spiritual conception of the Messiah's kingdom, and then to come forward and bear witness to Himself as the appointed founder of that kingdom. Add to this the difference in cultivation and know- ledge between the scribes and the lower orders, and we can readily understand in how many different ways He was obliged to propound His doctrine, and how nicely to regulate its progress. His consciousness of this is displayed in one of His latest dis- courses, in which He spoke of the many things He had to say to His disciples which He could then only express in figures (Jolni xvi. 12, 25). His opening announcement was the same as that of John the Baptist. Then, according to the synoptic account. He unfolded what was requisite for participation in God's kingdom (Matt, v.-vii.). The discourses then pass on more definitely to the objective nature of the divine Idngdom (Matt, xiii.), and then successively to the apostolic calling (Matt, x.), and to the general community of believers, with the introduction here and there of detached utterances on the relation of His person to the kingdom 70 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. (Matt, xi.), and especially to Jolm the Baptist. But after this He adopted a more open and decided course, as the time of His sufferings drew near. When the reaction against Him set in, the declaration of His Messiahship became necessary, addressed to those who had been gradually prepared to receive it, in order to call forth a decided consciousness of this idea ; at the same time He also announced His passion. All this was gradually done up to His entry into Jerusalem and the solemn disclosures of His last hours ; and thus, what had so long been in preparation was brought to light and came to maturity in the hearts of His disciples. From John's Gospel, likewise, we may gather Jesus' conduct both in Galilee and Jerusalem. After the close of His first year's ministry, we read that He brought about the crisis by that " hard saying " (John vi. 6 0). Without expressly declaring Himself as the Messiah before the masses, by referring directly to His own person as the true spiritual food. He causes some to desert Him, and others to confess that He had the words of eternal life. He acted with similar reserve in Jerusalem (John ii.), matters of deeper import being reserved for individuals (John iii.). In the fifth chapter He more fully describes the nature of His work as one in co-operation with God, but still without directly asserting His Messiahship. In chaps, vii. to ix. we read of the same reserve ; and in chap. x. He hints at His death. Here, too, the references to this become more explicit and decided as the end drew near. His farewell discourses contain the clearest and most public declarations, divulging as they do His essential community with believers and His promise of the Paraclete. All the accounts, therefore, agree as to this gradual progress. From all this, it is evident that what He aimed at in His hearers was not a mere retentive grasp of the subject and ex- ternal certainty, but an inner and heartfelt conviction. He is, therefore, continually building up something new on well-known foundations (Matt. xiii. 52), linking together the Old Testament and personal experience to the religious consciousness of His hearers. The rationalist assertion, that He builds upon the light of reason, may be admitted with the reservation, that in the only passage which speaks expressly of man's spiritual eye (Matt. vi. 22, 23), the possibility of its becoming darkened is presupposed. But, in addition to this allusive and derivative mode of teaching, DIV. I. § IG.] THE ACTIONS OF JESUS. 71 independent statements of doctrine are not wanting. He asserts the reality of truth, in appealing to the infallibility of His words and to His divine origin (John viii. 26, xii. 44 ff., iii. 11 ff.), as well as to the testimony of His mighty works, by which, with- out prejudice to His higher authority, men might be awakened to a living perception of His real nature (John v. 36, viii. 18, etc.). Belief, therefore, is only possible in the man who is willing to do God's wiU (John vii. 17, vi. 37, viii. 42 ff. ; also Matt. xi. 25 ; Luke X. 21, 22). Hence the powerful impression which His teaching produced (Matt. vii. 28, 29, xiii. 54 ff., xxii. 33 ; John vii. 46, vi. 68, 69), an impression depending not so much on the matter and form of His discourses, as on the aggTegate influ- ences of the teacher's personality, to which they bore such power- ful testimony. § 16. Tlie Actions of Jesus. The teacliing of Jesus is the manifestation of His personality. This is both a moral act and the exliibition of that personality in the matter taught, both aim and form showing forth in Him the indissoluble unity of love and wisdom. His truth depends on His being one with the Father, and His love to men is shown by the presentation of this truth in the manner most suitable to their needs. Thus His teaching becomes a moral act of self- denial and dependence on the Father, no less than of love replete with wisdom. Likewise, also. His whole course of action appears to be the result of His unity with the Father ; His spirit finds constant satisfaction in doing His Father's will (John iv. 34) ; and He thus lives for the world, and enters into it without be- longing to it or relinquishing that unity. These main features constitute His character. It cannot be done justice to by a mere catalogus virtutum, still less by attempting to give characteristic importance to some particular quality. His character consists entirely in the harmony of His being, which is put to the test by His life, in which He ever remained without spot or blemish. The full comprehension He displayed of the world, both of nature and of man, is the first testimony to this character. His appreciation of nature is shown by the liveliness of His imagery. In His sight all human splendour vanishes before the beauty which clothes the lily of the field; rain and sunshine are to Him the emblems of God's impartial beneficence. No creatures arc too 72 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. insignificant for His notice ; and in tlieni He recognises the Father's care, and they have His sjanpathy. In the approacliing harvest He sees the image of a liigher truth ; in the seed cast into the ground, the figure of God's quickening power. Nature, and the whole mystery of its organic life, is to Him the work and the reflection of God. Nature, therefore, does not draw Him away from the Father ; but a deeper insight into it tends always to His manifestation, and it is therefore a helper in His teaching of divine truth. Wliile living in it, He ruled it. He was not over- powered by its delights, but they were spiritualized by Him. As with the life of nature, so of men. He enters fully into the latter, but especially in its relation to nature : the sower sowing his seed (Matt, xiii.) ; the gardener patiently waiting for fruit (Luke xiii.) ; the solicitude of the vinedresser (John xv.) in cleansing the plant with a view to greater fruitfulness. Grasping all these tilings in their living sense. He makes them types of divine truth. In like manner God's action towards men is reflected in their treatment o± animals (Luke xv.). How tenderly, too, and with what discernment He takes in all purely human relations ! What a view of the child-world He opens to us, giving Himself up not merely to sentient delight in their presence, but recognising their relation to the kingdom of God ! No fuller conception of the parental and filial relation can be imagined than that portrayed in the parable of the prodigal son. Observe, too, how woman's life at its most critical moment is exalted by Him into a type of the highest kind (John xvi. 21). Numberless like traces of the view He took of the outer world show us how completely every side of human life, its sinful aspect alone excepted, found its counterpart in His own, in order that He might raise the world unto Himself In the same way, too, His actions show how He took a part in all the relations of life so far as His vocation allowed, and with what self-sacrifice He gave Himself up to them, yet without being injured and entangled by them, or contracting defilement from what was sinful in them. This we find especially in His family life and human friendships. Born of a Avoman, He be- longed to a distinct family circle, His attachment to which is evinced by His long continuance in it; and the bond of filial love remains unbroken all through His public life, even to His cross, in the agonies of which He fulfils the last duty of a loving DIV. I. § IC.J THE ACTIONS OF JESUS. 73 son. But still He is fully independent of His mother, putting her, as early as the marriage at Cana, in the subordinate position which was fitting for her, looldng at His Messianic work. At Capernaum, likewise, He does not allow His teaching to be in- terrupted by the relations who would call Him away from it, but, against the human relationship, He asserts the still higher claims of the spiritual community. He had already shown the same independence in the occurrence which took place in His twelfth year. But He never on this account renounced His mother and His bretln-en, although it was with difficulty that they attained belief in Him (John vii. 5). How He was bound by the ties of friendship we see beautifully exemplified in His relation to the narrower and wider circle of His disciples, and also to the women who accompanied Him even to the cross ; but yet no words of love in the human sense could ever divert Him from His vocation (Matt. xvi. 22, 23). The same unerring perception is observable throughout every side of His public life, whether in relation to the people. His hereditary religion, or the public authorities. He continued a true son of His nation, and never lost sight of its privileges and destiny, or forgot that salvation is of the Jews, and that He was sent unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He put forth all His powers to save His nation from the ruin which He saw advancing with rapid strides, and which called forth His lament over Jerusalem. But national prejudices had no power over Him, and in no way troubled the freedom of His spirit. He in no way shared the national hatred against Gentiles and Samaritans, but, on the contrary, rejoiced whenever He found faith amongst them, and remained unshaken in the consciousness that His work lay amongst manldnd at large. Nevertheless, having been made subject to the law by circumcision. He remains true to it. He takes part in the national worship, is a diligent frequenter of the feasts, paying the temple tribute, although on higher grounds exempt from it (Matt. xvii. 24 ff.j ; and thus consistently carries out the principle laid down at His baptism by John (Matt. iii. 15). In the Sermon on the JMount, and on other occasions, the real meaning of the commandments of the law is contrasted with the Jewish interpretation. Likewise, with regard to sabbatical observance. He did not impair it, but remained perfectly true to the actual coniinanduient of the Old Testament; but He expressed the real spirit of it in the axiom 74 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Again, He took a still wider view of the whole of the divine economy, in the dictum that God can only be rightly worshipped in spirit and in truth. But, as the origin of such worship is from within, through the spirit in its fulness breaking through the narrowing barriers of form, it was possible for Him to abide by the old religious constitution of His nation without sacrificing either the freedom or the purity of the spirit within Him. On the contrary, He raised the law by His observance of it, as is shown by its subsequent effect. The relation in which He stood to the theocracy followed as a natural result. He was equally strict in His obedience as a subject to the heathen autho- rities, never allowing Himself to be carried away by the rebellious tendencies of His nation (Luke xiii. 1-3), but always regarding the refusal of obedience as a positive crime. No doubt He regarded the Eoman dominion as a judgment upon His nation, but one from which nothing less than an inward renewal and conversion could set them free. His answer as to the tribute- money was twofold in its tendency, implying both that the Eoman rule did not abolish the Jewish theocracy, and that both were united in His spiritual conception of the latter. His object was not to resist the secular authority, but rather to work under its protection. His dutiful behaviour as a subject is proved also in His examination before the tribunal. He did not resist His apprehension, merely declaring the injustice of treating Him as a murderer caught in the act, by arresting Him at night, and without any ascertained grounds of susjDicion. He acknowledges Pilate's authority over Him, but at the same time maintains His own dignified position, by saying that the governor could have no power over Him unless it were given him from above ; nor can Jesus be induced by any consideration to conceal the truth (John xviii. 28 ff.). In like manner He did not hesitate to unmask Herod's hypocrisy, who would have persuaded Him to avoid the Galilean territory, and to opj^ose to it His own decided self-consciousness on the subject of what was due to His higher calling (Luke xiii. 31 ff.). He appealed before the Sanhedrim to His public worldng as the best answer to His accusers ; and neither the scourger who smote Him, nor the high priest who permitted it, could disturb His dignified equanimity. He dis- played here exactly the same spirit as that in which He had PIV. I. § IG.] THE ACTIONS OF JESUS. 75 never allowed Himself to be intimidated or hindered in His work, although He gave no just ground for complaint, and in His wisdom knew how to avoid the snares laid for Him. Thus, in every 2)osition and relation, He is always consistent as one who lives in the world, but at the same time rules it. The all-sidedness of His character, however, is seen especially in His private intercourse with individuals. Being, as. He is, an example for all, — to the full-grown a picture of the highest maturity, to youth the image of true childish simplicity, — His heart is always open to all according to their needs. Think on His loving regard for the rich young man, and, in general, that tender sympathy for sinners, the union of wisdom and love, which made Him single out for notice those who by others, and by the Pharisees especially, were despised and shunned. But wherever He met with obduracy, hatred of the truth, and hyp)Ocrisy, not- withstanding His love and humility, He showed earnest severity in dealing with them. There was no sensuous softness in His love, for it was founded upon a true conception of mankind, which it was His task to realize. Thus everything in Him was rounded off into the fair proportions of a perfect character ; humility and greatness, clemency and zeal, were mingled in the harmony resulting from the abnegation of self, and the ever wake- ful consciousness of His unity with God. He is as sensitive as any other man to the natural feelings of hunger and bodily fatigue. His sense of honour is as keen and easily wounded, and His common sympathies are as quickly roused ; but the di"\'ine consciousness always keeps pace with every external influence. Nevertheless, He rises superior to every bodily want (Matt, iv.), and is never hindered by this cause in His high calling (John iv.). He is, indeed, capable of being roused to anger (]\Iark iii. 5), not, however, in the shape of excited personal feeling, but of a holy and painful indignation at man's resistance to salvation. Hence arise stern reproofs, as in the case of the Pharisees and of the sin agaiust the Holy Ghost, and sometimes acts of righteous severity, as the purification of the temple. We see also, under another aspect, how the consciousness of unity with God asserted its superiority over any outward affections on two circumstances of His passion : the agony of His soul in Gcthscmane, intensified even to bodily results, and His forsahoi feeling on the cross, wliich found expression in the words of a psalm. On both occa- 76 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. sions God still remains His Father or His God ; there is a change in the tone, hut not in tlie direction of His will. Amidst the extreme horrors of His situation, when His human nature is over- borne by bodily anguish and the scorn of men, the blessed feeling of being one Avith the Father is for a time, indeed, interrupted and superseded by the oppressive sense of need and desertion. But the bond, nevertheless, remains unbroken. He is still certain that the will of the Father, who appears to have forsaken Him, is good, and that He must fulfil it. This affords us most ample proof that His personality, although stirred to its very depths, was still perpetually under the guidance of His divine conscious- ness ; and thus we gain a complete delineation of that character in which wisdom and love are one. ^17. The Miracles of Jesus. The gospels inform us that Jesus, during His public career, performed a number of miraculous deeds, partly influencing nature, but more especially mankind in their manifold sufferings, both bodily and psychico-bodily. The first of these miracles was, according to John (ii. 11), that at Cana in Galilee. They are all marked by the characteristic expressions repara (^2^0, subjects for astonishment) (John iv. 48) and Svva/jiei^ (nn^33, Matt. xiii. 58), which give, the one negatively, the other positively, a clear idea of the causality as supernatural. They are also called, Avith regard to their object, arjixela (nix, John ii. 23), because they bear in themselves the indications of a peculiar relation to the inner counsels of God's kingdom. The first and third of these expres- sions frequently occur together; all three are found in Acts ii. 22. The Old Testament gives the idea of something new which God performs ( Jer. xxxi. 3 1 ; Num. xvi. 3 0) ; and the New Testament has a similar idea of an occurrence, the cause and aim of which is to be sought, not in the general uniformity of nature, but in the higher power of God. With this agrees also the Jewish view, expressed with less distinctness by Mcodemus (John iii. 2), and ai^ain at the healing of the man born blind. Now there can be no doubt that the evangelists generally regarded these actions as miraculous. They accepted and related them as the working of a higher divine power inherent in Jesus. John relates only six of the most important ; but this does not prove either that he did not regard other occurrences as miraculous, or that he attached DIV. I. § 17.] THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 17 less weigiit to miracles in general. On the contrary, liis careful selection shows what significance he ascribed to them in the self- manifestation of Jesus. Nor can any aversion to the miraculous be justly imputed to Mark, either from the fact of his ascribing to Jesus an intermediate kind of agency in two of His miraculous cures (ix. 21, vii. 33), or because, in the case of the barren fig- tree, the curse did not instantaneously take effect (Mark xi. 20). Mark gives miracles enough which admit of no doubt whatever as to their real nature (vi. 56), their characteristic features being plainly discernible in the copiousness of his narrative ; and his connection with Peter sufficiently explains his silence as to Peter's attempt when Jesus walked npon the sea. Such individual peculiarities merely prove the candour of the evangelists, who not only refrain from giving a miraculous colouring to anything, but conceal no feature which may appear to prejudice a miracle. All of them record those discourses of Jesus in which He appeals to His miracles. Wlien Jesus forbids their publication, He has some special object in view, either to prevent any difficulty being thrown in the way of the healed person's lawful cleansing through the prejudice of the priests, or his being drawn away from the deeper meditation which would lead to belief ; and such appears to have been the view taken by contemporaries. Even the enemies of Jesus did not deny the wonderful facts : they only raise the most absurd objections against their character (Matt. xii. 24), and in their malice try to avoid the conviction they are cal- culated to produce (Matt. xvi. 1-4; Mark viii. 11, 12). The facts themselves are admitted even in the words of mockery beneath the cross (Matt, xxvii. 42). The people, however, might look upon the miracles as signs of the Messiah, and render necessary the warning of Jesus not to rest in them to the neglect of what was more important. The historical fidelity of the gospel narratives is confirmed, moreover, not only by actual results, but by the miraculous power of Jesus continuing to operate during the lives of the apostles, as recorded by eye and ear witnesses beyond the sphere of the gospel history, as by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xii.). The miracles of Jesus have been subject to a long probation of exegesis and criticism which seeks to set aside their miraculous character. The most unfortunate of these attempts was the purely exegetical, according to which no miracle was intended in 78 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. the text ; "but even this has been of use in causing the rejection of much which was previously regarded on insufficient grounds as miraculous. In other cases, where the opposition assumed a more favourable aspect, the miraculous element in the narrative has received confirmation from the treatment it has undergone ; as, for example, the incidents of the stater in the fish's mouth, and of Jesus walking upon the sea. The natural explanation, and the procedure which would destroy the credibility of miracles by regarding them as myths, embrace a wider field ; but these attempts, like the others, only serve to put Jesus' miracles in a clearer light. The natural explanation finds no support at all in the accounts themselves ; for when it is said on one occasion that Jesus could not perform mighty works (Matt. xiii. 58), His in- ability is no more than unwillingness, occasioned by the unbelief of others (cf, Mark iii. 5), and merely proves that His miracles always had a positive aim. His cures being generally performed singly, whilst multitudes remained in His immediate neighbour- hood uncured, does not in any way disprove the existence of an universal miraculous power, but only -shows that the latter was not exerted except with definite and exalted ends, and under cer- tain presupposed conditions. The accounts of His occasional use of external means, such as laying on of hands and the like, do not go beyond the employment of signs and symbols, a course abundantly justified where Jesus was dealing with a deaf and dumb man (Mark vii. 31), to whom He could not otherwise make Himself intelligible. The idea of any curative agency being attached to such means cannot be entertained ; but these symbols prove that Jesus wished also to work simultaneously upon the minds of men. Again, no inference can be drawn as to His employment of external means from the accusation that He profaned the Sabbath in His cures, because the same accusation would equally attach to the mere exorcism common amongst the Jews of His time (Matt. xii. 1 0 ; Luke xiii. 1 0, xiv. 2 ; John V. 16, ix. 6, cf. 16). The natural explanation, in its assump- tion of the mediation of physical causes, meets with no support at all in the history itself, which simply contradicts it. And it is equally unavailing for the disparagement of the miracles, by assert- ing that the death of those raised to life was only apparent, etc. ; for the existence of some hidden machinery in the background must always be assumed. This is, however, simply impossible in DIV. I. § 17. J THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 79 miracles performed at a distance, as that of the healing of the nobleman's son, and also in the raising of the dead. Psycho- logical influence also is excluded from miracles of this class, and equally so from those performed on natm^al objects, such as the loaves multiplied, the stilling of the storm, the changing of water into wine, and those cures in which the disease does not stand in any immediate relation to the spiritual life. Apart from this, the power of the will over the animal life does not, so far as is Imown, attain to such results. The mythical has never been able to shake itself entirely free from the natural explanation ; as, for instance, where it is dis- posed to allow the healing of demoniacs to pass for the mental superiority of Jesus over madmen, and to deny the fact altogether only where this evasion is not possible. The real ground of this view is a philosophical one, that miracles are 'per sc inconceivable. This almost puts an end to criticism on individual miracles as to the character, magical or moral, to be assigned to them, as that the power of Jesus was exerted unconsciously (although, on the contrary. He was well aware of power going out from Him, and it most assuredly was not done involuntarily, as Jesus recognised the faith of the individual healed, although unacquainted with his person) ; or that His curse on the fig-tree was useless (which, however, receives sufficient warrant as a prophetico-symbolic act) ; or, again, that He caused the demons of Gadara to go into the herd of swine (when even the owners of the swine did not impute to Him that He had guided the demons, but only begged Him to withdraw in order to prevent the repetition of a similar occur- rence). The Old Testament expectations and precedents fail to explain the origin of the histories of miraculous events as myths, as the fulfilment far surpasses these expectations. But, in the face of such expectations, how could the actual faith in the Messiahship of Jesus be explained, unless they found their fulfil- ment in the actual performance of the miracles ? It is true, indeed, that apostolical letters written to existing communities, founded on the facts of the life of Jesus, and necessarily conversant with them, make no mention of these occurrences ; also the mis- sionary discourses {e.g. those in Acts ii. 22, x. 38, 39) ; but tliis is explained if we reflect that, at that time, the miraculous power of Jesus was still at work. The resurrection of Jesus, that greatest of miracles, is, however, sufficiently attested in these documents. 80 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. Everything seems to sliow tliat the mii-acles of Jesus can be accurately understood only in connection vnth His personality. A miracle within the created world is, in a certain sense, always relative : creation alone is absolute. But, in this case, the creative power operates within the already existing world, and only pro- duces in the latter something relatively new, founded on and in connection with it. Hence analogies to the miraculous are ever to be found in the course of nature ; and so far there is truth in the philosophical hypothesis, which contends against the absolute miracle. It errs, however, first, in inquiring what can be effected in creation by given forces and laws, instead of asldng what can be effected in the complex working of these by the accession of divine creative power ; next, in regarding the knowledge of those laws as settled, which it is not. Jesus' miracles were not intended merely to meet the wants of men, nor did they result from His prophetic character, but from that of the ]\Iessiah, in whom man and God are united. They were an emanation from His personality, and were indeed natural to it. Miracles form a part of the self-revelation of His person, who, though He did not owe His life to the world, yet came into it and submitted to the conditions of its actual existence (John xiv. 10, 11, xv. 24). On this account they are the revelation to us of His power, no less than of His wisdom and love ; and His unparalleled relation to God, as well as to the world, may be seen in them as clearly as in His teaching and other public acts. In working mu-acles, He fulfils the wiU of God (John x. 32, v. 26, xi. 41, 42, x. 37) ; and they are done in the power of .God (]\Iatt. xii. 2 8 ; Luke xi. 20; John V. 26). But this power and will of God are exactly identical with His OM'n (John xiv. 6, xi. 25). Miracles are aTj/xela of His person, and therein of the divine kingdom about to be established. Jesus demands to be believed for His very works' sake, but equally requires that the belief should not stop there (cf. § 32) ; and for this reason He refuses to perform any miracle merely for the display of His power (Matt. xii. 38). And in His miracles, no less than in His teaching. He presupposes susceptibility and faith. On the other hand, as the person of Jesus appeared in this existing world. His miracles also are not wholly unconnected with nature, and are built upon existing objects. Natural analogies are not to be absolutely rejected, as He Himself pointed out in the outward acts which accompanied His miracles. But they have DIV. I. § 18.] THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS. 81 also in relation to Himself a purely human side, as manifestations of the love which is at one with wisdom ; they are KoXa epya (John X. 32 f.), in which His moral character is revealed. In them, too, we see His perfect entry into the whole domain of human life and suffering, particularly as He always connects suf- fering with sin and the consciousness of guilt (Matt. ix. 1—8). His love is shown therein as embracing the perfecting cure of all human suffering. But the object common to all miracles, which is also the highest aim of all His love and wisdom, is never lost sight of, viz. to lead on to faith in Himself, and (Matt. xii. 28) to pave the way for the establishment of the divine kingdom, whose completion is looked forward to as the perfect deliverance from sin and its consequences. IV. THE CONCLUSION OF HIS LIFE. I 18. The Sufferings and Death of Jesus. The fact of Jesus resigning Himself to death proves that the end of His public activity was attained, the gradual development of wliich is set before us in the gospel history. But it had now reached the point at which no further results of importance were attainable without the aid of the final catastrophe of His earthly life. The impression He had already made was so great that it could now propagate itself. His form was so indelibly stamped on hearts susceptible of its impress, that the possession of it was for ever secured to mankind : He could not expect to Avin over the people in a body, even by a longer period of activity. But the impression made on the susceptible might be enhanced ; and even upon the mass of the nation and the less impressible, yet one more great sensation might be attempted, by means of the im- pending catastrophe and the acts which preceded it and deter- mined its character. The progress even of the disciples themselves was limited by the progress of His career. A boundary seemed to be drawn, beyond which their comprehension could not pass, so long as His bodily presence gave any support to their material hopes. Wliat could be effected from without had been done ; but their higher inspiration could only be attained after, and by means of, the change which His death wrought in His person. F 82 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. Distinct predictions of His passion are not tlie only instances of Jesus' prescience (cf John xiii. 1 9, xvi. 1 ff.), and can only be ob- jected to on a philosophical hypothesis which refuses to recognise the unity of His spirit with God. Moreover, the application of features derived from the Old Testament cannot cause us any scruple, so long as we allow that no sound exegesis of the prin- cipal passage (Isa. liii.) could regard the servant of God apart from the Messianic idea. But how He expressly foretold His death, and how this death was specially sealed by the institution of the Lord's Supper, and how strongly He dwelt throughout upon the necessity of His passion, belongs more particularly to the statement of His teaching. Although Jesus submitted to death of His own free will (John X. 18), it was nevertheless brought about by the historical de- velopment of His life, and by the hostile disposition towards Him which was excited by the testimony He bore to Himself as the Messiah. Cautious, guarded, and gradual as the statement of His claims at first was, He could not fail ere long to incur the bitter hostility of the leading men, seeing that He neither fulfilled their expectations nor promoted their interests. If He succeeded, their rule was at an end. They consequently forbade the people, under pain of the curse, to acknowledge Him as the Messiah ; and the growth of their hatred kept pace with the development of His doctrine (John vii. 7, 10). They soon attempted to seize and put Him to death, and He reproached them with their murderous intention; but no one for a time ventured (vii. 30), or was able to lay hands on Him (x. 39). He left them and avoided the snares, which had, however, so imj)ressed His dis- ciples that they were surprised when He again desired to go to Jerusalem. He goes to Bethany, and the raising of Lazarus fol- lows. This determines the resolution of the Sanhedrim ; for they now feared a popular demonstration in His favour, followed hj a rebellion, which would involve the j^eople and themselves in one common ruin. Thus political fear is added to personal dislike and party feeling. Yet Jesus withdraws only for a moment, and then makes His public entry into Jerusalem. The public rejoic- ing rouses the suspicion of His enemies, Jerusalem being filled with stranccers at the festival, who were not under their control They determined, therefore, to seize His person, but to pro- ceed against Him with secrecy, — a resolution which was changed DIV. I. § 18.] THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS. 83 by the offer of Judas, wlio entered into negotiations with them. The statement (John xiii. 2) that Satan entered into Judas after the Last Supper is not inconsistent with the fact that he had already closed with them ; for, immediately before the deed, a resolution still remained to be taken which would make the whole irrevocable. Jesus' conduct sufficiently proved that He had no intention of employing the people against the rulers, since, after His triumphal entry, He continued to work merely in His usual manner. At the same time, they were provoked at the greater power and freedom of the invectives which He launched against them during that week ; and His discourse on the last evening hastened the accomplishment of Judas' purpose. The symbolical signification of the Passover made death welcome to Jesus at that season (the Tahiiud itself recognises the expectation of the re- demption of Israel taking place during that feast). But it v/as of the utmost consequence to Him not to be slain secretly, since it was only by a public death that full effect could be given to His resurrection. On the other hand, the members of the Sanhedrim thought that His public execution, especially if brought about by the heathen authorities, would put an end once for all to the belief in His Messiahship. The question now remains, how far Jesus was morally justified in thus going to meet His death. It is true, indeed, that He only allowed His enemies to carry out their resolves, but then He took no pains to avoid, and even challenged the issue. The moral necessity of His death may not b^ too lightly asserted without acknowledging the conditions which it necessarily involves. If Jesus was no more tlian a prophet and teacher of the truth, His death would certainly possess great moral significance as a confirmation and exaaiiple ; but He would not in that case have been justified in seeking it. He might have avoided it, and would have been bound to do so ; for thus His work might have been prolonged in Galilee, if not in Jerusalem. The heathen world, moreover, lay open to Him, and such a spirit as His could have found a sphere of action anywhere. The question assumes a different aspect, supposing His death to have been a divine necessity imposed by the peculiar nature of His vocation. Our view must not, how- ever, be limited to any single divine revelation to Him on this point ; for His destination as the Messiah throws light on the whole subject. In this His action was limited to His own people, 84 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. and directed to its central point ; and He had to present Himself to the nation as their Messiah, and uphold His claims at whatever cost, unless He were willing to abandon the destiny marked out for Him in the divine counsels. And here comes in the hypo- thesis of His real Messianic personality wherein He was one with God. In this way only can we understand how death was in- cluded in the original plan of His life, and particularly why His death was brought about at the exact time and in the exact way in which it was, through a forcible declaration of His person, and of His intention to establish a kingdom in His own sense of the word. The value of Jesus' death is not diminished by the fact of the resurrection also being in His consciousness bound up with it. The death does not become less real on that account ; for Jesus does not resume His former mortal condition, but death still continues to be the suspension of bodily life, and the passing of the soul into a supernatural state. Gethsemane proves that Jesus did not gain the conviction of the moral justification and divine necessity of His death without a struggle. He sought the well-known spot in order to give Himself up entirely to inter- course with the Father. Here He became fully sensible of the decisiveness of the step He was about to take. This is, however, no isolated instance of this frame of mind. He had already, Luke xii. 50, expressed His apprehension of the impending catastrophe, and again, John xii. 27, 28, a few days before His death. These earlier examples bear witness to the reality of the feeling which reached its climax in Gethsemane. That was the precise moment when this frame of mind could not but declare itself in the strongest manner. The strength of His anticipation, at the moment when His sufferings approached, proves only His complete consciousness of the step He was taking. He had, perhaps, ere this turned His glance at the whole of His work, and ideally looked on it as completed. When uttering His high- priestly prayer. He had already felt Himself to be the great High Priest and Mediator between God and man. But now the decisive step for the completion of that work is closely impending. Here He stands in Gethsemane as the sacrifice about to devote itself to the altar. Uniting in His person the two offices of victim and priest. He must needs combine both ideas in the alternating frame of His own mind. Now it was in Gethsemane that He mentally performed the sacrifice. Here, therefore. He pictured to Himself DIV. I. § IS.] THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS, 85 all tliat was before Him ; His thoughts do not cling to the pre- sent moment, but embrace the whole task that He had taken upon Himself. Having gained the mastery in the struggle of this moment, He became tranquil, and maintained His self-possession under the most trying circumstances. This is shown in His sublimity and dignity when face to face with every injustice, in the gentleness which distinguished degrees of offence, in the re- signation which acknowledged all as the dispensation of God, and, above all, in the love which, under the heaviest load of personal suffering, still showed itself susceptible of that of others, and made it the object of special consideration. In fine, this struggle evinces His full consciousness of the step He was about to take ; but as everything was concentrated in this one moment, the feel- ing thus produced well-nigh subdued Him, and filled His soul with a horror which He could only master by prayer. For in all great suffering the moment immediately preceding its commence- ment is always the most torturing to the human mind ; when in the midst of the anguish, the soul is in a manner elevated. Such anguish He experienced, yet without ever harbouring a doubt of God, or losing sight of Him as the proper object of His con- sciousness. It is not only death, however, which He goes forth to meet, the fear of which He overcomes ; He also has to experience the power of sin concentrated against Him. The deeply felt in- justice of His death is present to His soul, and the curse which the guilt of it will bring upon His people ; indeed, in the very midst of His agonies. He is more acutely sensible of the baneful power of sin over mankind (Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Luke xxiii. 34) than of His own suffering. But to Him, the sinless One, the death itself which He was about to encounter is something unnatural, and hence His anguish at having to undergo the extreme penalty of sin. It belongs to the province of biography to describe the rapid succession of events inwardly prepared for and decided on by Him, but which was precipitated by His enemies in their haste to secure the result without interrupting the feast. As to the fact that Jesus really died, historical testimony is unanimous. Had He not died. His whole life and teaching would have been de- prived of its final truth. His teaching shows how He Himself looked upon His death as the manifestation of His person and of His work, in the perfection of self-sacrifice and the complete 86 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. adoption of Immanity through His fully sharing in the sense of sin by His personal experience of its worst evil. S 19. Mesurrcction and Ascension of Jesus. The accounts of the several appearances of the risen Jesus are not at variance with each other, for they are only fragments which evidently stand alone, and were selected with a plan and a pur- pose. Matthew, for instance, thought it sufficient to relate the first appearance immediately consequent on the fact, and the last in Galilee which was also of essential importance. Nor does the change of scene present any difiiculty. The disciples might very well stay at Jerusalem until the conclusion of the feast, although Jesus had bidden them go into Galilee ; and after their sojourn there, they could easily have returned to Jerusalem on the ap- proach of the season of Pentecost, and receive His command to await there the outpouring of the Spirit. The narrative of the first appearance is, however, common to all four evangelists. Now it is not possible to assimie either an apparent death and a successful awaking from it brought about by divine providence, or so extravagant a plan as that Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified in order to cjive colour to an assumed resurrection. Moreover, the supposition of a deception, wrought by the apostles, is an unworthy one, and that they could have been self-deceived is impossible ; so that there remains only the possibility of a mythical explanation for those who are entirely determined to evade the historical one. But how could the myth arise ? According to the gospels, the disciples had, before the fact, no belief which could give rise to such a hope, but were, on the contrary, in a dejected frame of mind in consequence of the death of Jesus ; and this is exactly what the history would have led us to expect. The great revolution in their frame of mind can only be accounted for by the supposi- tion of some extraordinary occurrence. And a vision can in no way suffice for this. The Apostle Paul, in enumerating amongst other appearances in proof of the resurrection, the one Avhich he had himself experienced, in no way sanctions the supposition that he regarded them all as visionary, but only shows that he looked upon his own also as objective. The purport and aim of his statement presuppose the characteristics of objective appearances ; for five hundred men do not at the same moment experience a merely subjective one. Unless, therefore, special diversion to DIV. I. § ID.] liESUERECTION AND ASCENSION OF JESUS. 87 miracles is raised into tlie liicjliest law of investio;ation, it is im- possible to avoid presupposing just such an extraordinary fact as is presented in tlie gospel history of the resurrection. The appearances of the risen One are recorded in such a way as to show that they are neither to he regarded as visionary nor as the appearances of one again returning to a permanent con- tinuance of an earthly life. His soul had really left His body, according to the New Testament doctrine (1 Pet. iii. 18, 19), and the resurrection restored the bond of union between them ; but the question remains, whether the result was a re-establishment of mere bodily life under its former conditions, or, on the contrary, that a glorification took place to a new and immortal life. The phenomena recorded in John xx. 20-27, Luke xxiv. 39-43, Acts X. 41 (John xxi.) have indeed been appealed to in support of the former supposition ; but what they go to prove is no more than the fact of real bodily appearance as opposed to an in- corporeal or visionary apparition, without excluding a glorified corporeality. The latter supposition, on the other hand, seems to gain confirmation from other features, such as the descriptions of His coming and going (John xx. 26, xxi. 1, (pavepouadai), and the designation of His going as a "vanishing" (Luke xxiv. 31). With this also agree the pains He took to convince the disciples of the reality of His body, and also the expression arnjuelov for His resurrection (John xx. 30). And even if the real state of the case cannot be exactly made out, the evangelists, at all events, represent the resurrection as a renewal of life, from which the idea of a second death was excluded. This view assumes a more definite form in the apostolic teaching, according to which the resurrection of Jesus runs completely parallel with our own, — the latter being, however, a glorification (1 Cor. xv. ; Eom. viii. ; Col. i.; 2 Cor. iv. ; Eev. i.). For this reason the ascension is associated with the resurrection, and, indeed, indirectly with the crucifixion itself (1 Pet. i. 21 ; Eph. i. 20, ii. 6 ; Ptom. viii. 34 ; Acts ii. 32, 33, V. 31 ; [Eom. i. 4, xiv. 9 ; Phil. ii. 9]). And although the two events are so distinguished that the appearance of Jesus cannot be described as a mere descent again from heaven to earth, yet a combined view of aE the circumstances seems to favour the opinion that a gradual glorification began at the resurrection, but was not completed until the ascension. It is in the nature of the case that we should not be able to picture to ourselves any exact 88 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I. view of tliis process. His previous intimations testify that the resurrection of Jesus formed an essential part of His work. He Himself makes early allusion to it in speaking of the rebuilding of the temple (John ii. 19-22); and although in the temple, which was to be destroyed through the obstinacy of the Jews, there may be some reference to the destruction of the material building, still the words mainly refer to the new temple of His risen body. The discourse about the sign of the prophet Jonah belongs to the same subject. But, besides these allegorical allusions, we have also distinct announcements in connection with the notification of His suffering (Matt, xvi., xvii. ||). There is also the discourse before His apprehension (Matt. xxvi. 32) ; and on another occasion the time is incidentally mentioned (Matt. xvii. 9). Compare also what is related by John (x. 17, 18), with which agrees the dis- course about the quickening power of the flesh and blood of Jesus (John vi.). The farewell discourses also (John xiv.-xvi.) do not merely refer to a spiritual coming again, but as clearly {e.g. John xvi. 22) to an outward and visible reappearance. It cannot be said that, these intimations being presupposed, the unbelief of the disciples is unintelligible ; for the matter was still beyond their comprehen- sion. Nor is the ethical character of His death impaired by it : it is still a real death, as certainly as that of Christians who believe in His and their resurrection. The use He made of His jDredicted reappearance was not to renew His connection with the multitude, which would have disturbed the quiet course of His work, but with believers, for the purpose of giving them new and final charges and promises, and especially to explain to them His sufferino's, so as at once to transfer them to a higher stand- point. Thus the closer significance of the fact itself was, on the one hand, to set His death in its true light, and to justify Him in it, and, on the other, to prove His life to be superior to death, which life He in His power is able to impart to others. The credibility of the ascension depends upon the foregoing fact of the resurrection. Existing conceptions of the Messiah afforded no groundwork for the construction of a myth on this subject. The Jews pictured to themselves a Messiah who would remain on earth. The ascension is in full harmony with the Christian idea, and consistently closes the life of the risen Saviour ; but these are the grounds for a fact, and not for a myth, so soon as the reality of tlie resurrection is admitted. Such an occurrence, DIV. I. § 19.] RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF JESUS. 89 indeed, must have induced the disciples to wait in full assurance of faith for the outpouring of the Spirit, and no longer to hope for the immediate return of Jesus. The conscientious narrative of Luke is sufficient authority for this event. But although the objective fact is not mentioned in apostolical literature, yet the dogmatically important result of the fact, the " sitting at the right hand of God," is frequently spoken of throughout the JSTew Testa- ment ; sometimes, indeed, in expressions (such as Acts ii. 32, Eph. iv. 8-10, 1 Tim. iii. 16) which point to the event itself. Although the evangelists Matthew and John do not expressly mention it, they have handed down to us discourses in which the liigher fact is attested (John vi. 62, xx. 17, the farewell discourses, and Matt, xxviii. 16-20). It is this higher fact, the entrance into the invisible world without death, that naturally completes the glorification begun at the resurrection. The external and sym- bolical occurrence, the elevation and concealment of Jesus within the cloud, was only intended to signify to the disciples that their position was now definitely settled, and that henceforth they were to regard their Master as belonging to the invisible world. Death was vanquished at the resurrection ; in the ascension, the incom- plete perfection of the corporeal element is subordinated. If Jesus overcame death in the biblical sense, His victory must necessarily be followed by this transformation into a glorified state. And hence the ascension is not only the assurance and foreshadow- ing to us of our heavenly life (Col. iii. 1-4 ; cf 1 John iii. 2 ; Acts iii. 26), but also the fact on which depends our belief in the future change of our mortal life, which, according to the apostle's teachins:, is in store for us. 9 0 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PAET I. SECOND DIYISION. THE TEACHING OF JESUS. 8 20. Summary. The teaching of Jesus is presented to us as the declaration of the salvation involved in His appearance, and more in detail— (1) Of the glorification of the Father in the Son. (2) Of the redemption of mankind through the Son. (3) Of the "kingdom of God in which both the glorification and the redemption find their accomplishment. Amidst all the varieties of form and manner, a unity of pur- pose is plainly evident in our Lord's teaching, which makes it possible to draw up a regular statement wherein the various doctrinal elements may be traced back to the fundamental idea which forms the internal unity of the teaching, and from which their organic completeness is derived. But this course has not uniformly been adopted ; for, in presenting our Lord's teaching from the historical and exegetical point of view, men have allowed themselves, especially in biljlical theology, to bring both biblical teaching in general, and this branch of it in particular, into con- formity with certain current dogmatical formulae. The characteristic title evajjeXtov, the message of salvation, by which He Himself distinguished His teaching, enables us to dis- cern without difficulty the thread of unity which runs through it. He applies this name in its absolute sense to His teaching (Mark i. 14, xiii. 10 ; Matt. xxvi. 13) ; it is this which He proclaims and Avhich is announced by the apostles in His name (Mark xvi. 1 5 ; Matt. xxvi. 13). It is to a salvation now within view that His. message refers (Mark i. 1 5). The time is fulfilled, and the king- dom of God is at hand. It is therefore the gospel of the Idng- dom of God, and is so called by the evangelists themselves (Mark i. 14; Maitliew passim). The subjects of the Lord's teaching are accordingly named by Him the mysteries of the kingdom ; DIV. II. § 20] SUMMARY. 91 doctrines previously Indden from manldnd, but at length by- divine revelation made known to them (Matt. xiii. 11 ; Luke viii. 10). Accordingly, it is not only, in general terms, salva- tion which had been brought to light, but, in particular, God's Idngdom as destined to be established and forthwith perfected through the revealed Messiah, that is pointed out as the subject of the Lord's teaching (Luke iv. 43). Here, too. He declares that it belongs to His ofdce and ministry to preach the gospel of the kingdom in the other cities also, for that to that purpose He was sent. In exact agreement with this, the Lord includes in the task assigned to Him the work of making known the name of the Father, revealing and declaring Him (John xvii. 4, 6, cf. i. 17, 18). Agreeably with this, it appears also from what He says. Matt. xi. 27, that the essential relation subsisting between the Father and the Son necessitates that the knowledge of the Father should be imparted only through the Son. Hence, to reveal and declare Him formed a part of the task committed to Him by the Father. This, therefore, is one side of the gospel of the kingdom of God — to reveal the nature and name of the Father, to make Him known and to glorify Him through the Son amongst men first. The other side of it, namely, Jesus' relation to man- kind, is indicated in other expressions. The Lord specifies His task as that of saving and blessing, that is, in short, redeeming the lost, and rescuing mankind from the corruption of sin (Matt. xviii. 11, XX. 28 ; Luke xix. 10). This is the acodfjvai, for men through the Son of God (John iii. 16, 17), or the salva- tion, the (TCi}Ti]pLa, for all mankind, which, so far as the acorrjp tov Koa/jLov appears in it (John iv. 42), was to proceed from the Jewish nation (John iv. 2 2). In this acodrivat, of mankind lies the life {^wri) of which those who have fallen into the ruin of sin are made partakers through Christ. Thus the Lord Himself charac- terizes the scope and purjpose of His own teaching. We have also the plainest references to the purport of His teaching and the aim of His work, of which, indeed, His teaching forms an essential portion; this work, too, being of necessity the cMef subject of His teaching. By His own expressions, His teaching is pointed out to us as the gospel, and we are led on to the two aspects of it. His relation to the Father and to man, through which the whole relationship between God and man has received its peculiar form. We are thus clearly shown our Lord's express percep- 92 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I. tion of unity in His own teaching. He is assured of, and defines the nature of, His teaching as being gospel, as in truth a message that the kingdom of God has now appeared as an accomplished fact, in which He knows is involved both the glorification of the Father and the redemption of mankind tlirough Himself. Being, then, in the first place, assured of the unity of our Lord's teaching by its gospel character, we have the divisions of its organization in the above-named points. We have purposely so arranged these divisions that the kingdom of God is taken last, and regarded as the result of the other two acts, the glorification of the Father, and the redemption of the Avorld. The concepticm of the kingdom of God is obviously the more complex and pregnant, and includes the conceptions both of God and man, definitely presupposing the relation of each to the other. This third point might indeed have been put first, but then there Avould have been no gradation, and we should have had to anticipate. In one respect, certainly, it would have been desirable to give this priority to the doctrine of the kingdom of God, because we could then have begun with the teaching connected with it, to which our Lord Himself gave priority in the preparative attitude which He first assumed. But it is easy to see that this was a av^KaTa^aaa on His part. It was the wisdom of His teaching which adopted this course, out of regard for the subjective need of His hearers ; but also, in these very discourses which He delivered in the earliest days of His ministry, the subject of the kingdom of God was not exhausted, other points being reserved for His later discourses upon the course of its development. We therefore believe that we shall best penetrate into the inner essence of the teaching of Jesus, if, amongst its three main points, we give the last place to that of the kingdom of God, as the one in which both the others converge. But we see at once the organic connection which subsists between them : each leads to the others ; and neither, without the others, can be perfectly developed. The glorification of the Father in the Son and in the Spirit leads of itself to the subject of redemption with which the former is in- separably connected, so soon as we consider it in its relation to mankind ; and hence the second supplements the first, and both together find their issue in the kingdom of God, in the first place amongst men. It must, however, be oljserved that we are not concerned with DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 93 isolated and abstract ideas either of God or man. As regards the former, we exchide even the imiversal conception of God, but are concerned with Him as Father in the precise Christian defini- tion of the term. And viewing Him as glorified in the Son, we are brought into direct contact with a living act, and God is com- prehended in the living activity of His manifestation and glory, into the circle of which man also, notwithstanding his sin, is admitted, and his redemption thereby accomplished. In the same way man must be regarded, not i^cr sc, but in immediate relation to God, and therefore in the quality in which he must be considered in a religious point of view ; in the ethico-reli- gious side of his character corresponding to his relation to God, not, therefore, merely as a sinner, but as the object of the divine act of redemption, and standing consequently in a determinate relation not only to the Father, but also to the Son as ]\iediator between God and man. With a like disregard for any abstract notion of the world, we look upon it from an ethico-religious point of view in its relation to God, and as the destined seat of His kingdom. And herein it must be considered not only in its relation to God in general, but essentially to the only- begotten Son of God, who, as the Mediator between God and the world, is called by the Apostle Paul the first-born of all creatures. Our treatment of the teacliing of Jesus wiU therefore differ materially from that of others whose method is founded upon the more or less usual canons of dogmatism. And we may indulge the hope that, after having first clearly enunciated the funda- mental principles of Christ's teaching common to the synoptical and St. John's accounts, it may be possible to arrive sooner at an order of arrangement corresponding to the intention and character of that teachiii!^. I. THE GLOEIFICATION" OF THE FATHEE IX THE SON. § 21. God the Father. The teaching as to the Father, with which we begin, is set forth in our Lord's discourses only so far as it stands in essential relation to that of the Son, or of the children of God, and is therefore 94 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I. opposed in limine to an abstract idea of God. There are, indeed, certain of His discourses in whicli no direct reference is made to the Son, as (in the first three evangelists) in the Sermon on the Mount, and (in John) the conversation with the Samaritan woman (iv. 21, 24). But even in these such a reference is made in- directly ; for in the Sermon on the Mount, in referring to the kingdom of God, Jesus represents Himself as its Founder and Lord (cf. Matt. v. 1 7 ff., and vii. 21 ff.) ; and, in conversing with the woman. He refers to the salvation which was to come by the Messiah, and points out that the time for praying to God in the Spirit had arrived (cf. vers. 10, 14, 26), because salvation had already appeared in Him. Other discourses, however, make it plain how essentially that reference is contained in His teaching ; and we are therefore fully justified in understanding what He taught of God as relating to the Father. Our Lord Himself so understood and regarded it, as, for instance, in the important dis- course of Matt. xi. 25-27. No further proof is needed that our Lord's discourses do not contain any complete development of the doctrine of God's being and attributes. This is explained by the fact that His teaching was not systematic, but that He selected sometimes one topic of discourse, sometimes another, and adapted it to His hearers' wants, presupposing always the religious faith of the Old Testament, but elevating even this to a higher stage by the revelations of His teaching. In the Old Testament faith is implied the belief in the living, intelligent, and holy God, the Creator and Lord of the world, on whom it absolutely depends, — a belief opposed not only to polytheism, but also to dualism (cf. in the latter respect, Isa. xlv. 5-7) ; the belief, too, in a moral relation of man to God, and especially in a divine plan of salvation, which, embracing the whole human race, finds its first realization in the people of Israel (cf. Gen. xii. 3, xxviii. 14 ; Isa. xlii. 1, 4, 6, xlix. 6, Ix. 3 ; Mic. iv. 2). Without attempting here to discuss further the substance of the Old Testament faith, it will suffice to direct attention to a few important particulars in which our age not unfrequently goes too far in stating and passing judgment upon the religious belief of the Old Testament. Thus, with regard to the so-called moral attributes of God in the conception of Him founded on the Old Testament, the characteristics of a jealous and just God are brought forward too prominently, although in the Old Testament that of mercy is as DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 95 essentially and prominently asserted, na}", even more so than the others (of. as principal passages, Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7 ; Ps. Ixxxvi. 5, 15, ciii. 8-18, cxlv. 7-10; Joel ii. 13; Jonah iv. 2, 10, 11). In addition to this, the relation of God to man in the Old Testa- ment is wont to be represented as if in the old belief He were conceived as standing opposed to, and at an infinite distance from, mankind. This is, at least, a great exaggeration ; for, although the opinion opposed to this is a speciality of Christianity, stand- ing out conspicuously in the doctrine of the incarnation, and of the Spirit indwelling in believers ; yet not only is the doctrine of God's omnipresence put forward with sufficient liveliness and force, so that the world appears entirely dependent on the presence of God, but also as regards the spiritual nature and inner life of man, the Old Testament undoubtedly recognises the Spirit of God Avorking in him. The Old Testament also, clearly recognised that the Spirit of God should first rest in full measure on the Messiah (Isa. xi. 2), and be then revealed and poured out in His seven- fold activity upon all flesh, upon all mankind (cf Joel iii. 1, 2, and later Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27, cf xi. 19, xxxix. 29, also Isa. liv. 13; Jer. xxxi. 33; [John vi. 45]). Accord- ing to this, the truth that God is not merely and absolutely external to man is decidedly recognised in the Old Testament, which, however, holds most firmly to the distinction of God from the world, as of the Creator from the creature, the Holy One from sinners, and is well aware of the fact that the revelation and self- communication of God to men is not yet complete, but that another phase of the intercourse between them is still impending. It also clearly understands that in the belief in a God who has not left Himself without witness amongst men is contained also the belief of a moral relation between God and man, at first gradually developed, approaching completion in the Messianic times, and to be consummated hereafter. From what has been said, it will be easy to understand how much is implied in the statement that our Lord presupposed the Old Testament belief, and what a deep foundation was already laid for a living system of divine teaching ; also that in a certain measure only one essential step was wanting to at once transform the faith in God of the Old Testament into that of the 'New, and thereby to fulfil Moses and the prophets. This result was brought about in our Lord's teaching apparently by the most simple means, but in a 96 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I. manner most riclily productive of fruit, and bearing in itself the germ of infinite development. The aim of His teaching as to the nature of God being to quicken men's belief in Him as a living and personal God, and consequently as standing in a moral rela- tion to the world and to man, the two points to which He gives greatest prominence, and by means of which He completes the Old Testament conception of the divine being, are, that God is a Spirit, and that God is the Father. These two definitions are not expressed in this way in the old covenant, but, coming from onr Lord's lips, they elevate the Old Testament conception of the divine being to its New Testament potency : they stand in an inner connection with each other, and from them proceeds all that is contained in the testimony of Jesus concerning the divine attributes. "We begin with the. definition that God is a Spirit, because the second and fuller one, that God is the Father, to a certain extent presupposes the other. This conception is pronounced in a dis- course preserved by St. John, and is addressed to the Samaritan woman and not to the Old Testament believers, just as if the latter, already entertaining this view to some extent, had less need of the idea as a new definition of doctrine. The spiritual nature of God had been more and more revealed under the Old Testament dispensation, and now the idea needed only to be brought out in a definite shape. The definitions of the Old Testament conception of God most nearly connected with this part of the subject are the following : (a) First, the conception of God as ^)!}\, the One who exists, who is and will be, as the God who appeared to Moses, explained this name (Ex. iii. 13-16, cf. Isa. xliv. 6 ; Eev. i. 4). Hence it signifies the simply existent One, co-extensive with Himself, and eternal ; and the name clearly contains the root of to he. (h) Next comes the definition of God as the livine/ God (Deut. v. 23 ; Isa. xxxvii. 4, 17 ; Jer. xxiii. 36), which also occurs in the New Testament (Matt. xvi. 16), and in the mouth of our Lord Himself (6 ^wv irarrjp, John vi. 5 7), in contra- distinction to the lifeless, inert, and inoperative idols ; the living and the true God, who gives effectual proof of this character, and manifests Himself to, and in favour of. His worshippers. These are the elements for the conception (c) of God as a Spirit, which Jesus briefly pronounces Him to be (John iv. 24). As soon as the Samaritan woman recognised Him as a prophet, she pro- DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 97 pounded her leading religious question, seeking to know wliere men ought to worship, in Jerusalem or on the mountain of Samaria ? The time will come, the Lord says, when men will worship God neither in the one nor the other place exclusively. The Sama- ritans, indeed, know not what they worship : they are wanting in the just apprehension of the object of their adoration, which the Jews possess, because salvation comes from them (ver. 22) ; and hence the Jewish people is the soil prepared by God from which the divine salvation is to issue. What has taken place by God's ordinance and guidance within the Jewish people is not, however, the limit of the change ; but the hour is coming, nay, already come, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth ; for the Father seeks such to worship Him, and knows also how to prepare them for Himself, viz. by realizing the awTqpta (ver 22), which has its starting-point in the Jewish people. For (and now comes the reason for it) God is a Spirit (ver. 24) ; and those Avho worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. The predicate rrvevfia stands first for the sake of emphasis, and not as a Hebraism. The word is elsewhere used in contradistinction to what is corporeal (Luke xxiv. 39), a contrast being implied in this passage to anything subject to conditions of space. Were God in any wise comprehensible by any limits of space. His worship also would be confined within the same bounds ; but as any svich local limitation and deter- mination are excluded by our Lord (ver. 21), it follows that the essential worship amied at by the Father is raised above the possibility of being circumscribed by any such limitations. God as a Spirit is elevated not only above every local, but above every material condition and limitation, being in Himself the most per- fect form of life, as the intelligent and Holy One who can only be approached in spirit and in truth. And in virtue of the Divine Spirit and the truth thus inwardly imparted, man is enabled to draw near in spirit to God with worship) and adoration. Upon this idea of God as a Spirit rests also another which our Lord sets forth, that this God has life originally in Hhnself (John V. 2G), and is therefore the fountain of all life (vers. 26 and 21), and incessantly in operation (John v. 17). He is the one true God (John xvii. 3), whom to know is everlasting life ; He is the life to that extent that none can truly know Him without them- selves becoming participators in the divine life. He is therefore G 98 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI tlie ^(iov and ^(oottocwv. Througli this conception of God as a Spirit, everything else which Jesus taught concerning Him, for the production of a living faith, — which, too, is true even from an Old Testament point of view, — is placed in a peculiar light. The idea already implied in the Old Testament now more expressly cidminates in the conception of a Spirit ; for the same God who is a S]3irit is also the Author of the world. And indeed because He is in Himself the absolutely perfect, self-conscious, holy, and active life. He is also the unconditionally free and gracious Author of the world. The dependence of the world on God appears not merely from the address to Him (Matt. xi. 25 ; Luke x. 21) as Lord of heaven and earth, but is pointed out as of universal extent, rest- ing upon the fact of creation (/cara/SoX?) rod Koafiov, John xvii. 24), and embracing, therefore, even the minutest objects. We see this in the discourses in which our Lord requires unconditional confidence in God (Matt. vi. 25-34), especially from the apostles in their calling (Luke xii. 4-7, cf. Matt. x. 28-31), and where He encourages to prayer (Matt. vii. 7-11, vi. 10-13 ; Luke xi. 1-8). It is further evident that God, on whom the world is absolutely dependent, is also represented in the teaching of Jesus as the absolutely good, since tliis dependence is put forward as a sufficient ground for unlimited confidence. Jesus also expressly teaches that God is perfect ; as being the prototype of all moral perfection, and especially of all love (Matt. v. 48). God is verily the only good (There is none good but one, that is God, Matt. xix. 17 ; Luke xviii. 19), and is therefore the trustworthy Giver of all good gifts (Matt. vii. 9-11). In this absolute sense He alone is good, both in Himself and by communication to others ; for the A^ery conception of God as a Spirit implies that He is a self-compre- hending and self-existent life, the holy and intelligent source of activity, but withal that His life and being is not Kmited to Himself, but is self-imparting. All this is, indeed, involved in the idea of the Spirit and the life, as these words are used abso- lutely of the Divine Being. But on this very account our Lord's teaching does not stop here. The method He adopts is to assert the idea of Spirit only when He desires to draw some important inference from it ; at other times, the leading idea on which He has formed the con- ception He would convey of God is of a different nature, — that of the Father. Hence the passages in which we recognise God as a DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 99 ' Spirit, — who is the perfect life in His relation to the world, — are exactly those in which our Lord does not merely call Him God and Spirit, but represents Him as Father ; as, for instance, where He mentions His perfection (Matt. v. 48), and where He points to Him as the trustworthy Giver of good gifts (Matt. vii. 9-11). But we shall see hereafter how these two ideas — that God is a Spirit, and God is a Father — stand in an inner connection with each other. The opinion that Christ employed the term ©eo? more in the presence of the Jews, and Trari-jp to His disciples, is untenable ; for we cannot regard the Sermon on the Mount, in which He chiefly used the latter term, as addressed exclusively to His disciples. By this second leading definition of God as the Father, Christ complemented and perfected the Old Testament conception ; for even this idea is not an entirely new one, but finds its counter- part in the Old Testament. The living God, who reveals Himself to His own, is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. iii. 6 ; Matt. xxii. 32 ; cf. Heb. xi. 1 7 ff.), the God of Israel, the Holy One of Israel. He avers HimseK to be the absolutely existing and living One, and as standing in a peculiar covenant relation to the people of Israel, and first to their forefathers, who were specially called to the blessing, and therein to be the starting-point of a plan of sal- vation for manlvind. But in the same way as Jesus briefly sums up the notion of the absolute and self-existent in the term Spirit, so He does that of the God of Abraham, etc., as Father, as in the expression " My Father and your Father" (John xx. 1 7). He ap- peals no more to the relation in which God stood to the nation and their forefathers, but takes His stand simply on what God is in Him, and for Him, and what therein He will be for all mankind. Here, too, the teaching of the Old Testament is brought to a climax in the idea of Jesus. The idea of Father, as occurring in the Old Testament, has in later times been erroneously referred to God as the Creator and beneficent Sustainer of mankind ; and Mai. ii. 1 0 is specially appealed to in proof of this. The idea of God as the Father of aU is said to be found here ; but in this passage, according to the context, those who are said to have God as a common Father are only the members of the people of Israel, as we see from the end of the verse. Consequently, although we read, "Hath not one God created us ? " we must suppose that it is only the general 100 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI. idea of tlie Creator, modified by the special relation subsisting between Jebovali and the Israelites. This is confirmed by the remaining passages, in whicli God is spoken of as the Father in reference to the theocratic people, so far as it was chosen, con- stituted, and educated by God (Deut. xxxii. 6, and cf. generally the whole book as to God's fatherly guidance; also Isa. Ixiii. 16, Ixiv. 8, cf 9 -11 ; Jer. xxxi. 9, cf iii. 19, where the people is called Jehovah's son ; Ex. iv. 2 2 ; Jer. xxxi. 2 0 ; Hos. xi. 1 ; Deut. i. 31, viii. 5.) Moreover, the name of Father is applied to Jehovah not only in reference to the people as a whole, but also to individual members of it (Mai. ii. 10; Isa. Ixiii. 16); and they are called His sons and daughters (Deut. xxxii. 19 ; Isa. i. 2, 4, Ixiii. 8 ; Deut. xiv. 1). In any case, however, it is clear that God is not in the Old Testament called Father as Creator and Sustainer of merely animal life, — a physical notion Avhich obtains more in the domain of heathenism {Zevq irarrjp avhpoyv re 6ewv re), — but in so far as He stands in a peculiar relation to one portion of mankind, and in a special covenant and closer spiritual com- munion with them. The idea is, in short, that of a spiritual and moral relationship. It cannot, therefore, be said that the idea of God is comprehended Avithin narrow limits, because He is spoken of as Father of the Israelites only, but rather that it is taken in a higher sense ; and, moreover. His people represent no more than the starting-point from which the paternal relationship should be extended to all the nations of the earth. Jesus Himself determined the signification of the title oi Father, by employing it in a double reference, partly to His own person, and j^artly to other men : in the former case most emi- nently in a unique, in the latter, in a wider and derivative sense. But in both it is not merely the Originator of natural life who is spoken of, but the Author and Prototype, as the Sustainer, Guardian, and Perfecter, of spiritual life, but in such a way as, whilst giving this the foremost jjlace, not to exclude the other. In the former sense, the expression o irariqp /jlov often occurs, as, for example, Matt. xi. 27 ; John ii. 16, v. 17 ; and in the latter at Matt. vi. 4, 6, 8 ; and we also meet with irarrjp v/j^mp (JMatt. vi. 8, 15, X. 20, 29, xxiii. 9 ; Luke vi. 36, xii. 30, 32), the Father of the righteous (Matt. xiii. 43); and the expression " Our Father" is put into the mouth of believers (Matt. vi. 9). In the second reference we frequently find the addition eV rot? ovpavoi^, or 6 DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 101 ovpdvio^ (Matt. V. 16, 45, 48, vi. 1, 9, 14, 26, 32, vii. 11; Mark xi. 25), or e'l ovpavov (Luke xi. 13). But in the first reference also the same addition occurs, in order to prevent all mistake "(Matt. vii. 21, X. 32, xii. 50, xvi. 17, xviii. 10); and it originates in the predominant view of the Old Testament that God dwells in heaven, raised far above every human and eartlily condition (Ps. cxv. 3). Hence also the rabbis, in speaking of God as the Father, call Him the heavenly, — no doubt to distinguish Him from earthly fathers (cf. Matt. vii. 11). As regards the proper signi- fication of the title, it is generally to be understood in reference to men, that God is called their Father not merely as the Author of their natural life. It is also strange that, when God is called Father in the Bible, this is not done with respect to nature and irrational beings, but to men and angelic spirits. It follows, therefore, that God must be understood as the Author of a life resembling His own. Nor must it be overlooked that, as has been already shown in the Old Testament, this conception of Father is not extended to all men. Thus, since the title is not applied to Him in the Old Testament in virtue of His relation to all man- kind, the reflection comes in that, because men are alienated from God by sin and become morally unlike and indeed opposed to Him, the name of Father belongs to God only in reference to those with whom He stands in peculiar covenant-relation. The names of Father and child are used in the sense of spiritual and moral relationship. Thus (Matt. v. 45) men are children of their heavenly Father if they are like Him in spiritual and moral respects, inwardly pervaded by the same spiritual life, especially by the same love as it exists in Him ; and if they distinguish them- selves thereby from sinners, in whom the sinful life prevails (compare also John viii. 39 ff.). The Jews are not children of Abraham, although his bodily airepfxa (ver. 3 7) ; they do not re- semble him in their actions (ver. 40), but are in that respect rather children of the devil (ver. 44) ; and hence the connection of spiritual relationship is implied in the sonship of Abraham (cf also the viol rov TTovrjpov, Matt. xiii. 38, and the application of the term vi6<; 'A^padp, to Zacchteus, Liike xix. 9). Also, in His powerful closing discourse against the Pharisees, our Lord speaks in the same way (Matt, xxiii. 31, 32 ; cf Luke xi. 47) of spiritual son- ship in opposition to the forefathers who persecuted the prophets. But as above mentioned (John viii.), they are not Abraham's seed ; 102 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. • [PART I. in consequence of tlieir doings, tliey prove also tliat they are not the children of God (John viii. 42, 47 ; cf. also the elvai, sk rov hia^okov, ver. 44, with elvai etc tov Oeov, ver. 47 ; also the parable of the good seed and of the tares of the field). We see plainly from this, that the spiritual relationship denoted in the names of Father and child is such as to include on one side the causality of determinate spiritual life. God is Father, and man His child, not merely through the giving and receiving of natural life, — even if it be one endowed with reason, — but so far as God, on the basis of this life, sets Himself in a relation of spiritual community with man, cherishes and perfects him as standing in moral and spiritual relations with Himself Thus, then, God as Father is love exhibited in action, the loving Author of the inner life spiritually and morally allied to Himself; and, as the Author, so also the Sustainer of it, who cherishes and brings it to perfection. This appears in our Lord's words (Matt. vii. 9-11; Luke xi. 11-13), where the idea of paternal love already ex- liibited in sinful humanity is enhanced by application to a God who is absolutely good and perfect. So, too (Matt, xviii. 14 ; Luke XV. 2 ff'. ; cf Matt. xix. 26, xviii. 23), the idea of the divine paternal love is developed as the consummation of pastoral fidelity in man (ver. 23). See also what we read in St. John (iii. 16, xvii. 2) of the love of God. In this spiritual and moral fatherly relation lie the two essential points of the Christian conception of God, wliich are, on the one side. His ctbsolute elevation above the world and men, in contradistinction from whom He is the Almighty and the Holy One ; and, on the other, the most intimate communion hetivcen their life and His, proceeding from the original relationship of creation, and from the free self-imparting love of God. These two elements combined complete the Christian conception of God ; and their union is established by Christ Himself, through the simple conception of the Father. But although the Father is the originator and founder of a spiritual and moral communion between Himself and the life of which He is the Author, yet the relation is not confined to the men whose Father in this sense God is, nor even to superhuman beings, such as the angels, to whom the expression viol tov Qeov is undoubtedly applied by our Lord (Luke xx. 36), as if to point out the higher super-terrestrial condition which men may hope to attain after death, but it attains perfection in its application to DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 103 the Son, whose Father God is in the highest sense of the word (cf. Matt. xi. 27 ■^). He is, as our Lord says, "My God and your God," "My Father and your Father" (John xx. 1*7); and how sonship of men with God proceeds from that of Jesus is seen in John xvii. 26, xiv. 6-13. He therefore speaks of God cliiefiy as His Father, both ac- cording to the synoptic evangelists and St. John ; and this is so common in our Lord's discoui-ses, that, besides what has been akeady said, no other passages need be adduced in proof of it. But there are also certain utterances in which the idea of God as Father, in relation to the Son, is more distinctly brought out, mostly in St. John ch. v. (cf xiv.-xvii.), where Christ takes advantage of the charge brought against Him of profaning the Sabbath by His miracles, to enter more thoroughly into the sub- ject of His relation to the Father. He works. He says, because and as the Father works, and expresses Himself in such a way as to show the Jews that He was speaking of God as His Father in the precise sense of the word, making Himself, as they expressed it, equal with God (ver. 18) ; so that our Lord was induced to enter into a closer explanation of the relation subsisting between Himself and the Father. This relation can only be completely ascertained by a consideration of the idea of the Son also ; and to this belongs the truth that the Father has life in HimseK (ver. 26) absolutely as the sole cause. The Son, too, has life in Himself, but as imparted by the Father : the Father has given to the Son to have life in Himself Hence, also, it is the Father who imparts the life, and grants it to the Son in so comprehen- sive a sense, that the Son Himself also can then quicken whom He will (ver. 21), and can, moreover, do all that the Father does by virtue of this fulness of life and the knowledge which accom- panies it (vers. 19-21). On this account a relation of love sub- sists between the Son and the Father, and, on the other hand, the Father loves the Son (ver. 19, x. 17, xvii. 24, 26). This communion, originating in the Father, is one both of knowledge ^ This might have been taken as the starting-point of the inquiry, because the relation of God to men is brought about by that in which lie stands absolutely as Father to the Son. But as our Lord Himself adopts the other method, proceeding from the lower to the higher sense of the term, and teach- ing men to know God in the first place as the Father of those who are called into His kingdom, the same plan has been followed here. 104 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I, and of action, as set forth in vers. 19 and 20, oiiolwi vroiel and iravra heUvvcnv avru). The community of laiowledge is empha- tically asserted (Matt. xi. 25-27 ; Luke x. 21, 22), and rests upon the community of life and being (cf John xiv. 7). For other passages, cf John xvii. 1, 21, 24, 25 ; Matt. x. 32, 33, xvi. 17, 27, XXV. 34, XX. 23, where Christ speaks of God as His Father in the higher sense ; for God is Father in the most special sense of the word as regards the Son ; and by that very fact brings about His relation as Father to the children of God amongst mankind and in the higher world. Thus God's love for the Son from all eternity passes over to those who believe on Him (John xvii. 26, cf also xvi. 27); and the same idea runs through the whole connection of His teaching. God is pre-eminently Father of the Son, to whom He has given to have life in Himself and to quicken whomsoever He will, and also full power over all flesh, to give life to those whom the Father has given Him (John xvii. 2). But on that account God is also the Father of those who believe on the Son, and are thereby children of God. And thus is God, in the fullest and richest sense, the Author of life ; and the life which He gives is a divine life, and, indeed, a spiri- tual communion with Himself in love. And this is exactly the point where we see that the two leading ideas — of God as a Father, and God as a Spirit — formed by our Lord, and in which His teacliing of God cuhninates, stand in close internal connec- tion with each other. He taught men to know God as "jrvev/xa, as being the absolute and perfect life, self-comprehensive in com- plete self-consciousness and spontaneous activity, and imparting Himself to others ; the notion of this self-communication and thoroughly permeating influence being contained in the idea of the Spirit, whence also the inference as to the worship of God is immediately deduced (John iv. 24). But God as Father is like- wise the intelligent and spiritual Author of life. The idea inter- mediate to those of Father and Spirit is that God is love, the liighest conception of personality. The idea of Father includes that of love, and the latter is presupposed in that of the Spirit. And it is observable that the apostle, who alone has recorded ihe apophthegm "God is love" (1 John iv. 8), the truth contained in which lies at the foundation of all our Lord's teaching, is the same who has also alone preserved to us Jesus' utterance irvev/jbo, 6 0609. In virtue of this love, God communicates life, and DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 105 founds a spiritual fellowsliip of life and love between Himself and rational creatures as His children. The conclusion as to God's worship, which Cln^ist draws (John iv. 22-24) from the con- ception of Him as Spirit, is also derived elsewhere from the idea of Father (Matt. vi. 3-8), where the subject of discourse is the purity of piety in almsgiving and prayer, with a liint at the omniscience of God as Father. From this conception of the Divine Being as God and Father, proceeds the more special teaching of Jesus as to the divine attributes ; and this idea forms the basis of all the predicates He applies to the Father in His manifold discourses. He is the one tince God (6 /xovo'i d\'t]6Lv6<;, John xvii. 3 ; cf v. 44, vii. 28 ; Mark xii. 29), the loiowledge of whom is eternal life; who is in His own person so absolutely the life eternal that no one can know Him without attaining that life. The knowledge of Him is an appropriation of the divine life, and unattainable without it ; for He who originally possesses the life in Himself is the source whence it is imparted to others (John v. 21, 26, iii. 15, 16, vi. 32, 33). He is, as a Spirit, omniscient with reference partly to the Son, whom He alone knows (Matt. xi. 27), and partly to the world (Matt. vi. 8, 32, cf x. 30). This is also confirmed by the divine prophecy which Jesus presupposes and accepts in His teaching. He is cdmighUj, so that all things are possible to Him (Matt. xix. 26; Luke xviii. 27; Mark xiv. 36), especially the raising of the dead to spiritual and physical life (John v. 21). He is, consequently, greater than all (John x. 29), so that everything is dependent on and ordered by Him (Matt. x. 29, 30), and espe- cially possesses full power over men, both in this life and the next (Luke xii. 4, 5) ; being, moreover, in a state of constant activity, so that no distinction between this and a state of rest can find place with Him (John v. 17). God is likewise omnipresent (Matt. vi. 4, 6, 1 8), and also ctcrncd (John xvii. 5, 24). He is not limited by the temporal conditions of the world, but, as its Founder and Creator, originally superior to it. This living incomprehensible God is hohj (John xvii. 11), in contradistinction from the world and sin, since He is not only untainted by, but in His own nature safe and free from, it ; holy, therefore, not merely in a negative but in a positive sense, and imparting holiness to others. 106 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI. He alone, therefore, is fjood (Matt. xix. 17; Luke xviii. 19), and the trustworthy giver of all good gifts (Matt, vii 9-11). He alone, too, is true {aXijOrjs;), — John viii. 26, of. vers. 14-18, ver. 32, and perhaps also John vii. 28 (a\.7]9tv6<;), — revealing Himself as He is, and therefore also bearing witness to the truth. He is full of love towards the world (John iii. 16), and therefore benign to all creatures who are in need, even to the irrational creation (Matt. vi. 26, 28-30), but especially to mankind as standing in a higher position, insomuch that it is enough for men, with re- gard to their wants, to be assured that God their Father knows of them. And this holds good, not only of bodily wants, which are here spoken of (as also in Matt. v. 45), and for which all men indiscriminately, without reference to their moral conduct, are supplied with what is necessary for the prolongation of theii* natural life, as a foundation for the superstructure of a higher state of existence. It refers also, generally, to everything which can be the subject of desire, demand, or prayer, in so far as it is a good gift, and in the highest degree to spiritual wants, and to the highest gift of all, the Holy Ghost Himself (Luke xi. 13), and to the kingdom of God (Luke xii. 31, 32), to the possession of which all other good things shall be added (Matt. vi. 33). So far, then, as the needy are suffering and miserable, this benevolent God is the Merciful One (Luke vi. 36) ; so far as they are sinners. He is graeious, — that is, ready to blot out the sins of those who yield themselves to His counsel of grace (Matt, xviii. 23-27, 32,33 [ekeelv — aTrXay^via-Orjvai]; Luke xviii. 13; Matt. xviii. 12-14; Luke xv. 11-32, cf 4-10). Thus God ap- proaches sinners in fatherly love, Avith forgiveness and benefits, deliverance and protection from evil (Matt. vi. 12-14), leading sin- ners from death and sin to life and righteousness (Luke xviii. 14), as the great God to whose power and pity nothing is impossible (Mark x. 2 7 ; Luke xviii. 27); so that entrance into the king- dom of God, which is impossible to the sinner as such, becomes both possible and actual through God's power and grace (Matt. xix. 23, 26 ; cf. Mark x. 23). On the other hand. He is 2^cdient and long-suffering, i.e. sparing even the yet unconverted sinner so as to allow room for his conversion ; long-suffering enough to grant to each according to his need sufficient time for repentance (Luke xiii. 6-9). But, inasmuch as the holy, true, and benevolent God regards DIV. II. § 22.] TPIE SOX. 107 and treats all rational beings with reference to the conduct which may be justly imputed to them, He is the Eighteous (St'/cato?, John xvii. 25), This term is not synonymous with 07409 (ver. 11), since the latter attribute, taken in connection with its context, places God in opposition to sin : being free from, and untainted by sin, He repels it from Him, and is perfectly safe from its attacks. In the former passage, on the contrary, ^iKaLoq points to the distinction between the Kocr/uLO'? and the Eedeemer with those who believe on Him, and accordingly lays down a different line of conduct on God's part towards these two parties ; so that it exactly designates the divine attribute by which He regards and treats His subjects according to the behaviour which may justly be imputed to them, — an attribute of the divine being which by no means invalidates the others. To the province of the divine righteousness belongs the question of God's judgments (John V. 22, 27, 29), especially when He is represented, on the one hand, as jealous, angry, and condemnatory, in respect of the despisers of His Idndness and forbearance and generally of His wiU (Matt, xviii. 34, 35, xxii. 11-13, xxiii. 12, xxv. 26-29, 41-46 ; cf. Luke xiv. 21, xii. 46), but, on the other hand, as recompensing and compensating the good (Matt. v. 11, 12, vi. 4, 6, 18, xxv. 21, 29, 34) ; where, however, it must not be over- looked that in so requiting the good. His freedom of action is quite unrestrained (Matt. xx. 13-15). It is, then, this living and illimitable, holy, loving, and righteous God in whom wisdom dwells (Luke xi. 49; Matt. xi. 19). In all these attributes He proves Himself to be the 2yerfect One (Matt. v. 45), perfect on every side, internally in Himself and externally in His works, and therefore the prototype of all moral perfection, and especially of all love ; but in this perfection always manifesting Himself to be God, the Spirit and Father. This doctrine of the Father is the foundation on which all else is built up, the root from which springs the whole stem and tree of our Lord's teaching, limited at first to the doctrine of the glorification of the Father in the Son, but embracinsj afterwards its whole extent. § 22. TIw Son. In S 21 we recognised the religious doctrines of the Old Testament as being essential and fundamental hypotheses in our Lord's teaching ; and although the New Testament element comes 108 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I. in more largely here, still tlie idea is rooted in the Old Testa- ment. The relation subsisting absolutely between the Father and the Son now first comes prominently into the foreground. The -^ teaching of the Lord on this point is direct seK-testimony, the i revelation by Himself of His own self-consciousness, and the" attestation of this consciousness ; and to this testimony is due the whole peculiarity of our Lord's teaching and of the religious doctrines contained in the New Testament. The peculiar and unique sense in which God is absolutely the Father here first shows itself. In the Old Testament it was in the first place the theocratic nation . which was regarded as the son of God, Israel as the first-born son (Ex. iv. 22 ; Jer. xxxi. 9-20) ; then the members of this people as sons and daughters, or children of this God ; and thirdly, as a son in the most eminent sense, the earthly representative of the people, the chief minister of the covenant, and at the same time God's deputy amongst the people, the theocratic king. And now this relation culminates in the future Anointed One, in the abso- lute sense of that term. Jesus points Himself out as the Son simply, where, in the con- text, the reference applies to the Father (Matt. xi. 27; John v. 19). But in its deeper sense He gradually unfolds the doctrine of His Sonship, at first preparing His countrymen, and then leading on into its depths those who were capable of embracing it. On one occasion, at Jerusalem, He asserts His dignity before a mixed multitude ; but this did not occur in the earlier days of His ministry. To this method belong also the titles So7i of Man and Son of God, which, both in the Synoptists and in John, He is re- presented as using, which are indissolubly united, and mutually complete each other. The name Son of man, vi6<; rov avOpoiirov, is found most fre- quently in the Synoptists, and almost exclusively in the mouth of Jesus Himself The Son of man appears as a man among men, and is described as having neither property nor home (Matt. viii. 20 ; Luke ix. 58); He eats and drinks (Matt xi. 19; Luke vii. 34); He can forgive sins (Matt. ix. 6; Mark ii. 10; Luke v. 24); He is Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. xii. 8; Mark ii. 28; Luke vi. 5); He is the ' sower of the parable (Matt. xiii. 37, 41) ; He is come to save (Matt, xviii. 11; Luke xix. 10), and to minister (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45). The disciples are desired to say for whom they DIV. II. § 22.] THE SON. 109 take Him (Matt. xvi. 13). Sin against Him is not without for- giveness (INIatt. xii. 32; Luke xii. 10); the sign of Jonas is fulfilled in Him (Matt. xii. 40 ; Luke xi. 30). He must fulfil the pre- ordained and predicted destiny of His life (Matt. xxvi. 44) ; must suffer, be rejected, betrayed by the kiss of a Judas (Luke xxii. 48), and delivered up into the hands of sinners, ill-treated and cruci- fied (Luke xxiv. 7 ; Mark viii. 31 ; Luke ix. 22 ; [Matt. xvi. 21 ;] Matt. xvii. 12; Mark ix. 12; Matt, xvii 22 £; Mark ix. 31; Luke ix. 44 ; Matt. xx. 18 f. ; Mark x. 33 f. ; Luke xviii. 31 ff. ; Matt. xxvi. 2; Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark xiv. 21; Luke xxii. 22; Matt. xxvi. 45 ; Mark xiv. 41 ; Luke xxii. 48) ; but He will rise again (Matt. xvii. 9 ; IMark ix. 9 ; Matt. xvii. 23 ; Mark ix. 31 ; Matt. XX. 19 ; Mark x. 34 ; Luke xviii. 33) ; and a great future with the Father, and a return in glory for the establishment of His kingdom and for judgment, is in store for Him (Matt. x. 23, xvi. 27 I; Mark viii. 38 ; Luke ix. 26 ; Matt. xix. 28, xxiv. 27 ; Luke xvii. 22, 24; Matt. xxiv. 30 f.; Mark xiii. 26; Luke xxi. 27 f. ; Matt. xxiv. 37, 39 ; Luke xvii. 26, 30 ; Matt. xxiv. 44 ; Luke xii. 40, 21, 36; Matt. xxv. 31; Matt. xxvi. 64; Luke xxii. 69). Men will be persecuted for His sake (Luke vi. 22 ; cf. Matt. V. 10) ; He will be ashamed of those who are ashamed of Him (Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26); but He will, on the other hand, confess those who confess Him (Luke xii. 8 ; cf Matt. x. 32); and they will desire Him (Luke xvii. 22, 24, 25). The question is also asked, whether He shall find faith on the earth ? (Luke xviii. 8.) In John's Gospel, also, the expression is really used, if not so frequently and variously as in the Synoptists (cf John i. 52, iii. 13, 14, v. 27). For other examples of the expression in John, see vi. 27, 53, 62, viii. 28, xii. 23, 34, xiii. 31. We see from the foregoing how manifold the use of this ex- pression is, and also that there is evidently a purpose in it. It is at any rate characteristic, that it hardly ever occurs beyond the limits of the gospel histories. We find it only once directly used from the lips of the dying Stephen (Acts vii. 56). He had known our Lord during His life on earth, and at the moment of being stoned he beheld Him in a vision, and naturally employed the expression which our Lord had in His time so frequently em- ployed. The expression is used in another way in Eev. i. 13, xiv. 14, with manifest reference to Dan. vii. 13. We have next to inquire as to the meaning of the expression 110 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I. literally ; and, apart from all historical reference, it means nothing but man, in the same sense as viol twv dvdpcoTrcov (Mark iii. 28), children of men. In the Old Testament we find the expression frequently in Ezekiel {e.g. xl. 4, xliv. 5), in the mouth of the prophet's angelic conductor, to distinguish himseK as the super- human spirit, and for the purpose of awakening a feeling of de- pendence on God and His messenger. But why then does Jesus thus call HimseK a child of man ? Eationalism has pronounced 6 vlo^ r. a. to mean tlie, man lure,' according to the manner of the Orientals, who avoid the term /, and are desirous to put themselves into connection with the person they are addressing, as " thy servant," " thine handmaid," etc. It makes strongly against this interpretation that the pronoun outo9 is never added to the expression, often as it is supposed to occur in this sense ; and its so frequent use becomes simply incom- prehensible. Passages such as Matt. xvi. 13 would, on this sup- position, become unmeaning ; but, so far from this being the case, the expression clearly has reference, wherever it occurs, to the pecuharity of the person of Jesus. The ideal explanation must therefore go still further, and allow that Christ called Himself the Son of man, in order to signify the special peculiarity of His personality, and to specify Himself in this important respect, in a way which was well adapted, by its dehcate and quiet intimation, to shape itself into some more full and comprehensive conception of the idea. Just the same may be said of the expression ^aat- Xela Tov Qeov, wliich He found in use, and could employ without exciting too great a sensation. For He made use of it in such a way that it was possible for Him, by gradually drawing out the notion He wished to impart, to bring it nearer home to the people, and thereby to ennoble and spiritualize their conception of the Messianic kingdom, before He openly stepped forth before the' world with the declaration that He was Himself the Messiah, the ruler of this kingdom. But this gives rise to the question, whether we are justified in adhering to the merely literal explanation of the expression, or whether it was not rather used historically as a designation of the Messiah ? Many assume that Jesus wished thereby to make Himself known as the Messiah pointed out by Daniel (ch. vii. 13). The great authority attributed at that time to the prophet Daniel on the subject of Messianic prophecy, as , well as the fact that the later Jews called the Messiah with re- DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. Ill ference to this passage tlie Son of clouds, is appealed to in support of this opinion. Schleiermacher, on the other hand, speaks of it as a strange conceit ; and certainly it cannot he proved that the expression was in current use at the time of Jesus as a designation of the Messiah (John xii. 34; cf Matt. x^d. 13). Again, it is not consistent with the character of Jesus merely to borrow an oft-recur- ring expression, without at the same time intentionally giving to it, though adopted from some other source, an original and character- istic signification. And, lastly, the purport of the passages in which He makes use of this expression obliges us at all events to go beyond the bare allusion to Daniel, and to connect the purport of these utterances with the verbal sense of the designation. But although we give due weight to these considerations, it would surely be going too far to deny, mth Sclileiermacher, that the expression 6 uio? rov avOpdoirov was in no way historically suggested by that passage of Daniel. Tor instance, there can be no doubt that in our Lord's own utterances respecting His person He makes definite allusion to that passage (Matt. xxiv. 30 ; cf. Mark xiii. 26 ; Luke xxi. 27, 36 ; in close connection with Matt. xxvi. 64, cf. Mark xiv. 62 ; Luke xxii. 69). In these passages He says, as in Dan. vii. 13, that the Son of man shall come in or upon the clouds of heaven ; wherein we have this twofold assertion about the coming king, that He is like a Son of man, and that He conies in the clouds of heaven. Our Lord here evidently intends His hearers to recall to mind that passage of Daniel, and also to regard Him- self as there indicated.\ Thus it is certainly most probable that this passage induced Jesus to choose the name o vIq<; tov uvOpwirov for Himself ; and this opinion is strengthened by the fact that the book of Enoch also has the expression Son of man. And by means of this passage great advantage accrued from His use of the expression, that His fellow-countrymen would, on closer examina- tion, be led to discover in it a designation of His person as the Messiah, and be thus gradually initiated into the deeper and higher sense of the Messianic idea, without the risk of popular excitement which would have been incurred by an explicit declaration of His Messiahship. But in order to exhaust its meaning, we must con- nect the literal and ideal with the historical explanation, by adding to the historical sense the signification of the expression itself. Jesus uses this expression emphatically to denote Himself to be " a man ;" in Grotius' view, to describe His lowliness, in Herder's 112 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I. opinion, to represent Himself as the ideal man. Tlius much at least is certain, that in the idea of man both views are combined, — lowliness and weakness in relation to some higher being, dignity and elevation as compared with a less exalted creature. In the Old Testament we have the two beautifully united in Ps. viii. 5, where the nature and position of men are so remarkably stated as to become the type for the Messianic personality in the New Testament (cf Heb. ii. 6-8). It is indeed strange that the passage just quoted is not (as well as that in Daniel) usually taken into account in explaining the expression Son of man. With regard to the use of the v(o_ rai^ and in two places (Ps. li. 11, and Isa. Ixiii. 10) Spirit of Holiness; and in the Apocrypha 7rvev/j.a aycov (Wisdom i. 5, ix. 17). This Spirit of God, pos- sessing life in Himself, is the divine principle of activity every- where at work in the world (Ps. cxxxix. 7). At first in external nature (Gen. i. 2 ; Ps. civ. 30, and xxxiii. 6), as if the quickening breath of God (Gen. ii. 7 ; Job xxxiii. 4), as the breath of His mouth or lips (Isa. xi. 4) ; and then also as existing in a human person (Job xxxii. 8), as the inspiring principle of courage, reso- lution, and warlike deeds (Judg. xi. 29, xiii. 25 ; 1 Sam. xi. 6), of bodily strength (Judg. xiv. 6), and also of holy skill in art (Ex. xxxi. 3-5, xxxv. 31-35); of administrative talent in a K 146 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I, ruler (1 Sam. xvi. 13), of wisdom and acuteness (Job xxxii. 8 ; Isa. xi. 2), and of moral purity (Ps. li. 13; Isa. Ixiii. 10). Especially is this Spirit the active principle in prophecy (Num. xxiv. 2, 3 ; 1 Sam. xix. 20-23), but even in the theocratic people working only in isolated and individual cases, — Moses himself feeling this limitation (Num. xi. 29, cf. 14, 16, 17, and 25—28); but so much the more needful was it that He should rest in superabundant fulness upon the Messiah (Isa. xi. 2, Ixi. 1 [cf. Luke iv. 18]; Isa. xHi. 1 [cf. Matt. xii. 18]), and should in His times be poured out in rich measure upon all flesh (Joel iii. 1, 2), upon every age, sex, and condition (Isa. xliv. 3 ; Ezekxxxvi. 26, 27, cf. xi. 19, and xxxLx. 29 ; Zech. xii. 10). And what appears in earlier times merely as the subject of prayer and longing in an indi\idual (Ps. li. 10), that God would create in him a new heart, and implant new strength of spirit, — a bold thought, indeed ; a prayer rich in prophetic fulness, and so far in advance of the times in which he lived as to be conceivable only in a man of such deeply characteristic spirituality as David, to whom the psalm is attributed, — this becomes the very object of the Messianic promise, viz. that God will, by implanting His Spirit in them, give a new heart to those who are in membership with His people (Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27). Here, then, the New Testament steps in, and firstly, in our Lord's own teaching and promises, completes the Old Testament doctrine of the Spirit, Jesus imprinting upon it a characteristic stamp, which is per- petuated by the teaching of the apostles. The existence of the Spirit of God in the Messiah Himself is taught also in the New Testament, but without asserting that the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, constituted the higher nature in Christ in the same way as He had previously worked in the world of nature and of man. Already had John the Baptist pointed Him out as the One on Avhom the Spirit of God rests continually (John i. 33, cf. iii. 34), in contrast to a merely temporary influence, as in the case of the prophets, — by which fact the Messiah was in a position de- cidedly superior to theirs. The Baptist also completes the Old Testament idea, by declaring that in the Messiah God has given His Spirit without measure (John iii. 34), and that it is He who shaU baptize with the Holy Ghost (John i. 3 3 ; cf Matt. iii. 1 1 ; Mark i. 8 ; Luke iii. 16). No doubt, in prophecy, too, the Spirit of God is said to rest upon the Messiah, and Isa. xi. 2 may be DIV. II. § 24.] THE SPIRIT. 147 interpreted to tlie effect that this is the case in full measure, although the latter point is rather left to be inferred. But it is nowhere said in the Old Testament that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which was to ensue in the Messianic times, should result immediately from the Messiah ; and thus the conception of liim in the prophetic writings and in the Old Testament generally is carried to a higher point. It might appear, from this declaration of the Baptist, that he regarded the possession of the Spirit as con- stituting the higher element in the person of the Messiah ; but we must remember that he also asserts His pre-existence (John i. 30, cf. 15), and thereby showed his complete grasp of the Messianic prophecies up to their cidminating point. Thus the law of suc- cession in prophecy extends from the Old Testament do"\^ni to this last prophet, John the Baptist, the immediate forerunner of the Messiah. Like the prophets of the old dispensation, he takes up the prophetic teaching of the Old Testament at the point where it had left off, embodies it in his own testimony, and carries it forward to more complete development. We find the doctrine of the existence of the Spirit of God in the Messiah still further developed in the discourses of Jesus Himself, where, however, the peculiarity of His person is by no means made to consist in the possession of the Spirit. For when (Luke iv. 21) the Lord says that the prophecy of Isaiah (Ixi. 1) is fulfilled in Him (the words being put into the mouth of the Messiah, " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," etc.), or when (Matt. xii. 28) He says that He casts out the devil in the Spirit of God, in this possession of, and worldng by, the Spirit, the higher nature of Christ's person is not expressed. His utterances on this point {vide siijyra) being quite of a different character. All the more decidedly, however, is it the teaching of Jesus that He, the Son, imparts the Spirit, and that from Him, and by means, indeed, of His glorification, the Spirit is poured out upon believers. And this brings us to the teaching of Jesus Himself concerning the Spirit. When speaking of Him, He uses the expressions irvevfia, or TO TTvev/xa (John iii. 5, 6, 8), irvevfia Qeov (Matt. xii. 28 ; cf. Luke xi. 20, ev SaKrvXro), or 'rrvevfia tov Trarpo^ vficov (Matt. x. 20), TO TTveufJia to ciyiov (Matt. xii. 32 ; Mark iii. 29 ; cf. Matt. xxviii. 19 ; Acts i. 8), or Trvevfia ayiov (Luke xi. 13), or, lastly, to TTvetfia Trj