YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE COLLEGE OF MISSIONS LIBRARY at the YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited LONDON ¦ BOMBAY ¦ CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO DALLAS ¦ SAN FHANCISCO THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. TORONTO THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS H. LATIMER JACKSON, D.D. MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON 1913 COPYRIGHT VIRO • ADMODVM • REVERENDO CHVRCHILL • JVLIO SACRAE - THEOLOGIAE • PROFESSORI IN • NOVA • ZEALANDIA ¦ EPISCOPO • DE • CHRISTCHVRCH A • PVERIS • AMICO • CARISSIMO HOC • OPVS ¦ QVALECVMQVE DEDICO PREFACE. If it be of custom and not of obligation that Hulsean Lectures are printed, it is certainly unusual that they should elude discovery in their published form ; and hence I would say at once of the four statutory '" sermons " delivered by me in the Michaelmas and Lent terms of the academical year last past that they are herein embedded in a piece of work which, at the time already long in hand, was freely utilized in their preparation. Speaking generally, my Lectures were made up of excerpts compacted together from material which at length has shaped itself in some sort into a book. To pass from explanation, not to say apology, to some remarks which, slightly modified and expanded, I transfer to these pages from the place they originally occupied further on as an appended Note. It is, I take it, a commonplace of criticism which differentiates between substantially genuine Sayings of Jesus and Sayings placed in His lips by the piety of the infant Church. As will be observed in due course, I have not been slow to illustrate it ; here I pause on the fact that, in the case of Sayings which turn more particularly on what to-day is really the live issue in Gospel-study, the Eschatological Ques tion, the process of differentiation is carried by some viii PREFACE scholars to extreme limits. The classical instance is, perhaps, Wellhausen ; 1 others, less ruthless, are on the same track, nor is it always to lag very far behind ; now here and now there " a tendency in the early Church to conform " our Lord's " teaching more closely to Apocalyptic standards " is discovered and insisted on if with variety of diction and unequal stress. In short, the attempt to reduce His genuine Eschatological utterances to a minimum — let me add, to explain them away — is by no means infrequent in present-day controversy. Now, the borrowed words are those of Mr. Streeter.2 At the time they were penned he was, judging from the context, inclined to go a long way with those who would make large deductions ; he was neverthe less constrained to write : " It is too great a paradox to maintain that what was so central in the belief of the Primitive Church was not present, at least in germ, in what the Master taught." 3 Once more the welcomed Essayist — and offering his more matured convictions — he alludes, I notice, to earlier conclu sions as " somewhat too sweeping " ; I find him signi ficantly adding : " The Eschatological teaching of our Lord is a simpler, wider, and greater thing than ordinary Jewish Apocalyptic, but for myself I am coming more and more to feel that to water down and explain away the Apocalyptic element is to miss something which is essential." i 1 Knopf, Zukunftshoffnungen des Urchristentums, p. 16. 2 Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 424. Cf. Emmet, The Eschatological Question, pp. 54 ff. zIbid., p. 433. * Foundations, pp. 112, 119. PREFACE ix In like manner with myself. I seem, indeed, to become aware of resemblances between Mr. Streeter's frank admission and words set down by me long before his Essay could come into my hands.1 But let me briefly indicate my own position. It may be that, of the recorded Eschatological Sayings, there are relatively few which can be referred with certainty to Jesus; they surely go far to guarantee others to the like effect. His own well-attested " Watch " is in itself significant. And again, the designation The Son of Man is, it would appear, genuine in the lips of Jesus ; if so, His use of the phrase is tantamount to proof that He shared con ceptions which the phrase connotes. Yet further, an appeal lies, I am persuaded, to the Fourth Gospel. Whatever may be urged to the contrary2 I hold it true that " the simple Apocalyptic faith of Primitive Christianity is gently but decisively dealt with " by its author, and that, while " the Parousia remains," it is " only an otiose feature in his system." 3 At the same time I cannot but attach significance to the survival in that Gospel (remarked on by Jiilicher) of the "old terminology";4 to the manner of its repre sentation. And I am led to argue thus : as with the designation The Son of Man — which, albeit generally in disuse, the Evangelists are constrained by the 'See pp. 339, 345. 349 f- 2 Schlatter, N.T. Theologie, pp. 126 f. ; B. Weiss, Das Johannes - evangelium ais einheitliches Werk erkldrt, p. 264. 3 Inge, C.B.E., p. 257. Cf. Knopf, Zukunftshoffnungen, p. 43; Barth, Hauptprobleme, p. 184 ; Jiilicher, Einleitung, p. 358. 4 Which, according to Hitchcock (A Fresh Study of Ike Fourth Gospel, p. 16), "is wanting" ! x PREFACE evidence to refer to Jesus — so here : if Eschatological Sayings be found in the lips of the Johannine Christ, it is precisely because the historic Jesus had actually been wont so to speak. It is from considerations such as these that, declin ing to go the lengths of Albert Schweitzer and not in entire agreement with Johannes Weiss, I am never theless disposed to make no small room for, and to emphasize, the Eschatological element in our Lord's teaching. I cannot explain it away. Whether I have seized on that which is " essential " in it is quite another matter. I am conscious of mis giving which goes near to merge in doubt. Let me add that, in no way satisfied with my work as a whole — offspring of that prolonged yet inadequate research which is in itself (as Haupt so truly said) a sharp discipline in the school of modesty1 — I would be first to recognize its shortcomings and defects. And here I would express my regret that my book had gone to press before I had the oppor tunity of consulting the magnificent work {The Apocrypha and Pseudeptgrapha of the Old Testament in English) which Dr. Charles — "in conjunction with many scholars " — has now given to the world. It remains for me, albeit solely responsible for the contents of my book, to reckon up a debt of gratitude. Much might be said, were this the place to say it, of help, varied and constant, which has been rendered by my wife. I would thank Miss Alice Gardner, of Newnham College, Cambridge, for valuable hints and suggestions, and it is in part due to her kindness that faults and blemishes are not more conspicuous than, 1 Die Eschatologischen Aussagenjesu, p. iii. PREFACE xi I am afraid, is still the case. Another well-known Cambridge name at once occurs to me, but here it shall suffice to say that I have long owed much to him who bears it. Such as it is my book tells its own tale of continued indebtedness to German scholar ship on the part of one who can never be unmindful of those highly-prized friendships which bind him to the " Fatherland " as to a second home. Little Canfield Rectory, Essex, October, 1913. SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS. INTRODUCTORY. "A time in which to live and think — and to be young,'' 1-3. Social and political phenomena ; outstanding features in the religious history of the modern world, 3, 4. Theological research, 5. Consequent unrest, aloofness, 5-7. Ground of apprehension in regard to the Church, 7, 8. The subject of present inquiry stated ; standpoint from which approached, 9. Eschatology in by-gone controversy, 10, II. And in present-day critical research, 12, 13. Line of procedure to be followed in this inquiry, 13, 14. CHAPTER I. THE SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS. Traditional theories of the Gospels, 15, 16. Some results of Gospel criticism, 17-24. The Synoptic Gospels, 17-20. The Fourth Gospel, 21, 22. Mark and Q the earliest sources, 23, 24. Recorded Sayings of Jesus, 24-33. Processes of transmission, 25-29. And translation, 29, 30. No question of ipsissima verba of Jesus, 30. Where the ground is relatively safe ; substantially genuine utterances, 31, 32. With shrinkage of material the " Biography" of Jesus has become impracti cable, 33. The " Hat Jesus gelebt ? " controversy abroad and at home, 34. Sufficient evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, 35, 36. CHAPTER II. GENERAL SURVEY OF THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS. Preliminary considerations and main headings, 37-39- The Kingdom (Reign) of God, its impending advent, as central feature in the pro clamation of Jesus, 39-40. Present evil age and future good age, xiv SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS expectation of signs, portents, etc., 40, 41. Ambiguity of conception ; Lk. xvii. 21 notwithstanding, the Kingdom primarily conceived of as future, 42-44. Conditions and qualifications relative to membership in the Kingdom ; note of universalism, and of pessimism, 44-46- The Kingdom to be brought in by God, yet not so as to exclude human effort, 46, 47. Question of locality; the "When" God's secret, 47-49. Concerning Resurrection ; absolute uniformity of conception not met with, 50-54. And Judgment ; contrast between Jesus and the Baptist, 54-56. Who are to be judged and on what will the Judgment turn ? 56, 57. The Hereafter for the Righteous, for the Wicked, 57-59- The r61e assigned by Jesus to Himself in the drama of The Last Things, 59-1 1 1. Discussion of significant designations ; Christ, 60-65. Son of David, 65-71. Son of Man, 71-86. Son of God, 86-96. What appears to have been present in the mind of Jesus, 96-106. Summary of His beliefs and conceptions relative to The Last Things generally, 106-111. CHAPTER III. OLD TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. The Canon of the Old Testament, 112. Recognition of a contrast ; while the four Gospels fall within a period of about half a century, the Old Testament writings extend over more than a thousand years ; instead of the one personage (Jesus), many men and many minds, 113- 117. Line of inquiry, 117-118. Amos, the man and his message, 118- 121. What to be gleaned from the Book of Amos, 120-123. Consequent research into earlier material, critical methods generally, 123-127. Significance of the Elijah-stories, 127, 128. The "Royal" Psalm (2 Sam. vii. 1-29), 128-130. The Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 22— xxiii. 33), 130, 131. The Song of Deborah (Jud. v.), 131, 132. General reflexions, 132, 133. From the days of Amos onwards, 133-170. Hosea, 134-136. Isaiah of Jerusalem, composite nature of the Book of Isaiah, conclusions drawn from passages which maybe referred to Isaiah himself, 137-142. Micah ; triplet of prophecies which bear the names of Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, 142. The Fall of the Northern Kingdom, and that of Judah; "the Jews"; the Exile, 143, 144. Jeremiah, his personality and features presented by the Book of Jere miah ; gist of oracles referred by criticism to the prophet, 144-148. Ezekiel, and the Book of Ezekiel ; selected passages in their significance, 148-152. " Deutero- Isaiah " and the "Songs on the Servant of Jahve," 152-157. The Return; Ezra and Nehemiah, 157-158. Haggai, 158, SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS xv 159- Zechariah, 159-160. " Malachi," 160, 161. " Trito-Isaiah " and the probably late section Amos ix. 9-15, 161, 162. Joel, 162, 163. Survey and general conclusions, 163-168. Conceptions of the Davidic King, 168, 169; who recedes into the background ; prominence attaches to the Kingdom of God, 169, 170. CHAPTER IV. APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE. Historical survey, 171, 172. Features of the period; angelology, the far-off God, 172-174. Prophetical literature succeeded by the Apocalypse, 1 74. Preliminary notice of Apocalyptic literature, 174-177. The Apocalyptic element present in the Old Testament ; as e.g. in Ezekiel, 177, 178; in Daniel, 178-181 ; and in the section Isai. xxiv.- xxvii., 181-184, which, like Daniel, recognizes claims of the individual with doctrine of Resurrection, 183, 184; and in the section Zech. ix.-xiv., 184-187. Jewish Apocalyptic outside the Canon, 187-241. The " Ethiopic" Enoch, its composite nature, 187, 188. Section i. -xxxvi., 188-190. Section lxxxiii.-xc, 190-192. Section xci.-civ., 192-194. Section xxxvii.-lxx. (the Similitudes), 194-198. Remarks on the phrase "Son of Man,'- 198-200. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 200-202 ; excerpts, 202-207 ; and main features, 207-209. The Book of Jubilees, 209-211 ; excerpts, 211-215 ; new elements presented, 215, 216. The Psalms of Solomon, 216, 217 ; Pss. i.-xvi., 217-224; Pss. xvii., xviii., 224-227. The Sibylline Oracles, 227, 228; outline of contents, 228, 229 ; Messianic significance, 230. The Assumption of Moses, 231-233 ; special features, 233-235. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch' (the "Slavonic" Enoch), 235 ; excerpts, 235-239; and main points, 240, 241. Foot-note reference to the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Fourth Book of Ezra (2nd Esdr.), and the Revelation of John, 241, 242. First impressions of Jewish Apocalyptic generally, 242, 243 ; in part justified, 243 ; yet only in part ; Leit motif and true grandeur of this literature, 243-246. New features ; Angelology, 246. Demonology, 247. Dualism, 248. Resurrection, 249. Universalism, world-judgment, 249, 250. Ethical ideas and interests, 250. The Davidic King, 250. The super-human Messiah, 251,252. Comparative religion ; foreign elements ; Jewish Apocalyptic a product of religious syncretism, 252-254. The Messiah not a constant figure ; Hopes which centre on a Reign of God, 254. xvi SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS CHAPTER V. IN THE DAYS OF JESUS. Nature and scope of inquiry, 255, 256. The Lucan Introduc tion, 256. Examination of the Magnificat, Benedictus, and Nunc Dimittis, 257-259 ; their origin, 259-261 ; and significance, 261. The Matthaean story of the Magi, 262. Points on which contemporary Judaism is in general agreement, 262, 263. Yet variety of conception, 264. Attitude in regard to Roman rule ; Sadducees, Pharisees, the Zealots, the "quiet in the land," 265. Ideas relative to participation in a new Kingdom of the Jews, 266, 267. Conceptions of the Judg ment, 267 ; and of Resurrection, 268-270. Scene of the Kingdom, 270. The lot of the Righteous and the fate of the Wicked, 270-273. Diver sity of conception in regard to Messianic King, 273-282. The purely human ruler, 275-277. The "Eschatological," super-human, Messiah, 277-279. And this latter (his features being transferred to a given per sonage) figures in the New Testament, 279, 280. Inherited conceptions in the Christology of Paul, 280, 281. No official doctrine of the Messiah, 282. CHAPTER VI. THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS AND THE ESCHA TOLOGY OF JUDAISM. Preliminary retrospect, 283, 284. The comparison necessarily insti tuted, 284. Twelve points on which Jesus and Judaism (generally) are in formal agreement, 284-286. And, in regard to some, not merely agreement in form, 286, 287. Yet even so questions suggested, 287. John the Baptist is, with Jesus, the Elijah of popular expectation, 287. Discussion focussed on the two main points, the Kingdom and the Messiah, 287-308. The Kingdom : by whom to be brought in, 288, 289. Whether its coming may be hastened, 289. Membership in it ; respective conceptions as to the Righteous, 289-291. The question ultimately that of Righteousness as conceived of by Jesus and by Judaism, 291-296. " Pharisaism," 291. Two distinct streams of tendencies in contemporary Jewish life, 293-295. The comparison one between Jesus and a spiritually-minded (prophetic) Judaism, 294. Contrasts in degree, 294. Wherein Jesus is, perhaps, sui generis, 295. Once more : Who are the Righteous, 296. Universal elements present SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS xvii in the mind of Jesus, 297. The Hereafter for the Righteous and the Wicked, 298, 299. Destined scene of the Reign of God, 299 ; possi bility of two horizons, 300. Summary of discussion relative to the Kingdom, 300-302. The Messiah ; Points common to Jesus and Judaism, 302-305. Comparison in regard to conceptions of the Davidic KlnS> 3°4. 305. And of the "Eschatological" Messiah, 305, 306. The parting of the ways, 306. Claiing -advanced by Jesus and coupled with announcement of suffering ana death, 306-309. Summary, 309, 310. What is, perhaps, a burddn to Jesus Himself not only disallowed by but altogether foreign to the mind of Judaism, 310, 311. CHAPTER VII. THE PERSON OF JESUS. In previous allusion Jesus a certain Palestinian Jew, 312. The descrip tion, as far as it goes, accurate ; not necessarily adequate ; already ground for question: Who and What was Jesus? 313. The question in suc cessive stages of the Church's life and prominent in modern critical research, 313, 314. "The problem of the Person of Christ" and its two-fold significance, 314, 315. The historical Jesus is real man, 316. Unquestionably an august personage, 317-319. No enthusiast and more than the genius, 320. The " abnormal " in Jesus which has eluded definition, 321. His elusiveness suggests inability to define Himself, 322. This does not apply to the Johannine Christ, 322. Yet true of the Synoptic Jesus, 323, 324. Who becomes a problem to Himself, 325. Significance of Lk. xii. 50 : "straitened," 325-327. The Saying as to " fresh wine-skins " for "new wine" may point to a personal experience, 328. A " Doppelseitigkeit " to be reckoned with, 328. Room for an exalted Christology, 328, 329. Yet the real manhood, 329. Career in outline of "Jesus of Nazareth," 330-333. He who is "Lord "is "a man approved of God," 333, 334. Of the terminology of His message and claims, 334. The transitory soon recognized as such, 334-336. Jesus the " Sower " of His own parable, 337. CHAPTER VIII. HUSK AND KERNEL. The real Jesus and what He may have to say to the modern world, 338, 339. His Eschatology wears the garb of its own period, which is xviii SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS not our period, 340-343. Significance of Hebr. viii. 13, 344. And of the attitude of the Fourth Evangelist ; what he recognizes, does, essays to do, 345-348. Hence, within limits, he serves as guide, 348. Diffi culty begins with the search after the permanent element, dangers involved in attempt to state it, 348, 349. Grounds of conviction that there must be something essential in the Eschatology of Jesus, 349, 350. The main idea : the ultimate triumph of the cause of God, 350. Con siderations suggested by the idea, 351, 352. There is a goal, 353, 354. Present duty: the "Follow Me" of Him who significantly assigns to Himself an exalted r61e, 354-356. CHAPTER IX. ESCHATOLOGICAL SURVIVALS IN THE CREEDS. Grave considerations which turn on the survival of old embodi ments of the Eschatological idea, 357. In Hymnodies, 357. In the Prayer-Book generally, 358. And, in particular, in the historic Creeds, 359, 360. The question of fidelity to Christian conscience, 360. Absence of difficulty in the case of Hymns, 360, 361. Liberty of inter pretation in regard to the Church's formularies as a whole, clerical "subscription" (footnote), 361, 362. The crux begins with the Creeds, 363, and not by any means at the clauses now in question, 366. The so-called " Athanasian Creed " ruled out of consideration, 363, 364. An "Entweder — oder ! " which points in particular to the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, 364-367. Examination of the position ; Article viii. ; significant question in the Ordinal, 367-369. The Creeds as viewed from the standpoint of liberal — yet loyal — opinion, 370-372. Hesitation occasioned by the individualized " I believe," 372, Detailed survey of existing circumstances and conditions, anticipations relative to Creeds revised or no longer needed, 373-375. The question being of time present, difficulty which points from individuals to the Church itself, 375. Attitude which — in and because of existing circumstances — appears to be legitimate ; footnote allusion to question of legal proceedings, 375, 376. Concluding remarks, 376, 377. ABBREVIATIONS AND CONTRACTIONS. Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible D.B. „ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels D.C.G. Encyclopaedia Biblica E.B. Century Bible C.B. Religion in der Geschichte und Gegenwart (edited by Schiele) R.G.G. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament H.B.N.T Hand- Commentar zum Neuen Testament - H.C.N.T Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (edited by Joh. Weiss) S.N.T. Die Schriften des Alten Testaments (Gressmann, Gunkel, etc.) S.A.T. Wellhausen, Israelitische und Judische Geschichte (sixth ed. ) I.J-G. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People - H.J. P. Biblische Zeitfragen - - . B.Z. Cambridge Biblical Essays C.B.E. Cambridge Theological Essays C.T.E. Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem O.S.S.P. Oxford Congress of History of Religions (Report of) O.C.H.R. Journal of Theological Studies J.T.S. Hibbert Journal ... H.J. The Expositor Exp. The Septuagint - LXX. The Synoptic Gospels S.G. Einleitung - ... Einl. Evangelium Evglm. Introduction Intr. N.B. — In the case of a foreign work being cited by an English title the reference is to the English translation thereof, and this applies to instances in which the title is the same in both languages ; e.g. the Jesus of Bousset and the Jesus of Arno Neumann. INTRODUCTORY. "An age full to bursting of great ideas and seemingly limitless possibilities." Such, we are told, were the earlier decades of the last century ; nor is the descrip tion less apt if transferred to the modern world. Later thinkers have " transformed the spirit of philosophy " ; " indications of the social movement '' now in progress are not far to seek ; once more " science has started into new life " ; that every day is " antiquating more and more of the opinions which had seemed most firmly established " who shall deny ? In every pro vince and department of human affairs there is a throb and stir which make men realize, with Heraclitus, that all things are in a state of flux. We are con scious of a stimulating effect ; — our own time is " indeed a time in which to live and think — and to be young " — " young," if not in years, at any rate in the capacity for broadening sympathies and expand ing interests.1 " A time in which to live." Not merely to exist ; to feel the joy of living and to live our lives to the full.2 " To live and think " : the idea suggested is of 1A. W. Robinson, In Memoriam (Edited by), pp. xii. f. And see Eucken, Der Sinn und Wert des Lebens, p. 45. The preceding pages are singularly to the point. 2 Non est vivere sedvalere vita (Terence). A 2 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS knowledge earned by patient scrutiny of circumstances and conditions, of an activity which, starting from " the brain and will," declines to run to waste in " a merely external and superficial industry."1 " To live and think — and to be young " ; — which surely means this : to enter heart and soul into all the manifoldness of human life ; mindful that new needs require new helps, eager to render "Good Service to Mankind."2 It is good to live in such an age. Large indeed and varied are the demands made by it, in that it is so unmistakably a period of transition. We review the situation generally ; it is at once to dwell on much which, testifying in a variety of ways to the accomplished good, is earnest of further progress in the right direction. Yet other features present them selves which, studied in their full significance, give rise to distrust and apprehension, and for this reason : they tell their own tale of unbalanced minds and thought undisciplined, of narrow outlooks, of poverty of aspirations. Stir, no doubt, is infinitely better than stagnation ; it implies movement. If the move ment suggest healthy development, well and good ; but what if displacement, detachment, disintegration, be alone in evidence? The mere fact that changes are working themselves out in the social and political organism is in itself no ground of alarm ; — only then we should be quick to differentiate between change and change ; between modifications and permuta tions, on the one hand, which spring from the ripened intelligences of an enlightened people, and, on the other hand, reckless innovations which, born of in- iJ. R. Seeley, Lectures and Essays, p. 282. 2 Benson, Christ and His Times, p. 25, INTRODUCTORY 3 sensate cravings for novelty and of impatience of restraints and sanctions, tend rather to " pan -destruc tion " than to reconstruction. What we cannot but remark are failures to seize really vital issues ; the trivial is confounded with the essential ; assumptions are lightly made that whatever is old must, simply because it is old, be outworn and obsolete. Folly may clamour for the reversal of the time-honoured adage, " Look before you leap." Wisdom bids the man of heart, head, and hand be slow to move on himself — and to invite others to move on with him — until well assured that the movement will not be off the rails. But this is to generalize. With the horizon, for the moment, widened, account has been taken of the many streams and currents of our own national life, of phenomena, social and political, equally perceptible when we look beyond the seas. Not less wide shall be the purview if, narrowing down the subject, we proceed to a survey of the situation in the world of religious thought and action. Similar is its aspect ; similar the reflexions awakened by it. Marking progress we mark ground of apprehension. A warn ing note is struck ; — -festina lente. What, we now ask, are some main features, out standing facts, in the religious history of the modern world ? Things have been moving on apace. We institute a comparison ; it is to reckon up many a change for the better which points back to what for our fathers was the " New Learning " of their own times. There is much to be thankful for ; intellectual and spiritual burdens have been removed ; as the lumber 4 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS of really outworn theories and systems has been cleared away, the path lies open for an advance in the right direction. The alleged " dangerous heresy " of but yesterday is the commonplace of to-day ; we turn, it may be, to works which once set the religious world by the ears,1 and it is to find that none but belated pietists could take exception to their contents. If not so long ago " German theology" was a very bugbear, the Bible-student now owns his indebted ness to the indefatigable industry, the profound thought, the conscientious love of knowledge, so characteristic of German scholars,2 who are quite as prompt to tell of what they and their nation have gained from English literature, from theologians of Anglo-Saxon race.3 And again, of the Christian Church in all its comprehensiveness, it can be truly said that, in respect of enterprise and action, it has " started into new life." There is certainly a growing sense of solidarity ; with higher ideals and a quickened perception of duty there is a more vigorous response ; clergy and laity are directing their attention not simply to the alleviation of distress, the improvement of social conditions, but to the elevation of the man himself. Thus far Christianity, it might be said, is making good the claim once advanced for it : — " the most mutable of all things " 4 in its adaptability to the changed and changing conditions of all human life. 1 As, e.g. Essays and Reviews, Ecce Homo, Lux Mundi. 2 Stanley, Sermons and Essays on the Apost. Age, preface. sSo Harnack, Speech delivered in London, 6th Feb., 191 1 : "Who can calculate what we owe to one another?" Of German scholars generally it may be said that English theological literature has ceased to be treated by them as a negligible quantity. 4R. Rothe. INTRODUCTORY 5 So far, so good — perhaps. There is another side to the picture ; and the serious thinker will refuse to shut his eyes to it. Along with features bright with encouragement and hope, there are others, of darker aspect, which tell us plainly enough that all is — not well. They stare us in the face. Prodigious is the industry to be met with in every province and department of theological research. New problems are encountered ; problems not new become more complex as they are re-stated with a fuller perception of the issues ; with the increase of material and the widening of the field x strange phenomena present themselves, nor do they quickly lend themselves to co-ordination. If well authenti cated results can be tabulated, open questions are many ; some of them, perhaps, will remain unsolved. The " working hypothesis " serves the turn of cer tainty ; resort is made to assumptions where adequate knowledge fails ; to-morrow may discredit the theory which to-day upholds. Genuinely scientific in its processes and methods, this critical research is at once fearless and restrained, high-principled, charac terized by sobriety and sanity, content to hold its judgment in suspense, ever on the guard lest mere conjecture should masquerade as fact. It may be all this and more than this — the exceptions shall prove the rule. The question now is : What of the consequences which, directly or indirectly, may be traced back to it ? Unquestionably one result is unrest, uncertainty, distress, bewilderment, in " religious circles." If " the 1 So as to include mythology, the comparative study of religions, anthropology, etc. 6 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS great authorities differ " small wonder that weaker minds are in doubt, or that disturbance should become distress should the conflict of opinion turn on grave matters ; that seekers after present help and guidance should ask : To what purpose all this " play among^the shadows of an irrecoverable past " on the part of scholars ? The expert — alive, indeed, to difficulties — may be able to pick his way with some degree of security ; others, the non-specialists, find themselves on slippery ground. While the former is content to possess his soul in patience, the latter are too timorous to wait ; they rush precipitately to unwarranted conclusions. By some " criticism " is regarded as an evil thing, calculated to rob them of all that they account most precious and to shatter faith; hence their irrational abhorrence of" the critic." With others the case is different ; " an immense spiritual destitution"1 is, most surely, the lot of many who, unable to come to terms with new results, sit ever looser to traditional beliefs if loath to break with long-accustomed habits. Half-hearted assent becomes tacit rejection ; with the abandonment, it may be, of far more than the exigencies demand, the longing grows within them to replace the something lost with a something not yet found. There is point in the remark : " The predominance of an all-denying unbelief does but call forth a keener craving for belief."2 Again. The question is not alone of unrest and perplexity inside the Christian Church ; let it now be remarked that there is another, and an increasing, 1 Cf. Toynbee, Industrial Revolution (Memoir), p. xxiii. 2F. C. Baur. INTRODUCTORY 7 class of people who steadily refuse to identify them selves with any sort or form of organized Christian life. The " masses " remain outsiders. Of a coarsely aggressive hostility to religion which exults at myth exploded and superstition banished, there may be less than is commonly supposed ; indifference is far more in evidence ; taking them all round, British artisans may approve the humanitarianism of modern Christian enterprise, but what in large numbers they positively decline to do is to have any part or lot in Christian worship. Nor do they stand alone ; their attitude is exactly parallelled— as at home so abroad — in every stratum of the social organism. But lately has it been said : " During the last half century the outstanding fact in the religious history of the chief nations of Western Europe has been the grow ing indifference and hostility shown towards orthodox Christianity by men of culture and learning and intelligence." 1 The barbed assertion hits the mark ; it holds good of men in every rank and walk of life. Irreligious men of necessity they most certainly are not. Sincerely religious men, many of them, they repudiate the dogmatic systems on which traditional Christianity is based. There is something in all this which is surely disastrous for the Church itself. It is near enough to the truth that, the question being of the rank and file, " the dominant creed finds its chief support in the middle class, those Philistines on whom Matthew Arnold poured increasing scorn " ;2 to turn to the Church's ministry, there is still point in what was once said as to a drainage of intellectual vigour and 1Chawner, Prove all Things, p. 5. 2Ibid., p. 8. 8 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS '' nervous, anxious, minds." 1 High is the standard of the clergy in respect of personal life and self- sacrificing zeal ; why, then, is it still, and by general admission, not nearly high enough in regard to intel lectual capacity and attainment? The really first- class man, it is said, is comparatively rare ; his position and environment may be such as to stifle aspirations and to cramp independent thought ; with official hints as to offending the " weak brother " he too easily resorts to a policy of silence when he has that in him which might help " the strong." 2 And so it comes about that, with frequent cavil at the " inepti tudes of ecclesiastical debate," complaint is often made that the readjustments urged or demanded are not so much concerned with really vital issues as with matters of relatively small importance. Revision, if deprecated here and blocked there, is in the air. The question with some is : Will it go to the root of the matter? Will it distinguish between kernel and husk, between that which is not only archaic but obsolete and that which is of lasting significance ? 3 Or will it simply illustrate that " false reverence for formulae, symbols, rites, and institutions " which can not but fossilize and imprison truth?* To sum up. Looking to the sphere of religious thought and action, our age teems with absorbing *J. R. Seeley, Natural Religion, p. 136. Yet by no means in the bitter complaint as to the type of man who took Orders once raised by Mr. Frederic Harrison in what he himself described as "This violent letter " (Autobiographical Memoirs, i. pp. 144, 147). 2 Cf. Kautzsch, Das sogenannte Apos. Glaubensbekenntnis ( Vorlrage) , p. v. 3 Cf. Prayer Book Revision — a Plea for Thoroughness. 4 Cf. Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, i. p. x. INTRODUCTORY 9 interests. Features are apparent which, evidencing the throb and stir of movement, are at once ground of thankfulness and stimulus to larger effort. We dwell on outstanding facts ; — " the trouble that is in the air " l becomes very real ; the distress of the " weak," the unrest of stronger souls, the passive or active revolt of keen intellects, are salutary warnings against an easy optimism. But we decline point- blank to be pessimists. Again we say of our own age that it is " a time in which to live and think— and to be young." The question for one and all is this : What can be done to satisfy its needs ? Thus much by way of leading up to a subject which, bound up with the Person of Him who is sometimes spoken of as " the Church's Founder," is equally bound up with ancient formularies and official declarations of the Church's faith : The Eschatology of Jesus. What must be said of the subject ? That it is an intricate, a difficult, a delicate subject is beyond question ; be it added that it is one in which the transitory and the permanent will be found in com bination as the very wide field is explored, and the long and winding road travelled. What, then, of the standpoint from which it shall be approached and studied ? Let it be a settled thing that, however useful it may be to take the Catholic. Faith as received and then to disencumber, re-interpret, restate it, the main concern is that truth — old or newly apprehended — should be corner-stone and fabric of creeds pro posed or professed. " Eschatology." The " long and rather ugly 1 Lux Mundi, p. 3. 10 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS word "1 is derived from the Greek ;2 it means the discourse, the science, doctrine, study, which is con cerned with The Last Things. Hence by the " Es chatology of Jesus " it is natural to understand the beliefs and conceptions and doctrines relative to The Last Things which may be traceable to Jesus. The question being of " Credal Statements " we are led to ask : What is said about The Last Things in those official declarations of Faith which are called the Creeds, and in other formularies of the Church ? What, precisely, are The Last Things indicated by our subject ? An answer might come from the headings of a familiar hymn. Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell ; — such being The Last Things therein enumerated, thought is mainly concentrated, it might appear, on the death-hour of individual human beings and of that which awaits them at death: — "bliss unending," or " eternity of woe." But the ground is not yet covered ; with a rapid glance at Creeds and formu laries the vista so widens as to awaken thought of One far-off divine event, To which the whole creation moves.3 We read of a "Last Day," of "the end of the world," while mention is made of One who, having come already, is to come again, and Who, as Judge, will then pronounce sentence on " the quick and the dead"; on those who are "alive and remain," on those who shall rise "with their bodies" in a "general 1 Sanday, Life of Christ in Modern Research, p. 46. 2&rXttT0s, utmost, extreme, last; Xi-yos, a word, science, study, doctrine. 'Tennyson, In Memoriam, INTRODUCTORY n resurrection." It is said of some that they " go away into everlasting fire," of others that they " go into everlasting life." A "Kingdom" is to be established; it is expressly said of it that it " shall have no end." But these Credal statements will be examined, with fulness of quotation, later on, and at this juncture the nature of The Last Things to which the word Eschatology to-day points us requires consideration. Points us to-day. Let it be said in passing that our subject has had, in successive periods, a strange fascination for the minds of men, and that it has prompted beliefs and conceptions, predictions and demonstrations, of which it is nothing short of true that they positively riot in the extravagant and the grotesque. Of these more, perhaps, hereafter ; it is here necessary to accentuate the difference between Eschatology in comparatively recent controversy and in modern critical research. We retrace our steps by some thirty years. Then it was that a storm was raised b)r a course of sermons preached in Westminster Abbey by a dignitary of the Church who is still widely read,1 and published under the title of Eternal Hope. A great scholar and divine 2 at once joined issue with the views therein set forth ; his sermon on Everlasting Punishment was followed by a work entitled : What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment; others, learned and un learned, rushed into the fray ; sharply divergent opinions were vented in impassioned, sometimes intemperate, language. The point to fix on is this : the question then turned mainly if not exclusively on 1 Dr. Farrar. 2 Dr. Pusey. 12 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS the After Death. Is man's destiny once for all determined ? Must " lost souls " remain " lost " through all eternity, or is there place of repentance and amendment in the life beyond the grave ? What warrant, if any, is there for trusting, however faintly, " the larger hope "? Such, generally speaking, were the questions escha tological of a generation ago.1 The subject, in most quarters, was narrowed down to a single issue. The points of difference lay mainly in the region of interpretation. Returning to our own day we remark a wider range, a changed standpoint. Diversity of interpreta tion is still with us, but it goes far deeper ; historical research into the subject matter is minuter. The student asks : what is really traceable to Jesus ?— on the assumption, it is sometimes added, that there was ever any Jesus at all ; — what to the beliefs and con ceptions of the primitive Church ? He goes on to scrutinize the doctrine (or doctrines) of earlier and later Judaism ; inquiry is pushed further back still : the question then is of foreign influences which may have left their mark on Judaism, on One who was Himself a Jew, on primitive Christianity when brought into contact with the outer world ; the appeal is from Old and New Testaments to a mass of literature which is the " find " of comparatively recent years. As attention is once more turned to Jesus, the question of originality is raised ; to what extent, it is asked, is He child of His own age and nation, sharer of contemporary beliefs and expectations, dependent 1 Allusion might also be made to the controversy raised by Mivart's articles. INTRODUCTORY 13 on a variety of sources for predictions which, in their outward form, at any rate, remain unfulfilled. In short, the Eschatology of Jesus, the Eschatology which survives in Creeds and formularies, is to-day in the crucible of that critical research which, rigid in its methods, is resolute to apply its tests. The outlook is an anxious one. What if old beliefs be discredited by new results ? What if, before long, the ground will have so shifted beneath our feet that, while familiar landmarks vanish, the extended land scape wear a strange and forbidding aspect? Pre pared as we ought to be to " accept movement as the law both of Churches and of States " a we should take heart of grace in the prospect of impending change. The change may mean real progress. If so, we are bound to welcome it. If resistance be made at all, it will be then and there only when truth itself is at stake. It is just here that Robert Browning has some great words for us : This- imports solely, man should mount on each New height in view ; the help whereby he mounts, The ladder-rung his foot has left, may fall, Since all things suffer change save God the Truth.2 It will be convenient that, in bringing this intro ductory chapter to a close, the lines on which inquiry will be conducted should be generally indicated. The Eschatology of Jesus. Such being the subject it shall be our first business to inquire as to the Sources of the Life of Jesus. The question being of 'J. R. Seeley, Lectures and Essays, p. 255. 2 A Death in the Desert. 14 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS the Eschatology of Jesus, accordingly of His recorded utterances, we shall dwell on questions relating to their transmission ; then, appealing to Narrative or Saying which bears the hall-mark of substantial genuineness, we shall arrive at some general conclu sions as to the beliefs and opinions of Jesus in regard to The Last Things. From a survey of the Escha tology of Jesus in its main features we shall pass to the Old Testament and thence to Apocalyptic literature ; a review of Messianic beliefs and ex pectations current in Our Lord's day will naturally suggest a comparison between the Eschatology of contemporary Judaism and that of Jesus. A chapter will then be devoted to " the problem of the Person of Christ " -,1 it will be followed by an attempt to differentiate between the transitory and the permanent elements of an Eschatology which points to One who, if human and divine, both spoke in the language and shared the conceptions of a remote antiquity. Nor will it be out of place if our inquiry closes with some reflexions occasioned by eschatological survivals in the Church's Creeds. 1 A. W. Robinson, Are we making Progress? p. 19. CHAPTER I. THE SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS. WHAT is really known about Jesus ? A question which does not now turn on the Person ality of Jesus. It simply amounts to this : What information have we respecting Him ; whence is it derived ; what is its quality ? In other words, to what authorities can we go with confidence for records of His earthly life? Records in the form of narra tive, of the spoken word. The question shall be discussed under two head ings. In the first place, it suggests inquiry as to the earliest sources for the life of Jesus generally ; in its second division it turns in particular on the recorded Sayings. A final point will be that in the Jesus of narrative and discourse we have to do with a real historical personage and no mere creation of poetic fancy. I. The Earliest Sources for the Life of fesus. We have resort, as a matter of course, to the New Testament. Not, indeed, to the New Testament as a whole ; if one and all the writings contained in it find a more or less constant theme in Jesus, the fact 16 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS remains that many of them — whether penned by eye witnesses or not — are not records ; rather do they illustrate the influences of Jesus as reflected by minds of very diverse type. We accordingly single out just those which purport to relate events. They are the four Gospels. What must be said about them ? A preliminary question arises ; what has been said of them, and how are they even now regarded in certain quarters ? It need scarcely be said that traditional theories are still in the field. Unhesitatingly accepted, held to be — in the strictest sense of the word — historical from the first page to the last, the Gospels are as un hesitatingly attributed to the men whose names they bear. They are accounted divinely inspired works ; no room is found in them for any distinctively human element ; their respective authors are conceived of as passive agents, living pens held and guided by an Almighty hand. An equal value is attached to them. Differences, if admitted, are minimized or explained away ; where the authors appear to tell the same story the question, it is said, is in reality of similar, yet different, events. The harmonist works his will on them. They are made to lend themselves to the complete and circumstantial " Biography " of Jesus. Such, in rough outline, is the traditional theory of the Gospels. In its cruder form it is still dear to many a devout soul who reminds us of Cowper's Cottager : " content to know no more, her Bible true." It also meets us, if in varied form, in works un doubtedly characterized by the learning of their day.1 1 As, e.g. , Farrar's Life of Christ, which, with all its defects, is scarcely the "farrago of falsehood, absurdity, and charlatanry " of F. C. THE SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS 17 A day, however, which is not our own day. To enumerate some well-established results of recent Gospel criticism. And first. In our Gospels we now recognize four specimens of a class of literature at one time highly popular and widely circulated. As the many Gospels * were subjected to such tests as the age could apply — and to say this is not of necessity to deny a divine guidance — four remained masters of the field ; the approved, canonized, specimens of an extensive Gospel-literature. We compare them with other ex tant writings of the same class ; and at once we allow the tact, the wisdom, which, in the processes of selec tion and rejection, made final choice of those which are far and away the best. A second point. In sharp contrast with other writings of the same class, our four Gospels are in sharp contrast as between themselves ; they illustrate a diversity of type which was emphatically recognized in ancient times. " John," the " spiritual Gospel " of Clement of Alexandria,2 stands by itself apart ; in many respects it is singularly unlike its three com panions. They, " Matthew," " Mark," and " Luke"— for convenience' sake we will designate them by their familiar names — are as unmistakably sister-works ; for this very reason they are commonly spoken of as the " Synoptic " Gospels. Now it is allowed on all sides that the Synoptic Gospels are continually in an agreement which ex tends from range of content to order of arrangement, Conybeare's contemptuous allusion (Myth, Magic, and Morals, p. 140) ; XAAon's Jesus Christ. 1 Cf. Lk. i. 1-4. 2 Eusebius, H.E. vi. 14. B 18 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS from style to substance, from form to verbal coinci dence. It is equally agreed — it was recognized in very early days — that there are points of difference not less numerous and quite as strange. Now the Synoptists go hand in hand, and now they part com pany. They fall out with one another. Discrepancy becomes downright contradiction.1 In short, the admixture of likeness and unlikeness, singular as it is, really constitutes the Synoptic Problem. Primarily, no doubt, the problem is concerned with purely literary questions as to the origin, manner of composition, mutual relations, of the First Three Gospels. But the field becomes wider ; momentous issues are in volved. With a view to brevity we content ourselves with results of Synoptic study in regard to main points only. Rearrangement of order is necessitated. One of the Synoptic Gospels, very nearly the whole of it, reappears in the remaining two ; it is the one which stands second in the Canon ; Mark is now generally regarded as the earliest of the three. Its author, though not by any means necessarily of the Gospel in the exact form in which we have it, was, it may be, " John whose surname was Mark " ; quite possibly it was composed at Rome ; the date is not earlier than A.D. 64 or 65, not many months later than A.D. 70. Whether John Mark or not, its author had recourse to a variety of sources ; to what, perhaps, he had heard from Peter ; to a fly-sheet document of which more hereafter ; for his last six chapters he may have availed himself of other written sources ; oral tradition :Cf. Mt. xxviii. 8, Lk. xxiv. 9, Mk. xvi. 8. THE SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS 19 would be freely used ; something must be attributed to the author himself. His Gospel continually reveals " the way in which disciples of disciples of Jesus told to one another such stories of the ministry of Our Lord as they remembered in the light of all that had happened during the momentous thirty or forty years which succeeded the Crucifixion."1 A further conclusion follows. The Marcan Gospel — whether Mark in the exact form in which we have it 2 or in different recensions of an original Mark s — ("Ur-Marcus ") was itself one of two main sources for the two later Evanglists.4 Herein, perhaps, we must see testimony to the value already attached to it ; on the other hand, the very free way in which the later Evangelists handle it is proof that it was not yet regarded as a sacred work. They prune down, they polish, they alter, as they think fit. We pass on. Alike largely dependent on Mark, the later Synoptists agree in reporting much that finds no place in our Second Gospel. They have here drawn largely on a second main source ; a document (" Q ")5 which, long ago swallowed up in their respec tive works, consisted — not by any means exclusively — of recorded Sayings of Jesus. Compiled at a very early date, whether prior to or subsequent to Mark is 1 Burkitt, Gosp. Hist, and its Transmission, p. 62. It may be added with Wrede (Das Messiasgeheimnis, pp. 6f.), that "die Erzahlungen des Markus etwas wesentlich anderes sind ais an Ort und Stelle auf- genommene Protokolle des Lebens Jesu." 2Wellhausen, Einl. in die drei Ersten Evang., p. 57. 3 Cf. Stanton, Gospels as Hist. Documents, ii. p. 203. 4Jahn (ifber die Person Jesu, pp. xi, 123), labouring to revive and establish the conclusions of the Tubingen school — to the effect that Mt. and Lk. were used by Mk. — will find few to allow that he has proved his case. 5 From the German Quelle, a source. 20 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS a moot point,1 it may have originated at Jerusalem ; perhaps it is traceable to the Apostle Matthew. As with Mark so with Q, it has been very freely handled by the later Synoptists. There is still a remainder to be accounted for, matter peculiar to one or other of the two later Synoptic Gospels. Here their authors are dependent on other written sources which are unknown to us ; on floating oral tradition. Whatever the exact nature of such material, the probability is that it has met with treatment similar to that already noted in the case of Mark and O. Can we establish the identity of the First and Third Evangelists ? As for the former, whoever he was, he was certainly not the Apostle Matthew ; con jecture points to some unknown Christian who made so large a use of the Matthaean Collection of Sayings (Q) that in course of time the Apostle's name was connected with his work.2 It was composed, quite possibly, at a comparatively late date. As for the Third Gospel (with the companion-volume Acts) we may accept — not altogether without hesitation — the Lucan authorship. Its date is an open question ; a little before or not long after A.D. 70 ? the turn of the first century?3 It originated somewhere on Greek soil.4 We turn from the Synoptics 5 to the remaining Gospel. 1 Wellhausen attaches the priority to Mk. , Harnack to Q. 2Cf. Plummer, St. Matthew, pp. *, xxxif. s If, as Burkitt (Gosp. Hist., p. 106) contends and Wellhausen (Einl., p. 63) disbelieves, the author had read Josephus. 1 von Soden, Urchristl. Literaturgeschichte, p. 91. 5 For my remarks on the Syn. Gospels I have ventured to fall back THE SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS 21 " The Gospel according to St. John." The tradi tion which assigns it to John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, is persistent ; scholars of the front rank are still content to accept the traditional authorship. Weighty are the arguments advanced, yet they fall short of conviction ; reasons are both numerous and cogent for setting it aside. Who, then, was the Fourth Evangelist ? A conjecture fixes on a dis ciple of John of Ephesus ; and the latter may or may not be that " beloved disciple " who somehow refuses to be identified with the Apostle John. There is no certain answer. Whoever the author was he wrote at a relatively late date, for the Synoptic Gospels were known to him,1 and at least one of them may not be earlier than the close of the first century. From the vexed question of authorship2 we turn on my contribution to the Cambridge Biblical Essays, and a paper read by me at the Belfast Church Conference, 1910. Let it be added that Harnack (Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfas- sungszeit der Syn. Evangelien) contends for the relatively early date of all three Gospels. 1Julicher, Einleitung, p. 355. "Das I. Jahrhundert ist dem Joh durch seine Abhangigkeit verschlossen. So erscheint 100-125 a's die empfehlungswerteste Datierung." Bauer, H.B.N.T., II. ii. 5. 2 If in my Fourth Gospel and some recent German Criticism I did little more than open up the question generally for ordinary readers my own conviction was, and is, that, on the assumption that the Gospel is a unity, the traditional authorship is, to say the least, hard to uphold. But is it really a unity ? If not — and here I cannot be unmindful of what is urged by Wellhausen, Wendt, E. Schwarz, and Spitta — there remains the possibility of a " Grundschrift " which some might trace to the son of Zebedee. But it is said that this, " in view of the uniform character of the work, must be regarded as more than doubtful " (Scott, Histor. and Relig. Value of the Fourth Gospel, pp. i8f. To the same effect W. Bauer, H.B.N.T., II. iii.; Bousset, R.G.G., iii. 6,17), while there is no doubt whatever in the 22 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS to the " noble work " itself. The sharp contrast between it and the Synoptic Gospels is at once apparent to the ordinary reader. It disagrees with them to the extent of downright contradiction ; 1 if the scene in the one case be chiefly laid in Galilee, in the other it is transferred to Judaea ; the duration of the ministry is so extended as to include several Passovers. As marked is the contrast in respect of subject-matter, theme, style, conception ; in the one case there is the Synoptic Jesus with His pithy sayings, aphorisms, parables ; in the other the Johannine Christ who is for ever discoursing of Himself in a terminology which savours of the schools. Strangely uniform is the note struck by the personages who figure in the Gospel ; and the conclusion that the Fourth Evangelist has " fashioned a speech peculiar to his school," 2 and then made them one and all hold converse in it is inevitably suggested. It must be said of the Fourth Gospel that it is not, in the strict modern sense of the word, history. Its author, no doubt, had access to genuine traditions, but he has made them subservient to his own pur- mind of B. Weiss, who raises protest against the " vivisection " of the Fourth Gospel in his Johannesevangelium ais einheitliches Werk geschichtlich erklart. Should, however, those who contend that the Gospel as we have it is based on an earlier writing prove their case, it would by no means follow that the " Grundschrift " in question was from the hand of the Apostle John, although it might be referred to a disciple of the Lord. An exhaustive treatment of the whole question may be expected from Dr. Stanton. xAs, e.g., in the dating of the Cleansing of the Temple and of the Crucifixion. In this latter case, however, the Johan. dating may be latent in the Syn. Records; cf. Mk. xiv. 2, Lk. xxii. 15. ' von Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Prim. Church, p. 222. THE SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS 23 poses ; the great drama unfolded by him is a revela tion of the workings of his own mind ; x he makes his characters give expression to what in reality are his own thoughts. If his Gospel enshrines true words of Jesus which might otherwise have been lost to us, their setting is that of one who, like other devout and reverent Christians of his day, has not scrupled to fashion speeches on the lines of what Jesus might be supposed to say and to place them in his master's mouth.2 For the moment we stop short here. Time- honoured theories of inspiration — the " helps " of bygone days — are seen to break down hopelessly before phenomena presented by writings of not one of which can it be positively affirmed that it comes direct from an eye-witness of the Ministry.3 Their respective authors, writing at a date when decades have elapsed since the Death of Jesus, write in all good faith. All the same they illustrate the literary standards, usages, sanctions, of a remote period ; its beliefs and conceptions. The material gleaned, freely handled and embroidered by them, is of unequal value. In part it goes back to apostolic times and to the days of Jesus ; in part its nature is such as to suggest the need of caution, and is fre quently occasion of distrust.4 As for the later Gospels, 1,1 Die Dogmatik des Evangelisten. '' Jahn, Uber die Person Jesu, P- '39- 2 Burkitt, Two Lectures, pp. 66, 71. 3 Even if the veavlfficos of Mk. xiv. 51 be the Evangelist himself (or, as Erbes conjectures, the "beloved disciple"), his experiences would be confined to the last days of the Ministry. Cf. Burkitt, Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 85 f. 1 A. W. Robinson, discussing the situation in regard to critical investi- 24 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS many a genuine recollection of the Life and Ministry is, unquestionably, contained in them,1 yet the decided preference must be given to the Marcan Gospel and to the collection of Sayings which is embedded in the First and the Third Gospels. We conclude accordingly that, albeit questions may be raised on the score of their trustworthiness,2 Mark and Q are our earliest sources for the Life of Jesus. II. The recorded Sayings of Jesus. Of such Sayings a comparatively large store remains. It is scantier than we could wish — what of the many utterances which must have come from the lips of Jesus of which all record has been lost ? We have but a fraction ; but it might well be smaller than it is. Our Gospels, the Fourth Gospel in par ticular, are, after all, crowded with discourse matter, while to turn to other New Testament writings is now and again to meet with a reported Saying of the Lord. Nor may we forget the so-called " Agrapha " — reported sayings which occur in sources (of vary ing date and often of very small value) outside the Canonical Scriptures.3 Recorded Sayings. Sayings, that is, which, where- gation of the Bible generally (Spiritual Progress, pp. 91 f.), is not alto gether happy with his illustration, and, fain to reassure his readers, minimizes results. JWrede, Messiasgeheimnis, pp. 241 f. : "Dassjiingere Schriften das sachlich Altere bieten, darf niemals Wunder nehmen. " 2Wrede, op. cit., p. 131: "Das Markusevangelium . . . gehort in die Dogmengeschichte " ; Wellhausen, Einl. in die drei Ersten Evang. , p. 88: "In Q steht Jesus selber von Anfang an seiner Gemeinde gegenuber, die sich erst in Jerusalem konstituirte." 3 See Hastings, D.B., v. 343 ff. THE SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS 25 ever found — and keeping within the limits of the New Testament — are attributed to Jesus. What of their genuineness? Are they, or are they not, Sayings which, . in substance if not in form, did actually come from Him ? In attempting some answer to this grave question, attention must now be directed to processes of trans mission and translation. A first consideration is that Jesus and His disciples habitually spoke in Aramaic. That, as Galileans, they had a colloquial acquaintance with Greek is certain ; 1 the conjecture is permissible that, able to read Greek, Jesus did on occasion discourse in Greek.2 The ordinary vehicle of conversation for Himself and His disciples was, however, the Semitic dialect, which, then current in Palestine,3 resembled Hebrew very much as modern Dutch bears a like ness to modern English.4 It accordingly follows that whatever recorded Saying of Jesus has the stamp of substantial genuineness would be spoken in Aramaic in the first instance.5 In Aramaic it would be listened to, remembered, handed on. But in what way? We are met by an interesting conjecture. Start ing from the undoubted fact that in ancient times the use of the pen was a matter, not of " precise education," but of " common knowledge," this con- 1 Cf. Mayor, St. James, pp. xii f. 2 Plummer, St. Matthew, p. xxv. 3 Burkitt, Two Lectures, p. 72. 4 Kennett, In Our Tongues, p. 105. 6 Cf. Archdeacon Allen's essay on The Aramaic Background of the Gospels in O.S.S.P. A few Aramaic words linger on in our English Bible, e.g. Abba, Talitha cumi, Ephphatha. 26 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS jecture instances a disciple who, as tax-collector, had been occupied in writing tax-receipts, and the suggestion follows that the pen of Matthew-Levi found new employment when notes, memoranda, of the words of Jesus were taken down on the spot by the practised scribe.1 It may be so, but it is most unlikely. If Matthew really had a hand in Q (or the nucleus of Q) it would not be until a considerably later period. The conjecture, again, is too suggestive of modern methods.2 Jesus Himself wrote nothing. The theory of memoranda taken down at the time by one or other of His hearers is incapable of proof. Weightier by far are arguments from the trained and retentive memories of those who listened attentively and eagerly to the spoken Aramaic words, yet such arguments may not be unduly pressed. The atmo sphere, it must be remembered, was not that of the Rabbinic schools ; 8 Jesus, perhaps, was not too solicitous that His every utterance should be stereo typed on His disciples' minds ; they, His disciples, had none of them received a Rabbi's education. If this is borne in mind, the appeal is justified to powers of memory rarely met with in modern life, and then chiefly in the child or in adults who have had but little " schooling." 4 1 Flinders Petrie, Growth of the Gospels, pp. 5 f. 2 "Jesus was not followed by stenographists." Montefiore, Syn. Gospels, ii. p. 901. 3 The scholar, taught by constant repetition to fix the oral teaching of the Rabbis in his mind, was expected to hand it on in precisely the same form ; hence it was said of an apt pupil : " He is like the well- plastered cistern from which no drop can escape." * J. Weiss, S.N.T., i. p. 54. THE SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS 27 There is something more. What came from Jesus was assuredly calculated to rivet the attention.1 The point is not, however, solely of " oriental proverb- wisdom in its popular form," 2 or of parables of beauty and of inward truth," 3 or of the paradox at once startling and concise. Let us remark in par ticular that, addressing Himself continually to simpler folk, the words of Jesus fell on singularly receptive soil and would strike deep root in it. In considerations such as the foregoing there is some guarantee for the genuineness of recorded Sayings. But we may not stop here ; other con siderations have now to be taken into account. The possibility must be reckoned with that this or that Saying might undergo changes in the hearers' minds : they would remember its substance, but not its exact form. They would pass it on to others ; it would not be always the original utterance itself, but rather the utterance as distilled from the alembic of their own minds. Received at second-hand and again repeated, it would be transmitted with fresh modi fications. At every successive stage the probability of variation is enhanced. The Recorded Sayings of Jesus have, then, a long history. They have simmered in many minds ; they have passed from mouth to mouth. That they should be one and all Sayings exactly as they originally came from Jesus is, on the face of it, most unlikely. The substance may have survived, yet not necessarily the form ; the form, again, may have undergone such 1 Thus Justin Mart., Apol., i. 1 8 : "No trifling sophist was He." 2Holtzmann, Einl., pp. 430 ff. 3 Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 1. 28 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS transformation as to alter and impair the substance. As one or other Saying was transmitted with varia tions its several versions might assume shape and form as originally distinct Sayings.1 Yet more considerations. Men would ask : " What would Jesus have said ? " — as answers came : " Surely He would have said this or that " conjecture might merge into positive statement : " This is the word He actually spoke." He freely availed Himself of the familiar proverb, not to say of the Rabbinic maxim ; it might, then, come about that the mere citation would be deemed original in His lips. If, " Master of the Parable,"2 He was wont to explain His parables, some explanation really belonging to a later period might be viewed as His.3 Some inci dent might be related to Him ; a pointed remark then and there elicited might, long afterwards, be expanded into a parable ; 4 on the other hand, a parable might in time become the story which — connected, perhaps, with some familiar object — was entirely destitute of fact.6 And again, Jesus was familiar with the Old Testament (not to speak of other then current Jewish literature). So were His disciples ; they thought in terms of the Old Testament. With the lapse of time they, quite unconsciously, might make Him responsible for 'The Parable of the Talents (Mt. xxv. 14 ff.) is perhaps identical with the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. xix. 11 ff.). 2Bousset,_/ "in euermBereich." According to Scott (op. cit., p. log) the Saying " expresses in vivid dramatic fashion, the nearness of the Kingdom and the unexpectedness of its coming." For a discussion of the "famous verses" see Montefiore, op. cit., ii. pp. ioi2ff. "E.g., The Grain of Mustard seed (Mk. iv. 30 ff. = Mt. xiii. 3if.= Lk. xiii. i8f.) ; The Leaven (Mt. xiii. 33 = Lk. xiii. 20 f.) ; The Seed in its secret growth (Mt. iv. 26 ff. only). So Feine, op. cit., p. 99. 5 iv dwd/iei (Mk. ix. 1. But cf. Mt. xvi. 28, Lk. ix. 27). 6 Montefiore, op. cit. , i. p. 209. 7 So Joh. Weiss, S.N. T, i. p. 154. 44 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS stand.1 That the former conception, that of a Kingdom which had yet to come, weighed down the balance is a safe conclusion, and one which is strongly supported by a certainly genuine Saying which be longs to the closing scenes : " I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God."2 He, Jesus, appa rently can contemplate a delay ; 3 not, therefore, a prolonged delay. The " at hand " of the Proclama tion is emphatic ; still more emphatic is the declara tion : " there be some of them that stand here, which shall in nowise taste of death, till they see the King dom of God." 4 The thought of '' an extension of the Church through a long period of history upon earth " would in any case be as foreign to the mind of Jesus as it was foreign to the mind of Paul.5 To pass on : what does Jesus say as to conditions and qualifications for entrance into the Kingdom, membership in the Kingdom ? Again we become 1 Feine, op. cit. , p. 99. 2Mk. xiv. 25 = Mt. xxvi. 25 = Lk. xxii. 18. "That the prevailing conception of Jesus was that of a future Kingdom seems to admit of little doubt or question." Scott, op. cit., p. no. Percy Gardner (Relig. Ex perience of St. Paul, p. 131) emphatically dissents : " to Jesus the King dom was primarily present and secondarily future." 3 Thus, perhaps, in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman (Lk. xx. 9 ff. ); thus again in the Lucan introduction (Lk. xix. 11) to the Parable of the Pounds, which is, perhaps, another version of the Parable of the Talents (Mt. xxv. 14 ff.). 4Lk. ix. 27 — where the iv Svv&fiet of the Marcan parallel is omitted. The Matthaean report (Mt. xvi. 28) runs thus : "till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom," but the meaning is identical. That we have here a substantially genuine Saying of Jesus is nearly certain. 6 von Dobschiitz, Significance of Early Christian Eschatology, in Report o(O.C.H.R.,-p. 313. GENERAL SURVEY 45 aware of ambiguity ; of diversity of conception on the part of One who makes an imperative demand for repentance : " the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent ye."1 As the demand, presumably, is addressed to all who hear, the assumption lies near that the gates of the Kingdom will be thrown wide open without distinction to all who qualify themselves by repentance of the sort which Jesus demands. Only, then, state ments are met with which, suggesting that He cannot conceive of the Kingdom otherwise than in the framing of the Holy Land,2 suggest that His thought is of an essentially Jewish Kingdom. He refers His mandate to His own people.3 There is a ring of exclusiveness in Sayings which, recorded as they are by an Evan gelist who emphasizes the universality of the Gospel, are the harder to reject,4 while the words placed in the mouth of the disciples by the author of Luke- Acts (Lk. xxiv. 2 1 ; Acts i. 6) are at least suggestive that Jesus conceived of His mission as restricted to the Jews. On the other hand, there are Sayings not easily discredited which, implicitly, suggest a wider outlook, and which overleap nationality and barriers of race. As we find it said of little children : " of such is the Kingdom of God " ; 5 as we read further : " Not everyone that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth 'For the significance of the demand, vid. Feine, op. cit., p. 105. 2 J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu, p. 113. 3 P. W. Schmidt, Geschichte Jesu, ii. p. 349. " Mt. x. 5, xv. 24. Cf. Pfleiderer, op. cit. , ii. p. 335 ; Hollmann, Welche Relig. hatten die Juden ais Jesus auftrat ? p. 38 ; Allen, S. Matthew, p. 101. 5Mk. a. i4 = Mt. xix. 14 (cf. Mt. xviii. 3) = Lk. xviii. 16 f. 46 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS the will of My Father which is in heaven " ; 1 as we remark the significance of the Beatitudes ; our con clusion will, perhaps, be this, that while Jesus limited His activities to His own people, He declined, at least in thought, to see in the Jew, and the Jew only, the destined inheritor of the Kingdom so close at hand. There is room for the conjecture that He allows, if tacitly, equal rights and privileges to the non-Jew — the Gentile world.2 There is, then, a note of universalism in, at any rate, the thought of Jesus ; what about a note of pessimism ? It is latent, perhaps, in words which tell of members of His own nation excluded from the Kingdom.3 He feels, it may be, that those who in character are even as a little child are after all rare plants in the garden of God.4 He can speak of a narrow gate and a straitened way — He can add : " few be they that find it." 6 In what are, perhaps, adapted words He can say : " many are called, but few chosen." 6 That Jesus did so express Himself is quite credible ; but whether He really " seems to have believed that the numbers who would be ' lost ' . . . would be (to our ideas) painfully large " 7 is scarcely susceptible of proof. Again we pass on. That certain qualifications are 1 Mt. vii. 21. Cf. Lk. vi. 46. 2 Haupt, Eschat. Aussagen, p. 100. The attitude of Jesus to Samari tans is very significant. 3Mt. viii. n = Lk. xiii. 28. Cj. Bousset, Jesus, p. 92; J. Weiss, op. cit., p. 102. 4J. Weiss, op. cit., p. 133. 6Mt. vii. 13 f. Cf. Lk. xiii. 24. 0 Mt. xxii. 14. Cf. 2 Esdras viii. 3. 7 Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. xcviii. GENERAL SURVEY 47 essential for participation in the Kingdom is beyond doubt. The question now is whether, in the con ception of Jesus, the Kingdom itself can be hastened and brought in as the direct consequence of any human striving, any action on the part of man ? At first sight we are prompted to answer in the negative. To revert to the petition " Thy Kingdom come " ; here the idea is, unquestionably, of divine intervention,1 if not of the decisive act of God alone. We turn to a Saying the substantial genuineness of which may be admitted : " fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom " ; 2 — the Kingdom, that is, is unmistakably conceived of as the gift of God : " Only those who, on the one hand, made the utmost sacrifices in the right spirit will enter the Kingdom. And, on the other hand, the Kingdom would be given as a gift to those who by nature and grace were fitted to receive it."3 There is truth in the assertion that, in the thought of Jesus, " no human being can aid God." 4 Yet as we remark that, in the firm belief of Jesus, God was desirous of and responsive to the insistent prayer of faith, we decide thus : He, Jesus, was persuaded that, while the Kingdom would be brought in by God, its coming might nevertheless be hastened as the result of man's effort.5 Yet one point more. Where does Jesus locate this Kingdom of God which is for Him future yet so close *J. Weiss, op. cit., p. 160 : "ein gottliches Eingreifen." And see Feine, op. cit., pp. 96, 100. 2 Lk. xii. 32 only. 3 Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 59. 4 Bousset, Relig. desjudentums, p. 203. 6 This is admirably brought out by Scott (op. cit., pp. 136-144). 48 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS at hand ? What of the scene in which the reign of God was shortly to manifest itself? In a passage peculiar to the First Gospel (Mt. xix. 28) mention is made of "the regeneration" (in the Greek ¦jrakiyyevecrla). Whether the Saying in question really comes from Jesus is perhaps doubtful ; 1 the idea contained in the word instanced, that of a reno vation of the whole world, is certainly met with in other utterances of substantial genuineness. One such utterance, quite possibly, is embedded in the " Little Apocalypse " ; 2 on the assumption that the words " heaven and earth shall pass away " really came from Him, His thought would surely be of a renovated world, of a new social order on a transfigured earth. To revert once more to the petition, " Thy Kingdom come " ; it is suggestive of a coming on what was still the scene and sphere of the reign of Satan. The words " Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth," may or may not be the amplification of a later period,3 but in any case they are in exact keeping with others which appear to indicate this earth as the destined scene of a reign of God, of a new order brought down from heaven to earth. In that new order, as conceived of by Jesus, there are to be thrones of honour and of rule, distinctions of rank (Mt. xi. 11), exalted seats are reserved for some (Mk. x. 40), the members of a chosen band are to sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt. xix. 28 = Lk. xxii. 30).4 That 1 Shailer Matthews, Messianic Hope, p. 79. Cf. Lk. xxii. 28 ff. 2Mk. xiii. 31. Cf. Mt. v. i8 = Lk.xvi. 17; S.N.T., i. p. 199. 3Cf. S.N.T., i. p. 288 ; Feine, op. cit., p. 95. 4S.N.T., i. p. 357; Feine, op. cit., p. 113. But cf. P. W. Schmidt, Geschichte Jesu, ii. pp. 64, 136: "Kein Jesuswort." GENERAL SURVEY 49 His thought is of a Jewish nation purified and reno vated is suggested by the Saying : " many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down (i.e. recline at table) with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven." 1 A new Palestine, it might seem, is the destined locality of the Kingdom; a new Jerusalem — " the city of the great King " (Mt. v. 35) — its capital and ruling centre. On the one hand He, Jesus, is altogether silent as to gates of pearl and golden streets ; on the other hand, utter ances appear to come from Him which refuse to be explained away as purely figurative.2 He refrains from details ; He can yet speak of " eternal life " as in store for those who shall enter in.3 His conception throughout is mainly — not perhaps exclusively — of a Kingdom to come down from above. To come down soon — of that He is quite certain. But the exact " when " is hidden from Him ; it is a secret which is known to God alone (Mk. xiii. 32)/ Thus much, for the time being, as to the conceptions of Jesus relative to that Kingdom of God which was His absorbing thought. 1Mt. viii. n = Lk. xiii. 29. Sc. at the Messianic feast. 2 Feine, op. cit., pp. ii4f. 3Mk. x. 30= Mt. xx. 29 = Lk. xviii. 30. The words which speak of abundant recompense in the age which now is may be of doubtful genuineness; scarcely those which contain the promise of "eternal life "? (S.N. T., i. p. 172). What, then, does the Synoptic Jesus mean by " eternal life " ? No exact definition comes from Him ; an infer ence might be that His thought is of full communion with God under conditions where death has ceased to be. With the Johannine Christ "eternal life" is identified with knowledge (John xvii, 3). "A verse which, in the opinion of Shailer Mathews (Messianic Hope, p. 117), "sounds much like a gloss or editorial comment." Its genuine ness is far more likely. D 50 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS II. What Jesus held respecting Resurrection, Judg ment, the Hereafter generally. I. Resurrection. Jesus takes the resurrection for granted. It is evidently connected by Him with the subject of His Proclamation ; we might note, by anticipation, that it is equally connected with the idea of final judgment.1 Our business is with Sayings about resurrection ; the beliefs and conceptions which they appear to indicate. Here the crucial passage is that which relates the dilemma proposed by the Sadducees and the reply of Jesus.2 According to the former, the Law of Moses has nothing whatever to say about resurrection, so neither have they ; the doctrine, in short, is rejected by them : " Sadducees who say there is no resurrec tion." They are convicted of error ; that which they deny Jesus affirms : " when they rise from the dead " — " as touching the dead that they rise." If the passage as a whole be open to suspicion,3 it at least witnesses to His fixed belief on the main point. According to Jesus, then, " the dead " are to " rise "; to rise, that is, at a resurrection. The question is : who precisely are indicated ? In other words, is the thought of a general resurrection, or of a resurrection in which some, and some only, are to participate ? 'Feine, op. cit., pp. 113, 156. But cf. E.B., ii. 1375. 2Mk. xii. 25 ff. = Mt. xxii. 30 ff. = Lk. xx. 35 ff. According to N. Schmidt (Prophet of Nazareth, p. 283) the answer of Jesus "showed that He did not hold the common Pharisaic view," but "believed that those who were accounted worthy of a resurrection were raised im mediately after death." Schneider (Jesus ais Philosoph, p. 16) evidently thinks that, in the mind of Jesus, the resurrection was no more than a bare contingency. "S.N.T., i. 187; Montefiore, Syn. Gosp., i. 286. GENERAL SURVEY 51 The latter theory finds support in Sayings peculiar to the Third Evangelist; thus in the section already instanced : " they that are accounted worthy to attain to . . . the resurrection from the dead " (Lk. xx. 3 5 ) ; thus in an express allusion to " the resurrection of the just" (Lk. xiv. 14).1 Were the genuineness of the Sayings well assured the conclusion would naturally be that Jesus looked for a resurrection of the right eous dead only : " in the resurrection, therefore, the wicked have no part." 2 It might even seem, although this is not likely,3 that the thought of Jesus is of two resurrections — in which case we should remark a distinction between "the resurrection of the. just" and that of " the righteous and the wicked." 4 But while the appeal to such Sayings is not exactly safe,6 there are others, not far to seek, which point — not altogether certainly — in the opposite direction ; if by implication the men of Nineveh were to be included in the resurrection (Mt. xii. 41 f. = Lk. xi. 3 if), sinners as well as righteous might possibly be among them.6 What Jesus really held on this point is not easy to determine. A tentative conclusion might be that He anticipated a general resurrection ; 7 and here 1 Cf. I Thess. iv. 15 : " The dead in Christ shall rise first." But when Paul prefaces his remarks with tovto yap i/uv \iyo/j.ev iv \6yif Kvplov, he is appealing, not to any Word actually spoken on earth, but to some "revelation." 'E.B., ii. 1375 ; O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, 435 note. 3 " Es fehlt jede Spur von einer doppelten Auferstehung," J. Weiss, op. cit., p. 111. 4Cf. H. J. Holtzman, H.C.N.T., i. 381. 6 Lk. xix. 14 is perhaps " ein Fremdkdrper im Synoptischen Text " (P. W. Schmidt, op. cit., ii. p. 144). 6 Yet it is affirmed that they " repented at the preaching of Jonah." ¦>R.G.G.,i. 762. 52 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS an appeal, perhaps, lies to a Saying of the Johannine Christ : " the hour cometh in which all that are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth " (Jn. v. 28). * Jesus, then, expects a resurrection. How, we ask next, does He conceive of resurrection-conditions ; " with what manner of body," according to Him, are the dead to rise ? An answer comes from a section already instanced : " when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor or given in marriage ; but are as angels in heaven " ; 2 on the assumption of substantial genuineness it might be fairly urged " that what Jesus here dwells on is the inadequacy of human power for the apprehension of a world which cannot be compared with the present. Those who rise from the dead belong to a higher world ; that world man, with all his penetration and learning, does not under stand." s Or again : " those who share in that risen life will have bodies other than they had on earth."4 Or again : " the conditions of the resurrection life are unlike those of the present life." 6 Jesus, then, declines to think of a " mere continuation of the earthly, cor poreal existence, including the marriage tie . . . the risen would be like the angels in heaven, and there fore would enjoy a higher form of existence, freed 1 It may be that this Saying, so nearly related to the Synoptic repre sentation, is based on some genuine utterance of Jesus. The contrast between it and the significant reply to Martha placed by the Fourth Evangelist in His lips in the story of the Raising of Lazarus : " I am the resurrection " (Jn. xi. 25), is remarkable. aMk. xii. 25. Luke amplifies: "neither can they die any more" (Lk. xx. 36). 3 O. Holtzman, Life ofjestis, p. 435. iS.N.T., i. p. 186. 5 Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 285. GENERAL SURVEY 53 from the earthly body." x No word comes from Him as to a resurrection of the flesh " ; 2 He has, indeed, been held to suggest that " in the life of the resurrec tion a man's outward form is the same which he had when he died " : " it is good for thee to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye " ; 3 one eye plucked out in this life, hence one eye only for the resurrec tion-body. The risen body, it might be said, is appa rently conceived of as performing similar functions to the earthly body ; thus, e.g. in the allusion to those who are to sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob at a common meal ; 4 thus again (if the refer ence really be to the resurrection and not to what would happen while the disciples were still alive), in the Saying attributed to Jesus : " that ye may eat and drink at my table." s The question then is : how much in all this is imagery and how much literal fact ? To spiritualize throughout would be rash ; we are not necessarily driven to take everything in its baldest sense. In any case, we refuse to dogmatize too hastily on the strength of the Sayings instanced ; well has it been said : " realistic interpretation is out of place ; it is the way of expressing supreme happi ness, which Jesus is using for something which is far beyond the literal sense of the words." 6 Yet we are constrained to add : " it remains problematical in what form Jesus thought of the resurrection." 7 1 Pfleiderer, op. cit. , ii. p. 59. 2 J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu, p. no; R.G.G., i. 762. 3 Mk. ix. 47 ; cf. Mt. v. 29. One of the "doubly-attested Sayings'' (Burkitt, Gospel Hist., p. 158L ). And see Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 232. 4Mt. viii. n = Lk. xiii. 29. 6 Lk. xxii. 30. "von Dobschiitz, Exp., March, 1910, p. 209. 7 Pfleiderer, op. cit., ii. p. 415. 54 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS One other point. Is the resurrection altogether indispensable in the thought of Jesus? That He could conceive of the new life entered apart from a resurrection is to be inferred from a Parable (Dives and Lazarus, Lk. xvi. 1 9 ff.) which tells of men, por trayed with all the distinctive features of corporeal existence,1 who had actually entered the new life at the hour of death,2 while a similar conclusion might be drawn from the beautiful episode of the Penitent Thief (Lk. xxiii. 39 ff.).3 The probability must be reckoned with that there was really such a second conception on the part of Jesus. Absolute uniformity of conception is not met with in Him.4 2. Judgment. It has been observed already that the Kingdom of God, its near approach, was the central feature in the proclamation of Jesus. Let us remark here that, even if it be true that the words "believe in the Gospel" (Mk. i. 15) belong to a day when the term " Gospel " had been coined and become general,5 hints are not wanting that the message brought by Him was mainly conceived of as a " glad tidings." The fact remains that the sharp " repent ye " of the proclamation strikes a note which, deepen- XJ. Weiss, Predigt Jesu, p. no. But cf. Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden,\\. p. 623. 2 Montefiore, op. cit., ii. p. 1003; S.N.T., i. p. 489. 3 That the story is strictly historical is open to grave doubt ; it is in the teeth of Mk. xv. 32. For questions raised by it with regard to the Resurrection of Jesus, the Ascension, see S.N.T., i. p. 521 ; cf. H. J. Holtzmann, H.C.N.T., i. p. 419. "Cf. Knopf, Zukunflshoffungen, p. 41 ; Feine, op. cit., p. 113. 5 Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 41 ; Wellhausen, Einl., p. 109. Is it really unsafe to refer the term to Jesus Himself, nor yet only on the strength of 1 Cor. ix. 15? GENERAL SURVEY 55 ing with later stages of the ministry, is significant of a coming day of wrath, of repentance as means of escape from impending doom. To a very large extent, no doubt, there is a marked contrast between Jesus and the Baptist. If the latter's thought be of the sword of omnipotence, that of Jesus is of grace and mercy ; 1 demanding repentance (with demands which go far deeper than the Baptist's), His conception is not so much of doom to be escaped as of fitness to obtain blessings.2 He nevertheless took up and con tinued the Baptist's teaching as likewise persuaded that " a day of the Lord " was at hand ; 3 the note struck by Him is equally a note of Judgment. He assumes the Judgment as a matter of course. Thus, when He says : " it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city " (Mt. x. 1 5 = Lk. x. 12); " it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you " (Mt. xi. 22, 24 = Lk. x. 14). That there will come, and come soon, a " day " which is emphatically " that day," a day which will be the " day of judgment," is His fixed belief. When the Johannine Christ speaks of the "last day" (Jn. vi. 39 f.), He equally alludes to "the day of judgment." " The nearness of the Kingdom of Heaven (or of God) means for Jesus, as it meant for the Baptist, the nearness of the judgment." * That the two 1 P. W. Schmidt, Geschichte Jesu, i. p. 40. 2 Cf. Barth, op. cit., p. 46 ; Montefiore, op. cit., ii. p. 463. 8 J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu, p. 68. Yet it is true to say of Him : " er Hess diese Parole nicht immer wieder in die Ohren der Horer gellen." Wellhausen, I.J.G., p. 374. "O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, p. 171. Yet Mt. iii. 3 notwithstand- 56 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS things are bound up together in the mind of Jesus is evident from Mk. ix. 43 ff. ;x where the idea is a verdict delivered, of sentence pronounced, at the coming of the new era. As in the parables, so here, we are pointed to " the end of the world." If the explanation of the Parable of the Tares and Wheat (Mt. xiii. 37 ff.) belongs to a later period, the words of the parable itself — " in the time of harvest " — of precisely similar .significance to " the consummation of the age " of the Parable of the Net cast into the sea (Mt. xiii. 47) — may surely be referred to Jesus. In the words : " so shall it be in the end of the world ; the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the righteous " (Mt. xiii. 49), we have at all events the reflection of His own belief. Who, then, are to be judged ? The Jewish nation certainly ; allusion is expressly made to Jews who will be " shut out " (Mk. viii. 1 1). With the Parable of the Talents (or Pounds) the vista widens ; there are no specifically Jewish features in " the servants " of the parable. It becomes wider still in the picture of the Great Assize (Mt. xxv. 31 ff.) : that the inclusive " all the nations " is actually based on some genuine utterance of Jesus is rendered probable by a Saying which, already instanced (Mt. xii. 45 f. = Lk. xi. 3 1 f.), points not only to time present but to time past, and takes account of both quick and dead. ing, "it is legitimate to doubt whether the Baptist himself ever spoke of the Kingdom of God" (J. Armitage Robinson, J. T. S. , xiv. p. 199). Jahn (Uber die Person Jesu, p. 4) remarks : " Die Ankiindigung des Reiches Gottes ist wohl aus dem Leben Jesu Mt. iv. 17 in das des Taufers zuriickgetragen." JJ. Weiss, Predigt Jesu, p. 112. GENERAL SURVEY 57 The thought of Jesus is evidently of humanity in the aggregate. It might even be that, on the assump tion that He shares the belief of demons : " art thou come hither to torment us before the time ? " (Mt. viii. 29), the powers of evil are to be included in the judgment. On what will the judgment turn ? Not, it would appear, solely on questions of nationality. Remark ing the distinction between " righteous " and "wicked" (Mt. xiii. 41 f.), we fasten on the Saying : "then shall He render unto every man according to his deeds " (Mt. xvi. 27); it is one which gains in significance when taken in connection with the words : " not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven " (Mt. vii. 2 1 ). As in the picture of the Great Assize, so here ; the exalted moral standard is everything. The question is, in short, of character and conduct ; as for mere professions of orthodox belief, they will avail nothing at the day of judgment.1 Two more questions suggest themselves. The one is : who will be the Judge ? — it shall be reserved for subsequent consideration. The other shall be dis cussed forthwith: what will the verdict carry with it? 3. The Hereafter, as conceived of by Jesus, for " the righteous " and for " the wicked." The Righteous. They are figured by the Wheat (of a Parable already instanced, Mt. xiii. 30), 1 If the Johannine Christ be continually concerned to require belief in Himself, He apparently assumes right conduct in the profound Saying, Jn. iii. 21. For the significance of toiu>v tV aKrfBeiav see von Dob- schtitz, Das Apos. Zeitalter, pp. 68 f. ; Westcott, St. John's Gospel, in loc. 58 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS which, in the time of harvest, will be gathered into the barn ; it is said of them (in the explanation of the Parable) that they shall " shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father." In the world to come their portion is eternal life (Mk. x. 30). " Good and faithful servants " as they have proved themselves, they each one hear it said : " enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." They are to be even as the angels. We ask, perhaps : is full and final blessedness conceived of as at once entered, or as coming when an intervening period of partial bliss has terminated ? A conclusive answer might pos sibly be found in the recorded Saying : " Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world" (Mt. xxv. 34). Where, then, is the scene laid ? In a renovated world, on a transfigured earth? The Wicked. Once more the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares is of deep significance. Plainly does it assert that, like as the Tares are gathered into bundles and burnt, so shall it be with " them that do iniquity " — not to say with evil itself ; they are to be " cast into the furnace of fire : there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Again a note of pessimism is perceptible as Jesus tells of those who are to be cast out from the Kingdom — " cast forth into the outer darkness" (Mt. viii. 11= Lk. xiii. 28). A belief in a " Gehenna," a " Gehenna of fire " — " where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched" (Mk. x. 42 ff.) — is evidently accepted by Him. Unless His conception be of a resurrection in which the wicked are to have no part at all (and this is unlikely), He emphatically points to everjast- GENERAL SURVEY 59 ing punishment for the soul or disembodied spirit in a region of everlasting torment. At the same time, He apparently conceives of degrees of punishment (Lk. xii. 48). If the idea of annihilation is by no means foreign to Him (Mk. viii. 36 = Mt. x. 28), His thought sometimes is of punishment as finite, limited in duration. From what is, perhaps, a con flated passage (Mt. xii. 32 = Lk. xii. 10 ; cf. Mk. iii. 28f.), an inference might be that forgiveness in the next life is not impossible. That the Parable of Dives and Lazarus lends itself to the idea of moral improvement in the hereafter is, however, doubtful. III. The role assigned by Jesus to Himself in the drama of The Last Things. It is clear that, in some way or other, He connects Himself with the Kingdom of His own proclamation. Where He is, there the Kingdom is ; that such is His own belief might be argued from a Saying referred to above : " if I by the spirit (or with the finger) of God cast out devils, no doubt the Kingdom of God is come upon you." The Saying is further suggestive, if not of a special relation to God, of acts performed by Him, at any rate, in the consciousness of a divine mission. We remark the question of the Baptist ; highly significant of current expectations and of impatience, or rather doubt, on the part of the questioner, it elicits a reply which conveys the impression that Jesus identified Himself, if indirectly and with reservations, with an expected personage who is manifestly alluded to by a familiar designation.1 Other designations being met with 'Mt. xi. 2ff. = Lk. vii. i8ff. The story of the Embassy from the 60 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS which, whether applied to Him by others or actually adopted by Himself, are of marked significance, their separate discussion shall be taken in hand. i. The Christ. The familiar use of the wor-d Christ, as a proper name, is traceable to very early days,1 although primarily it is not, of course, a proper name at all, but a title, a designation. As such it was used in the first instance 2 ; — " The Christ " (not simply " Christ " ; in the Greek 6 -^pio-ros) being the rendering, perhaps not altogether adequate,3 of the Hebrew word MASCHIAH (in Aramaic, Mesiha), and this, again, means " The Anointed." The desig nation now under discussion is, then, equivalent to " The Messiah " of contemporary beliefs. Is it a designation which was actually employed and adopted by Jesus, and, if so, in what sense ? An appeal might lie to Mk. i. 34 : " He suffered not the devils to speak because they knew Him " — " knew Him to be the Christ."4 The narrative, be it observed, says no word of any claim explicitly advanced by Jesus ; according to the representation His action is, nevertheless, tantamount to an admission Baptist stood in Q and is doubtless based on fact, if in all probability the Baptist was still at liberty. "The Coming One," if a designation of the Messiah, points back to Ps. cxviii. 26. Mt. xi. 2 expressly connects the phrase with the Messiah, " the works of the Christ," but the reading in D is " the works of Jesus." Yet it is by no means certain that by 6 ipxofievos the Baptist meant the Messiah. For an interesting discussion of the question see Bacon, Exp., x. pp. 1-18. 1 So already with S. Paul. See Barth, op. cit. , p. 245 ; Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 41 ; J. Weiss, Christus, p. 19. 2 The original significance is clear from Acts ii. 36, v. 42, ix. 22. 3 J. Weiss, Christus, p. n. 4 So many ancient authorities. See Lk. iv. 41. GENERAL SURVEY 61 of a fact which, known to the demons,1 He, for some mysterious reason, forbids the demons to disclose. It being urged, however, that we are on unsafe ground with the story,2 we pass on. We may take next the famous passage Mk. viii. 27 ff. = Mt. xvi. 1 3 ff. = Lk. ix. 1 8 ff. It points to a later stage in the Ministry. The scene is laid in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi. Jesus propounds a question and receives an answer. The reports vary ; yet, in spite of contentions to the contrary, the conclusion appears well founded that to a question of Jesus : " who do ye say that I am ? " there actually came a response which is reported with substantial accuracy in the earliest Gospel : " Thou art the Christ." " It is generally admitted that Jesus accepted the messianic title at Caesarea Philippi."3 " Accepted" : — of any claim directly advanced by Him there is again no word ; we might indeed infer some uncertainty on the part of Jesus, a consequent eagerness for reassurance. The strict injunction to secrecy, again, rings strangely. We cannot but ask : if He really knew Himself, or believed Himself, to be the Messiah, why this shrinking from publicity ? wherefore the strict injunction : " He charged them that they should tell no man of Him." Thus Mark. The later Synoptists are more explicit ; it is the fact 1 Barth, op. cit., p. 241. 2 It is rejected by Wrede (Messiasgeheimnis, in loco.). Contemporary beliefs with regard to demons are discussed by Heitmiiller in R.G.G., iii. 370 f. 3Shailer Mathews, Messianic Hope, p. 96 ; Barth, op. cit., pp. 242 f. Wrede, on the other hand, is not willing to hold "das Petrusbe- kenntnis fiir ein geschichtliches Factum" (Messiasgeheimnis, pp. 217, 238). 62 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS of His Messiahship that is to be kept a profound secret. Mark, no doubt, means this. Again we pass on. Are we tempted to pause at Mk. ix. 41, where we read : " because ye are Christ's " (ev Svo/uaTt on wmo-tov ecrre) ? Doubt attaches to the words ; the chances are that with Mt. x. 40 : " in the name of a disciple," we are nearer to the original utterance, while the Marcan version betrays the hand of a later editor.1 That the section Mk. xii. 3 5 ff. (with the Mt. and Lk. parallels) is to the point is obvious ; the significant question : " what think ye of the Christ ? " shall be discussed, however, in connec tion with another designation. The narratives of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, if in the highest degree suggestive,2 shall be considered later on, and we will pass to the closing scenes. It is to see Jesus before Jewish Sanhedrin and Roman procurator,3 to stand by the Cross of Calvary. What of the Marcan report (Mk. xiv. 6 1 ff.) ? The High Priest, we are told, puts a question, and in solemn form : " Art thou the Christ ? " ; the reply of Jesus : " and Jesus said, I am," is nothing short of a formal acknowledgment of His Messiahship.4 In the Mt. parallel (Mt. xxvi. 63 ff.) the question is so worded that Jesus is put on His oath ; if there be no explicit " I am " in His recorded answer, His " thou hast 1 Swete, S. Mark, in loc. ; Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 231. 2 Barth, op. cit. , p. 243 f. 3 Heitmuller (R. G. G., iii 377) declines to attach much weight to what (as he alleges) were merely reports which had got abroad. They find, however, some confirmation in the sentence actually pronounced and carried into effect ? 4 Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 352. GENERAL SURVEY 63 said " has assuredly the force of asseveration.1 The Lucan report, again, varies (Lk. xxii. 67 ff.) ; if the question be practically identical, the " if I tell you ye will not believe " of Jesus, while falling short of a positive assertion, is scarcely equivalent to a " No, I am not." The scene changes to Pilate's judgment- hall ; remarking by anticipation that the Messiah of current expectations would be " King of the Jews," we note the significance of Pilate's question (Mk. xv. 2 ff.) ; the " thou sayest " of the reply of Jesus might again be understood to mean " I am." 2 Whether " the statement about the priests and the scribes (who mocked) may be rejected with the utmost con fidence " 3 is, perhaps, a matter of opinion ; similarly with regard to the reported taunt : " let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the Cross, that we may see and believe" (Mk. xv. 32). In any case we fasten on the Inscription. The words " The King of the Jews" (Mk. xv. 26) are only intelligible on the assumption that some claim to be the Christ — that is, the Messiah — had actually been advanced. For the moment we sum up. It has been con tended that Jesus never believed Himself to be, never claimed to be, the Messiah at all " ; 4 and it might be perhaps admitted that in two of the sections instanced (the demoniacs, Peter's confession at Caesarea 1 Precisely as in Mt. xxvi. 25, where the words (aii eliras) are spoken to Judas. Jesus answers the High Priest " mit einem unzweideutigen Ja" (Barth, op. cit., p. 244). 2 " Denn das aii Xiyeis muss eine Bejahung sein " (Wrede, Messiasge heimnis, p. 45). 3 Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 370. But cf. Barth, op. cit., p. 244. 4 So Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis, pp. 227, 229 ; — a work of which J. Weiss remarks that it is "durch eine ungesund kritische und|skep- 64 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS Philippi) there are features which occasion doubt. The contentions are, however, bound to make ship wreck on the rock of narratives which point to the last scene of all. That in whatever sense and at whatever period, Jesus did actually believe Himself to be, avow Himself, the Messiah is surely proved by the fact that He suffered the Roman penalty of cruci fixion.1 At whatever period. The question will come up again ; for the moment we simply note it. In what ever sense ; here the point is of an alleged recognition on the part of Jesus that He was not the Messiah of contemporary expectations.2 The designation, it might almost seem, is adopted by Him unwillingly and of necessity. In form He adopts it; yet He conveys an impression that, utterly inadequate to His own conceptions, He falls back on it as the only form available,3 and one to which He is evidently tische Stimmung gelahmt " (Das aelteste Evang., p. vi). Feine, alluding to Wrede (and Wellhausen), says : " Es gehort aber grosse Gewalttatig- keit dazu, die evangelische Ueberlieferung so ins Unrecht zu setzen" (op. cit., p. 37). See also von Soden, Wichtigsten Fragen, 71 f. 1 P. W. Schmidt, Geschichte Jesu, i. p. 158; Mehlhorn, in Das sogcnn. Apos. Glaubensbekenntnis, p. 53. "The trial proves that a Messiah in some sense Jesus did claim to be " (Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 102). And see von Soden, Wichtigsten Fragen, p. 85. There is nevertheless ground for the remark of J. Weiss (S.N. T., i. 314): " Obwohl die Urgemeinde an die Messianitat Jesu fest glaubte, lasst doch die Ueber lieferung auf alle Fragen nach seiner Messianitat ihn fast niemals mit einem runden Jaantworten." And cf. Shailer Mathews, op. cit., p. 106; Holtzmann, Das messian. Bewusstsein Jesu, p. 50. 2 "Wenn man dem Worte die Bedeutung lasst in der es allgemein verstanden wurde, so ist Jesus also allerdings nicht derMessias gevvesen, und hatte es auch nicht sein wollen " (Wellhausen, I.J. G., p. 388). To the same effect Barth, op. cit. , p. 68. 3 According to Bousset (Jesus, p. 180) " the Messianic idea was ... a GENERAL SURVEY 65 concerned to give a new content.1 The question of actual or potential Messiahship is raised ; does He believe Himself Messiah already or destined to become such in God's good time ? 2 This, again, will be referred to later on. 2. Son of David. Contemporary beliefs, as we shall see in due course, expected a Messiah from the royal house of David. The question now is : did Jesus, sharing such beliefs, believe Himself to be, and was He, of Davidic lineage ? According to several narratives the designation, to say the least, is not rejected by Him. Thus Mk. x. 47 ff. = Mt. xx. 30 ff. = Lk. xviii. 38 ff. : an appeal for help is made to Him, " thou Son of David " ; at once He halts ; at His command the blind man 3 is brought into His presence. Thus, possibly, in the story of the Woman of Canaan ; but the phrase is absent from the Marcan version, and it is urged that Mt. xv. 22 is "an addendum the historical character of which is very doubtful." 4 We pass on to the story, already touched on, of the Triumphal Entry ; if rejected by some critics,5 it doubtless has a basis in historic fact 6 and declines to be set aside. But inasmuch as the reports as to the heavy burden ... a conviction which he could never enjoy with a whole heart." 1 And yet He Himself insists on the necessity of new wine-skins for the new wine (Mk. ii 22 = Mt. ix i7 = Lk. v 37 f. ). 2" Noch nicht ... der Gesalbte " (P. W. Schmidt, Geschichte Jesu, i. p. 121). 3 The First Evangelist, fond of doubling, tells of two blind men. 4 Montefiore, op. cit., ii. p. 657. 6 Merx regards it as a later interpolation. 6 Pfleiderer, op. cit., ii. p. 54. (Of the Marcan representation.) E 66 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS wording of the shout of welcome vary,1 it is not absolutely certain that Jesus did then — if not till then — permit Himself to be hailed with the " Hosanna to the Son of David," 2 and it may be that the story received its distinctively Messianic colouring at a later period.3 With Mk. xii. 3 5 f. = Mt. xxii. 4 1 ff. = Lk. xx. 4 1 we arrive at what is admittedly the crucial passage.4 According to the Marcan report, Jesus asks : " how say the Scribes that the Christ is the Son of David ? " To the same effect the Third Gospel : " how say they that the Christ is David's son ? " Differently the First Evangelist ; to the question of Jesus : " what think ye of the Christ ? whose Son is He ? " the Pharisees make answer : " they say unto Him, the Son of David." In all probability he, the First Evangelist, is farthest away from the words actually spoken ; the Marcan version is preferable, and it goes on to tell of Jesus quoting from a Psalm which, in its original significance, spoke of the accession of some earthly Israelitish King, but which evidently bore for Him as for His contemporaries a Messianic significance.5 The pointed question is put by Him : " David therefore himself calleth him (the Christ, the Messiah) Lord ; and whence is he his Son ? " Or, to paraphrase after the manner of the First Evan- 1 Cf. Mk. xi. 12 ; Mt. xxi. 7 ; Lk. xix. 38. * As Barth affirms, op. cit. , p. 242. 3 Cf. Dalman ( Words of Jesus, p. 222), who cites Wellhausen, I.f.G., p. 381 note. Yet it should be observed that the citation is from 3rd ed., and that the note disappears from 6th ed., in which the text (pp. 379 f. ) is re-cast. 4 Feine, op. cit., p. 70. *>S,A.T., iii. i. p. 237. GENERAL SURVEY 67 gelist : if David then calls the Messiah his Lord, is it at all conceivable that the ^Messiah can be David's son ? We remark that Jesus does not expressly identify Himself with the Messiah of His own question ; that He is, however, thinking of Himself is a safe con jecture. May it be assumed with equal confidence that He knows Himself to be actually of Davidic lineage? It is not so certain. What — so He asks in effect (of hearers specified by the First Evangelist only) — is your theory of the Messiah's descent? — you hold, do you not, that He must be of the royal house of David ; what, then, are your grounds for asserting that He is David's son ? Are we to decide from what follows that He Himself thinks otherwise ? A real difficulty confronts us. The passage under consideration has perplexed the commentators. Not only do explanations differ and illustrate opposite opinions, but by at least one scholar x the narrative is ruled out. It is not, however, so easy to discredit it.2 A conjecture, then, which meets us is that Jesus will make it clear that His Messianic claim is abso lutely independent of Davidic descent ; 3 by implica tion, it is urged, He claims to be the Messiah, although not the son of David.4 Or again, we are asked to see Him, just because conscious of a serious obstacle to His recognition as the Messiah, bent on showing that current opinion as to the Davidic sonship of the 1 Wrede. 2 " Unbedingt fest steht die Geschichtlichkeit des Vorganges " (Holtz- mann, Das Mess. Bewusstsein, p. 26). " Die Authentie von Mc. xii. 35-37, lasst sich schwer anfechten" (Wellhausen, Einl., p. 93 note). 3 P. W. Schmidt, op. cit., ii. p. 353 f. "Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 290. 68 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS Messiah was based upon an error which was opposed to David's own words.1 The " apparently obvious interpretation," we are further told, is " that Jesus believed and implied that the Messiah was not David's son in physical descent."2 Must we then, on the strength of this one passage, leap to the con clusion that Jesus did not regard Himself — not to say the Messiah — as springing from David's line ? A way of escape is suggested, and it deserves attention. Jesus really shares the current belief; what He really asks is : what about the fact that the Messiah is David's son while David speaks of Him as Lord ? Then He (Jesus) seeks to reconcile the apparently opposing facts thus : in the perfected Kingdom, when fleshly relationships have disappeared, when the Messiah has been exalted, then, indeed, the Messiah will be David's Lord, he and David (like all the sons of the resurrection) equally God's sons.3 It might be objected that the explanation is too suggestive of reduced conceptions of the Messiah, of an undue exaltation of David ; " the conjunction of Lordship and Sonship meant, what the Scribes and the Pharisees did not recognize, that the Messiah was more than a royal descendant of David the King — that He had a higher relation still, a peculiar relation to God which made Him Lord even of David." 4 Or again, " Jesus does not on the one hand 1 Pfleiderer, op. cit., ii. p. 61. Cf. Wellhausen, Das Evglm. Marci, p. 104 ; Meyer, Was uns Jesus heute ist, p. 22. 2 Montefiore, op. cit., ii. p. 1040 ; cf. Jahn, Uber die Person Jesu, p. 47.!Spitta, Streitfragen, pp. 158 ff. "Salmond, S. Mark (Century Bible), p. 288, GENERAL SURVEY 69 dispute the inference, or, on the other, press the identification. He contents Himself with pointing out a difficulty, in the solution of which lay the key to the whole problem of His Person and Mission." J Truly it is a case where " the great authorities differ " ; and it would be rash to venture other than tentative conclusions as to what is, in reality, a two fold question. To begin with. Nowhere does Jesus expressly affirm Himself to be of David's line. But again, whether it be true or not that, in regard to the Messiah, He deliberately repudiates the designation Son of David,2 it is far from clear that He expli citly repudiates it in regard to Himself. That He was the Son of David was most certainly the con viction of the primitive Church — of that there is abundant evidence ; 3 yet it is another matter whether the belief, no doubt constant, rested upon ascertained fact or merely illustrates a survival (even in the case of Paul) of specifically Jewish dogma. It cannot be said of the genealogies (Mt. i. 1 ff., Lk. iii. 2 3 ff.) that they afford a conclusive answer ; just because there are two, and they in discord, it is open to question whether any genealogical tree whatsoever was in the possession of the family of Jesus.4 It is not easy to arrive at certainty. If the statement that " according to the earliest sources 1 Swete, 5. Mark, p. 288. 2 Baldensperger, Das messian. Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, pp. 169 ff. 3 Feine, op. cit. , pp. 72 ff. " Heitmiiller, in R. G. G., iii. 364. Barth, on the other hand, remarks : " Beide Listen zu verwerfen sehe ich keinen Grund, sondern die des Lucas wird das richtige sein " (op. cit., p. 270). But cf. Jahn, Uber die Person Jesu, p. 2. 70 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS attainable Jesus did unreservedly represent Himself as David's son," *• appears over-confident, there is nevertheless room for the conjecture that He pro bably was (and knew Himself to be) a descendant of David 2 — if only on the side of Joseph — if only in virtue of Joseph's recognition of Mary's child.3 On this assumption He may, on occasion, have accepted the designation Son of David.4 Secondly. The conclusion appears next door to inevitable that, even if His Davidic descent be a fact, Jesus attaches no vital importance to it.5 At most He accepts the fact, and with it certain conceptions associated with the fact ; yet conscious that He is Himself (in whatever sense) the Messiah, He prefers to base His claims to the Messiahship on other and far higher grounds.6 It may be that He makes it plain that the Messiah of some contemporary beliefs He neither is nor desires to be. If so one might almost hear Him say : Whatever I am and whatever 1Spitta, Streitfragen, p. 172. 2 Schweitzer ( Von Reimarus zu Wrede, pp. 392 f. ; Die psychialrische Beurteilung Jesu, p. 17) decides to this effect. 3 Dalman, Words of fesus, pp. 319 ff. "This is not doubted by Scott (op. cit., p. 181). The silence of the Fourth Evangelist (in the face of objection, Jn. vii. 40 ff.) is, not un naturally, variously interpreted. On the one hand it is regarded as his disavowal of statements contained in the Birth-narratives (H.C.N. T, iv. p. 125 ; cf. S.N.T., ii. p. 787). According to Westcott (St. John's Gosp., in loco.) "he simply relates the words of the multitude who were unacquainted with " the circumstances. To the same effect B. Weiss, Das Johannesevangelium ais einheitliches Werk geschichtlich crklart, p- 158. 6 Cf. Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, i. p. 146. e Feine, op. cit., p. 71. It is here perhaps significant that, according to the representation, Pilate regards Him as anything but a dangerous personage. GENERAL SURVEY vi I may become, I am not the mere Davidic King of current expectation.1 3. The Son of Man. This designation meets us again and again in the Gospel narratives.2 Let us remark at the outset that nowhere in the Gospels is the designation applied to Jesus by others. It is placed throughout in the lips of Jesus Himself. Now, the designation has a curious sound in the English. It is said to be no less curious in the Greek : 6 wo? tov avOpwirov 3 ; — and here let us note a conjecture that the Greek phrase itself may actually have been used by Jesus.4 As we remind ourselves, however, that Aramaic, the popular dialect of Pales tine, was His ordinary vehicle of speech, we accord ingly inquire as to the Aramaic original of the Greek phrase in question, and here we are pointed to the Aramaic word Barnasha. Literally translated,it means indeed the Son of Man ; yet a possibility must be reckoned with that it was the one and only term avail able in Aramaic for a man — i.e. for any child of man.5 If this be really so the question naturally arises : why that singular Greek rendering of a term which merely signified a human being? The translators, whoever they were, might, that is, have set down 6 avdpanros, " the man." They have nevertheless declined to do lS.N.T, i. p. 190; Wellhausen, Einl., p. 93. 2 It occurs 30 times in Mt., 14 times in Mk., in Lk. 25 times, about a dozen times in Jn. But for the solitary instance Acts vii. 56 it is never again met with in the New Testament. 3 Burkitt, Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, p. 64. 4 Plummer, S. Matthew, p. xxvi. To the same effect Driver, Hastings' D. B., iv. 583. 5Cf. P. W. Schmidt, Geschichte Jesu, ii. 170; Wellhausen, Einl., P- 39- 72 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS so. They prefer that articulated expression 6 wo? rov avdpwTrov,1 which for ordinary Greek readers would simply accentuate the idea of sonship, of human descent, an idea altogether absent from the Aramaic original.2 How is this to be accounted for ? In all likelihood distinctions have been drawn ; wherever it appeared to the translators that the term Barnascha had been employed in a specially significant way they had resort to the specially significant rendering ; in other words, they decided from what actually lay before them what the rendering should be.3 In that case, when they have resort to the Greek equivalent for The Son of Man of our English version, they are apparently concerned to bring out, and lay stress on, some special significance. It is not so much a question of " the man " or of " a man " ; rather " the man," a particular individual or personage. An idea is, in short, suggested which might be well brought out were the term printed between inverted commas, thus : " The Son of Man." 4 It is, perhaps, well ex pressed thus : " the Man — you know who." On the assumption, then, that the designation is genuine in the lips of Jesus, the meaning might be this : " The Man— -you know whom I speak of." 5 To illustrate — leaving it as yet undetermined whether the singular designation was actually em ployed by Jesus. There is the familiar saying : 1 In Rev. i. 13, xiv. 14, it is unarticulated. 2 Feine, op. cit., p. 50. 3J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu, p. 164. *Ibid.5 Burkitt, Earliest Sources, pp. 66 f. GENERAL SURVEY 73 " foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head " (Mt. viii. 20 = Lk. ix. 58) ; — here, to all appear ance, a particular person is in the speaker's mind ; such a rendering as " man hath not where to lay his head" would apparently be out of place.1 On the other hand there is the equally familiar saying : " man shall not live by bread alone " (Mt. iv. 4 = Lk. iv. 4) ;— here, obviously, the thought is of men generally; to render " the Son of Man shall not live by bread alone " would miss the point, the question not now being of any one specified person.2 We proceed to ask : did Jesus actually employ that designation " The Son of Man " which might be paraphrased as above " The Man — you know whom I mean " ? The question, an exceedingly complicated one, is really threefold. Is the designation genuine in the lips of Jesus ? On the assumption that He actually employed it, of whom is it employed ? The same assumption being made, what conceptions does He appear to read into it ? (a) The designation, The Son of Man, is its use traceable to Jesus ? It is certainly placed in His lips by our primary authorities. Thus in the Saying which, instanced a moment ago, stood in Q, and hence places us on toler ably safe ground ; that the phrase is a later insertion when the original was a simple " I " (" I have not where 1 But cf. Feine, op. cit., p. 63 ; P. W. Schmidt, op. cit., ii. p. 331 ; N. Schmidt, Prophet of Nazareth, p. in. 2 Montefiore, op. cit., ii. pp. 562 f. See J. Weiss (Predigt Jesu, pp. 165, 174) on the two Sayings. 74 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS to lay my head ")l is hard to believe ; the genuine ness of the Saying as it stands — it points perhaps to a later stage of the Ministry — is scarcely open to doubt. The same thing holds good in the case of Mt. xi. i9 = Lk. vii. 34: "The Son of Man came eating and drinking " — a section to be referred to again. From Q we turn to Mark ; two reported Sayings shall suffice. Thus Mk. x. 45 : "for even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister." And Mk. xiv. 62 : " ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power." 2 What shall be the conclusion ? It has been con tended that the designation, not really used by Jesus at all, dates from a later period, being then substi tuted, for dogmatic reasons, for the simple " I " which had actually come from Him.3 Such conten tions are, however, widely disallowed as purely arbitrary. The mere fact that, according to the Synoptic representation, the designation was never used by others is not without significance for its actual use by Jesus.4 Still more significant is its practical disappearance from the New Testament outside the Gospels. It has evidently dropped out of use — and for sufficient reason — but it has not been coined ; on the contrary the authority for it is so strong that the Synoptists are constrained to report it. It shall be decided that occasionally, not by any 1S.N.T., i. p. 303. 2 A Saying not to be questioned ; because of it Jesus was handed over to the Roman power. P. W. Schmidt, op. cit., ii. p. 175. "E.B., iv. 4740. J. Weiss (Predigt Jesu, p. 61) remarks on Well- hausen's " Gewaltstreich." * Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 99. GENERAL SURVEY 75 means as frequently as the records make out,1 the designation was employed by Jesus. (b) In His occasional use of the designation to whom does Jesus refer? The question is not to be answered offhand. We are met by the fact that in certain sections of sub stantial genuineness the designation is so used as to indicate, apparently, a third person. Thus, in the earliest Gospel : " whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words . . . the Son of Man also shall be ashamed of him" (Mk. viii. 38) ; thus in a passage which stood in Q : " for as the lightning cometh out of the East ... so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be " (Mt. xxiv. 27 = Lk. xvii. 24) ; thus in a Saying which its very difficulty forbids us to reject : " ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come" (Mt. x. 23). In the Marcan passage, we observe, Jesus begins by an express allusion to Himself, while the words which next come from Him are certainly suggestive of a distinct personage.2 Precisely the same ambiguity — if ambiguity it be — is discovered in the Saying from Q ; " Jesus seems to distinguish Himself from the Son of Man " 3 both there and in the Saying which, its perplexing nature notwithstanding, is no doubt faithfully reported by the First Evangelist.4 On the other hand, passages are met with which, if charac- 1 Cf. Feine, op. cit. , pp. 63 f. ; Barth, op. cit. , p. 245 ; J. Weiss, Predigt Tesu, p. 175 ; P. W. Schmidt, op. cit., ii. p. 171 ; Bousset, Relig. des fuden., p. 254 note. "Wellhausen, Einl., p. 97. 3 Montefiore, op. cit., ii. p. 1015. "Who here proves himself " ein treuer Haushalter uber die Worte Jesu." S.N.T,\. 310. 76 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS terized by a curious indirectness, are strongly sug gestive for the other side. Thus Mk. ix. 31 : " He taught His disciples, and said unto them, the Son of Man is delivered up into the hands of men." It were safer, perhaps, to appeal to a passage (already alluded to) which stood in Q : " John came neither eating and drinking, and they say: he hath a devil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say : behold, a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners" (Mt. xi. i9 = Lk. vii. 34). The one construction possible is surely this : Jesus is instituting a comparison between the Baptist and Himself. In other words, He Himself is the Son of Man of the Saying instanced. How shall we decide? That the question is beset with difficulty is obvious. The wording is indeed often such as to point away from Jesus to some mysterious personage ; nowhere does He expressly identify Himself with the Son of Man of His allu sions ; a decisive " I am the Son of Man " is not met with. The probability, however, is that He says it in effect ; — " it were pure arbitrariness to deny it in face of the comparison which He institutes between Him self and John the Baptist."1 That Jesus meant Himself is unquestionably the view of the Evan gelists ; 2 and it is more than probable that, if in a way so singular as to invite question, He did really designate Himself — to put it more cautiously, con nect Himself with the designation — the Son of Man. Yet not, perhaps, in the first instance.3 xO. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, p. 167. 2H. J. Holtzmann, Messian. Bewusstsein, p. 51. 3 " There may have been a period, in the earlier stage of His ministry, GENERAL SURVEY 77 (c) What conceptions does Jesus seem to read into the designation which He applied, or learned to apply, to Himself? Nowhere does He proffer an explanation.1 Is it equally safe to add that, to all appearance, the desig nation occasions no special surprise on the part of the hearers ? We are not expressly informed ; 2 yet, if Jesus' use of the designation had been in the first instance "an enigma, not only to people generally, but to His disciples," 3 it had evidently ceased to be an enigma for those who testify to its actual use by Him. Let us ask : in what connection, or connec tions, does the designation occur where its use may with tolerable certainty be referred to Jesus ? 4 It is quickly to find ourselves on debated ground. Sharp is the difference of opinion as to the exact moment when (on the assumption of genuineness) the designation first came from the lips of Jesus. On the one hand we are pointed to a late period of the Ministry ; it is contended thatwherever the designation occurs in sections relative to earlier days it must be rejected as unauthentic ; 5 that it really first meets us when He distinguished between the Son of man who was to inaugurate the Kingdom and Himself who was only its harbinger" (Scott, op. cit., p. 201). 'Montefiore, op. cit., i. 97. 2 By the Synoptists. Jn. xii. 34 is exceptional : "who is this Son of Man ? " 3 Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 317 (new ed. p. 309). " It is impossible to believe, with F. W. Newman (Phases of Faith), that " He habitually spoke of Himself by the title Son of Man." *E.g. Mk. ii. 10, 28. CiS.N.T., i. pp. 91, 96; H. J. Holtzmann, Messian. Bewusstsein, pp. 58 ff.; P. W. Schmidt, op. cit., ii. pp. 172 f. ; Montefiore, op. cit., i. pp. 79, 91 ; Pfleiderer, op. cit., ii. p. 8. 78 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS Mk. viii. 38 ; that not until after a hoped-for reply had come from Peter did Jesus adopt the designation The Son of Man.1 On the other hand, it is urged that such contentions are arbitrary and contrary to the evidence. With an appeal both to Mark and Q, passages are instanced to show that, whether speak ing to the people or to hostile Pharisees, Jesus did really call Himself the Son of Man in the earlier stages of His ministry.2 But is this capable of proof? What if we leave the exact date an open question ? One thing is certain ; the designation The Son of Man occurs in a Messianic connection — and, as has been recognized already, Jesus claimed to be (in whatever sense) the Messiah. The conclusion is not far to seek that the designation is connected by Him with the Messiahship; can it also be said that, in His own belief, He is the Messiah in terms of the Son of Man ? 3 The statement may not be strictly accurate. It amounts, in effect, to this: Jesus feels Himself, knows Himself, to be already all that the designation carries with it; and it is just here that there is much ground for hesitation. We shall do well to ask : What has Jesus to say about this Son of Man whom, in a mysterious way, He connects with the Messiahship He claims ? Two groups of passages fall for consideration. In the one case they record predictions of the Passion. In the other they speak of glorification. 'Heitmiiller, in R.G.G., iii. 379. 2 Feine, op. cit. , p. 67. 3"Er hat darin den charakteristischen Ausdruck gefunden, welcher GENERAL SURVEY 79 Predictions of the Passion. It has been thought that, in the course of time, another note makes itself perceptible in Sayings which may be safely attributed to Jesus ; that, not ceasing to announce the near advent of the Kingdom, a conviction dawns and deepens in Him that the establishment of the King dom is contingent on a fateful event which must first happen to Himself. Not so, perhaps, His earlier anticipations. Perhaps He had expected that His appearance at Jerusalem would bring the decisive moment ; fierce, no doubt, the conflict that would there await Him, but the issue was assured ; God would intervene on His behalf; His recognition and acclamation as Messiah-King would ensue forth with. Later on He begins to realize that, while God's cause must triumph, it will not be on the lines of earlier expectations. At the last He acquiesces in the mysterious plan of God. Hope becomes utter resignation ; thus in the Garden of Gethsemane : " Abba Father, all things are possible unto thee ; remove this cup from me : howbeit not what I will, but what Thou wilt." 1 How does the case stand ? If by general admis sion the resolve to go up to Jerusalem is historical, there is sharp disagreement as to the motives and the object in view. It is pointedly asked : " did the historic Jesus foresee His death ? Did He go to seinen eigensten Selbstdarstellungstriebe entsprach " (H. J. Holtzmann, Messian. Bewusstsein, p. 54). 1 Mk. xiv. 36. According to Bousset (Jesus, p. 15) the scene depicted by Mk. " shows that to the last Jesus had admitted a possibility that the doom of death would not be His." There is no room for the Geth semane scene in the conceptions of the Fourth Evangelist, his Christ "decrees His own fate" (Jiilicher, Einl., p. 358). 80 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS Jerusalem to conquer or to die?"1 The general impression conveyed, we are told, is " that He jour neyed thither, not in order to die, but to fight and conquer, and that in looking forward to the conflict His own death presented itself not as a certainty, but at the most as a possibility, much as in the case of a general on the eve of a decisive battle, or of Luther on the way to Worms." 2 And again : " not, in any case, to suffer and to die . . . but rather to act. . . . He will seek out and grapple with the foe at head quarters . . . alive to possible catastrophe He looks the contingency resolutely in the face." 3 As decided are the opposite opinions. He, Jesus, Himself the Bridegroom of His own great figure (Mk. ii. 20), so tells of the violent removal of the Bridegroom as to make it clear that already, at the outset of His Ministry, His thought is of suffering in store for Him, of a violent death.4 The machinations of His enemies, very soon noted by Him, familiarize Him ever more and more with the thought of His impending fate.6 He has done what He can in Galilee ; Judaea and Jerusalem remain ; when His steps are turned south ward it is for a journey regarded by Him as a veritable progress of death.6 Why all this conflict of opinion in face of the thrice- repeated announcement of the Passion by 1 Montefiore, op. cit. , i. p. xciii. 2 Pfleiderer, op. cit. , ii. pp. 34 f. 3 Heitmuller, in R.G.G., iii. 387 ; Meyer, Was uns Jesus heute ist, p. 22. "Feine, op. cit., p. 122 ; Salmond, S. Mark (Century Bible), p. 144. Otherwise Blakiston, John Bapt. and his relation to Jesus, p. 34. 6 Barth, op. cit., p. 190. "von Soden, Wichtigsten Fragen, p. 69. GENERAL SURVEY 81 Jesus Himself? Thus Mk. viii. 31 : "He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed." For a second prediction we turn to Mk. ix. 31: " The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill Him." The third prediction occurs Mk. x. 33 f. : " Behold we go up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him unto the Gentiles : And they shall mock Him, and shall scourge Him, and shall spit upon Him, and shall kill Him." The predictions, far from ending here, go on to tell of what shall happen " after He is killed." " After three days," " on the third day," " He shall rise again." It must be conceded that there is something curious in the manner of the representation. Each prediction is, apparently, independent of the others : it is certainly strange that, on the second and third occasions, Jesus appears to speak as if the subject had never been alluded to by Him before.1 And again, the exactly detailed descriptions of the Passion are suspicious, nor is it an unreasonable conjecture that they owe something to the amplifications of a later period.2 But there is insufficient ground for rejecting the predictions in their entirety as " pro phecies after the event," as born of Christian dogmatic 1 Montefiore, op. cit., i. p. 255. 2 Feine, op. cit., p. 150. But cf. Barth (op. cit., p. 195), who writes " Es brauchte kein Hellsehen, um diese Einzelheiten vorherzusagen ; das Los eines Gefangenen, der in die Hande der rbmischen Soldateska fiel war . . . bekannt genug." F 82 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS on the title Son of Man. Ipsissima verba they are not ; they nevertheless belong to the best attested sections of the Gospel narrative, and demand accept ance as substantially genuine utterances of Jesus. They are surely decisive on the main point : " Unless our Gospels embody a wholly distorted tradition, Jesus expected to die a violent death at the hand of the rulers of Jerusalem."1 Accordingly we set down a first conclusion ; — The Son of Man, in the mind of Jesus, is destined to suffering and to death. But the death, if conceived of as a " divine necessity,"2 is not to be the end. There is something beyond. Predictions of glorification. The Son of Man, it has been already noted, is to " rise." To turn now to the tremendous words said to have come from Jesus in reply to the High Priest's question : " Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? And Jesus said, I am : and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mk. xiv. 61 f). Is this a substantially genuine Saying of the historic Jesus ? No such utterance is reported of the Johannine Christ ; but it does not at all follow that the Saying is therefore destitute of historic basis. If there be force in the remark that " we shall never be able to tell or decide with any certainty what took place in the High Priest's house or before Pilate," s it would yet be rash indeed to conclude that the pre- 'Burkitt, Earliest Sources, p. 70. To the same effect Weidel (Jesu Persbnlichkeit, p. 22). 2 J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu, p, 103. :! Montefiore, op, cit., i. p. 345. GENERAL SURVEY 83 diction was afterwards concocted, and from vague reports.1 Like other Sayings to the same effect 2 it is occasion of present real difficulty : hence a readi ness to eliminate it (and the others with it) ; the two verses are indeed ruled out as the interpolation 3 of a later period. It is hard to assent. Of its substantial genuineness there can surely be no question whatso ever, for it affords the explanation why Jesus was handed over to the Roman power.4 Strangely, no doubt, does it sound to modern ears ; that it never theless came from Jesus the evidence constrains us to believe.5 The substantial genuineness of the prediction being, then, admitted, what conclusions are suggested by it? It is, assuredly, suggestive of glorification. The scene, it should be observed, is no longer laid on this earth. But while He who speaks is on this earth, the Son of Man of His allusion is pictured as seated at the right hand of God,6 and thence coming with the clouds of heaven. So, then, if Jesus really means Himself, He confidently expects that transference from earth to heaven which is an essential preliminary to His descent from heaven to earth. The sequel to 1 On the assumption that he was an eye-witness, a report of the transactions would readily be obtained from — not to say volunteered by — Joseph of Arimathaea. 2Cf. Mt. x. 23, xxv. 31; Mk. viii. 38-ix. 1, xiii. 26. 3 Wellhausen, Evan. Marci, pp. 131 f. "P. W. Schmidt, op. cit., ii. p. 175. 6 Kautzsch, Das sogenn. Apos. Glaubensbekenntnis, p. 102 ; cf. Feine, op. cit., p. 151. 6 " At the right hand of the power ;" t\ diva/us really stands for God. So Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 200 ff. 84 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS the predicted death is to be His exaltation. If then and there seen in lowly form, He will yet be, as The Son of Man, in royal state, the risen and ascended Jesus. According to Lk. xxii. 6g, He goes " straight from His death to His glory." 1 Such, it would appear, are the conceptions which stir in the mind of Jesus as, in the Saying reported by Mark, He makes reply to the High Priest's question. But the verse cited from Luke once more raises question as to whether that Saying be faithfully reported by Mark. There is something curious in its wording ; two distinct scenes are referred to, and in each case Jesus is to be seen by those who at the moment see only the prisoner at the bar. In the one case their gaze is to penetrate to the very seat of God Himself; in the other they are to see the Son of Man — i.e. Jesus — coming with the clouds of heaven. Were He really so to come, then indeed His coming would be plainly visible ; it is the former contingency that occasions doubt. The Marcan report is accord ingly viewed with suspicion in the form in which we have it ; the greater originality is attached to that Lucan version which says no word of an external coming which the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin are to see with their bodily eyes. What actually came from Jesus was, then, solely expressive of con fidence that He should be exalted : " But from henceforth shall The Son of Man be seated at the right hand of the power of God."2 What shall be said of the suggestion ? It, per- 1 Adeney, St. Luke (Century Bible), p. 376. 1 See Sharman, Teaching of Jesus about the Future, pp. 83 ff. GENERAL SURVEY 85 haps, occurs to us that if Jesus can be regarded as thus far confident — confident of such exaltation — there is no sufficient reason for refusing to see Him equally confident that whither He is to be exalted from thence is He to come. The conviction remains unshaken that words were actually spoken by Him which, faithfully reported in substance in the Marcan version, told of a coming of the Son of Man which the men who heard Jesus speak should actually behold. Two points, however, demand notice. That the coming conceived of is conceived of as a speedy coming is obvious, and need not detain us. As regards the purpose of the coming, it will be dis cussed later on, and we simply remark here that on this point the Saying under consideration is altogether silent. The first point is this, that even at the supreme moment Jesus does not expressly identify Himself with the majestic personage of His allusion. Secondly, the question — it will come up again — is not, to all appearance, of a return ; an inference might be that the glorious figure who should come with the clouds had not hitherto been seen by eye of man. Again to sum up in few words. On the whole it appears certain that the designation the Son of Man was actually, if on rare occasions, employed by the historic Jesus. The conclusion is, perhaps, well founded that, occurring in a Messianic connection, it was, albeit in a way which falls short of directness and scarcely from the first, associated by Him with Himself. As for the conceptions read by Him into the designation, the contexts in which it 86 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS stands are significant. A twofold idea is conveyed ; on the one hand the idea of humility and suffering, on the other hand the idea of majesty. Yet it might be permissible to say that the designation is not so much suggestive of present lowliness as of future glory.1 The conjecture that, whatever else He may be, He, Jesus, is not yet the Son of Man of His allusion to the full,2 is, accordingly, not by any means far-fetched. 4. Son of God. A fourth designation meets us which, if claimed or implied in the case of Jesus, is suggestive of divine Sonship. Let us discuss it here. Inquiry might start with " the writer of the Christmas gospel." 3 Like the First Evangelist, Luke prefaces his narrative with an introduction which, of rare poetic beauty, tells of the Nativity and the Holy Childhood. The boy Jesus is pictured in the Temple School at Jerusalem ; the parents come upon the scene ; the chiding words are heard from Mary : " Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us ? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrow ing " ; there follows the reply : " how is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be in my Father's house ? " 4 On the assumption that the narrative is historical, the recorded Saying might well be decisive for the conclusion that, already conscious of His divine Sonship, He says in effect : " I am the Son of God." 5 1 Feine, op. cit. p. 28. 2 J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu, p. 175. 3 Bousset, Jesus, p. I. "Lk. ii. 48 f., iv tois rov varpos fiov, lit. "in the things of my Father." 6 Feine, op. cit., p. 30; Barth, op. cit., pp. 259 ff. GENERAL SURVEY 87 But are we here on safe ground ? It goes against the grain, perhaps, to regard the opening chapters of Luke (and of Matthew) as " pure legend," the stories therein contained as merely " the glittering halo which the poetic faith of the first community set upon the head of Jesus." Whatever their historic basis, the fact remains that the earliest Gospel knows nothing of the events they profess to relate, while the Fourth Evangelist is, perhaps significantly, silent.1 Our real acquaintance with Jesus, it is not untruly said, begins '' when he has attained the prime of manhood, at the age of thirty, and is entering upon his career of public activity." 2 With the story of the Temptation the ground becomes firm. Briefly reported in the Marcan Gospel (Mk. i. 12 f.) — knowledge of details on the part of readers is perhaps assumed by the Evan gelist 3 — it is told at length by the later Synoptists (Mt. iv. 1 ff. = Lk. iv. 1 ff). They are alike dependent on Q for a narrative traceable, in all likelihood, to what Jesus Himself had told to His disciples.4 We remark the dialogue. Twice does the tempter address Jesus with the words : " If thou art the Son 1 O. Holtzmann, Das Johannesevglm., p. 47. On the significance of Jn. viii. 41, see Bauer, H.B.N. T., II. ii. p. 92. But cf. Zahn, Einl., ii. pp. 504 f. 2 Bousset, Jesus, p. 5. *S.N.T.,i. p. 75. "Barth, op. cit., p. 254; von Soden (Wichtigsten Fragen, p. 74) remarks : " Die Erzahlung stammt von Jesus selbst," and in Gosp. Hebs. Jesus Himself is the speaker. If so, Jesus told in figure of what had been an inward spiritual struggle. An altogether admirable canvas representation of the Temptation, by Mr. W. Dyce, R.A., is reproduced as frontispiece to Sanday's Life of Christ in Modern Research. 88 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS of God ; " the temptations being diverse, so are the replies of Jesus ; — " man shall not live by bread alone " ; " thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Of what are the replies equally significant ? Of a designation tacitly accepted ? or does Jesus rank Himself with His brother-men ? But the words of the tempter are themselves significant — deeply sig nificant if the assumption be warranted that the narrative is ultimately derived from Jesus. The " if thou art the Son of God " would suggest, not indeed a claim advanced, but a conviction which had already taken deep root in the inmost soul of Jesus. If so, when ? — where ? — how ? At His baptism ? It is related by all three Synop tists (Mk. i. 9 ff. = Mt. iii. 1 3 ff. = Lk. iii. 2 1 f.). They agree in bringing Jesus to be baptized by John in Jor dan ; then the later Evangelists amplify ; Matthew, for dogmatic reasons,1 tells of the Baptist's hesitation, Luke materializes. All three relate that a voice is heard from heaven ; they differ in respect of the reported words,2 as to who precisely is addressed. In the one case (Mt.) we hear of a solemn proclamation ; with the two other Evangelists (Mk., Lk.) the case is 1 " Matthaus . . . empfindet es . . . ais Schwierigkeit, dass er sich der Taufe ds iLcpea-tv a/xapTiuv unterzieht." Wellhausen, Einl,, p. 60. The Fourth Evangelist, omitting all reference to the Temptation, avoids mention of the Baptism, and perhaps for this reason, that it might be appealed to as an argument for the inferiority of Jesus to the Baptist. 2Mt. iii. 17: "This is my beloved Son (my Son, the beloved) in whom I am well pleased"; Mk. i. n = Lk. iii. 22: "Thou art my beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased." " There is a reading for Lk. iii. 22 which is supported by D., Justin, Clem. Alex. . uids piov el ab, iyii 0-^p.epov yeyyivqica