llr
-
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE PROPHECIES OP JESUS CHRIST

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH
LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
TORONTO : THE WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY

THE

PROPHECIES OF JESUS CHRIST
RELATING TO HIS DEATH,
RESURRECTION, AND SECOND COMING,
AND THEIR FULFILMENT

Dk. PAUL SCHWARTZKOPFF
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, GOTTINGEN

Translated by
Rev. NEIL BUCHANAN
TRANSLATOR OF BEYSCHLAO'S UNEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY," ETC

EDINBURGH
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
1897

" I am the Way and the Truth and the Life : No
man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal Him : Of that day
and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, hut
the Father." John xiv. 6 ; Matt. xi. 27 ; Mask xiii. 32.

PREFACE

rTlHE present volume is the fourth part of a
work, the full title of which will be " The
Revelation of God in Jesus Christ, its Content,
Range, and Limits." The last part of the book is
published first, because it deals with questions
that are being earnestly discussed in present-day
theology, and that permit of separate treatment,
even apart from their ultimate psychological
establishment. If it be thought that certain results
should be traced more thoroughly to their basis
in Jesus' mental life, that is a defect which I
hope to make good as soon as possible. In this
part of the work, also, I have endeavoured to
establish critically and to understand psychologically
the full moral and religious content of the highest
revelation. I am convinced that we can only gain
this understanding by separating and distinguishing,
according to fixed principles, the divine content from
its human form, as conditioned by the ideas of

vmthe time. God grant that this work also may
contribute its humble share towards presenting
the image of our Saviour in its own peculiar
brilliancy ! PAUL SCHWARTZKOPFF.
Wernigerode.

CONTENTS

PAGE
Preface  vii

CHAPTER I.
The Importance op our Question and the Main Point
of View for its Solution  3_2i

CHAPTER II.
Jesus' Prediction of His Death  23-58
General Summary  58-60

CHAPTER III.
Jesus' Prediction of His Resuereotion . . 61-155
1. The Fact of this Prediction  63-70
2. The more exact meaning of Jesus' Prediction of the
Resurrection  70-82
3. The Prediction of the Resurrection and its Fulfilment 83-87
4. The Origin of the Disciples' Belief in the Resurrection
of Jesus on the Third Day  87-91
5. The Corporeity of Christ's Appearances . . 91-155
(a) Their Possibility  91
(b) The Historical Guarantee for the Bodily Appear
ances of Christ  95
The Appearance to Paul near Damascus . . 99
(c) The Abstract Possibility of the Vision of the
Christ who rose from the Grave . . . 104
(d) Were the Appearances at Easter in Jerusalem or
in Galilee?  113

Contents

(e) The Empty Grave . . . • .115
(/) The Symbolical and the Assumed Resurrection
Body of Jesus (B. Weiss and Steude) . . 122
(g) The Historical and Religious Value of the
Belief in the Corporeity of the Appearances
of Christ, and in the Resurrection of Jesus
from the Grave  125
The Historical Value of the Belief in the Resur
rection of Jesus from the Grave . . .125
The Religious Value of the Belief in Jesus'
Resurrection from the Grave . . . .129
Jesus' Resurrection from the Grave and Chris
tian faith as such  132
(h) Proof of the Bodily Resurrection of Christ 137
(i) General Summary . . . ¦ • .146
CHAPTER IV.
Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming . . 157-321
1. Expectation of the Second Coming outside the
Synoptics  160-170
2. Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming in the
Synoptics, and its Fulfilment . . . 170-210
(a) Jesus' Conception of the Kingdom of God, and
His Position towards it .... 172
u. Jesus' Conception of the Kingdom of God
in General ...... 172
/3. The Fact of Jesus' Claim to Messiahship . 179
y. Jesus' Conception of the Kingdom of God
as Present ...... 181
8. The Origin of the Idea of the Presence of
the Kingdom of God in the Consciousness
of Jesus, and the Essence of His Present
Messiahship  194
(b) Jesus' Conception of the Purpose of His Second
Coming  211-217
(c) Jesus' Conception of the Form of His coming
again to set up the Kingdom . . 217-255
a. Form of the Kingdom to be erected and of
the Dominion of Messiah . . .217
(3. The Manner of Jesus' Coming . . . 241
The Coming from Heaven; in a Spiritual
Body to the Glorified Earth . . .241

contents xi

The Spiritual and so-called Historical
Coming of Jesus  243
(d) The Time of the Second Coming in Jesus' Pre
diction .  255-299
a. His Return within His own generation, as
based on Mark ix. 1 ; Matt. x. 23 ; Mark
xiv. 62, xiii. 30  255
|8. What Sort of Return of Jesus follows from
the Way in which He conceives the Rela
tion of His Disciples to it and prepares
them for it  274
y. Jesus' Knowledge of the Day and Hour . 279
S. The Possibility of the Prediction of the
Second Coming from the Standpoint of
Psychology  284
c. Weiffenbaoh's Identification of the Predic
tion of the Resurrection and that of the
Second Coming ..... 292
f. B. Weiss' Conception of the Non-fulfilment
of the Time fixed by Jesus for His Return 296
(e) The Significance of the Non-fulfilment of Part
of the Prediction of the Second Coming 299-304
General Summary . . . . . 304
Conclusion . . • 318

CHAPTEE I

W$t Importance of our (Question ano tije
JEatn Point of Fiefco for its Solution

THE PROPHECIES OF JESUS CHRIST

CHAPTER I
The Importance of our Question and the Main
Point of View for its Solution
FT1HE relation between the divine and human
-*- elements of Christ's person has in all ages of
the Church been one of the most important problems
of theology. This problem has entered on a new
stage since it was perceived that a more thorough
investigation of Jesus' self-consciousness was neces
sary to any true understanding of His person and
work. No doubt this has added to the difficulties
of the question. In former days the divine and
human in the person of Jesus were ranked alongside
each other in a more or less external way even by
theologians. And that may be sufficient even yet
for the great mass of the Christian laity. For the
faith which lays hold of the living God in Christ is
not necessarily conditioned by the thoroughness with
which the intellect grasps its content. But theology

4 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [1-2
as a science must now be called upon to fix more
exactly the relation between the divine and the
human in the inner life of Jesus.
As no one nowadays denies the Saviour's humanity,
one cannot but acknowledge that the mind of Jesus
was also a really human mind. But we are very
much afraid of the necessary implication that it must
have been subject to the limitations which circum
scribe the mental life of man. It is not yet generally
understood that if we remove the laws which express
the essence of man's mental life, this life ceases to be
human. It is only this mental limitation that explains
why Jesus, like His contemporaries, ascribes to David
the authorship of the 110th Psalm, and indeed why
He infers, merely from this assumption, that David
foresaw the Messiah as his Lord, and that, too, as
a King of such divine eminence as to surpass him
self, the greatest king of the Jews, as the master
surpasses his servant. This notion, moreover, is of
some importance with regard to Messianic prophecy.
And yet that psalm, as is now almost universally
acknowledged, was not composed by David. More
over, David was not even a prophet in the proper
sense. Hence it is not difficult to show that David
neither had, nor, conformably with the history of pro
phecy, could have had such a notion of the Messiah.
Again, it is evident from the statements of the
Note.— The figures on the right-hand corner denote the pages
in the original German.

The Question and its Solution 5
New Testament that Jesus believed in the existence
of demons, who, as personal evil spirits united into a
kingdom under Satan, were opposed to the kingdom
of God. But He was conscious of being the founder
of this kingdom, and the conqueror of that of Satan.
This notion of Jesus has a still closer relation than
the other to the form of His revelation of God. And
yet the existence of personal demons is by no means
universally acknowledged, even by positive theo
logians (cf. Weiss, Life of Jesus, vol. ii. p. 77 ff.).1
Such assumptions of Jesus, as that David was the
author of the 110th Psalm, or that he prophetically
foresaw the Messiah, or that demons had a personal
existence, might be increased by a multitude of
similar examples. The first indicates a limitation
of His thought with regard to exegesis ; the second
reveals above all an imperfect notion of the develop
ment of prophecy ; the third has directly to do with
the form in which He grasped the content of His
revelation of God. The objective incorrectness of all
three notions, however, evidently arose from Jesus'
dependence on contemporary ideas both as regards
religious and secular matters.
If this be so, then one of the most pressing duties
of theology is to establish in concreto, as far as
possible, what belongs to the absolute divine content
of Jesus' revelation, and what to its form as con
ditioned by His humanity and the opinions of His
1 I intend at some future time to investigate more thoroughly
the possibility and extent of error on Jesus' part.

6 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [3-4
day. I have done this in a searching investigation
of " the whole revelation of God in Jesus Christ, its
content, its range, and its limit," which, however, for
various reasons, I shall not meanwhile publish in
this form. What I herewith submit to the public is
merely the last portion, forming perhaps a fourth
part of my work. In the following pages I shall
attempt to carry out the plan of the larger work
only in a more limited sphere.
There can be no better test for the psychological
distinction of the divine and the human in Christ's
mental life than the predictions of His resurrection
and second coming. Hence these at present occupy
the foremost place in theological discussions. For
our conception of them and of their relation to their
fulfilment will determine our whole view of Christ's
person and work. They presuppose, however, Jesus'
prediction of His death, and therefore I begin with a
brief discussion of that.
It is, of course, of essential importance for the
fulfilment of our task to view it from the right
standpoint at the very first. This is supplied by
two facts which are reciprocally determined and
limited. The first is that imperfection of Jesus'
mental life, already referred to, from which He
derived certain objectively wrong ideas that con
cerned to some extent even the form of His revela
tion of God. If these wrong notions were necessarily
connected with any moral defect, we would never
be able to admit them, as the impression of His

The Question and its Solution 7
absolute moral purity would not allow it. But it
can be proved that, even in the case of moral perfec
tion, they follow from the limitations of human
thought as such. However, the proof of this would
lead us too far.
The other fact is just that moral perfection of His
person. The impression of our Lord's sinlessness is
forced upon every competent judge by the synoptic
picture of His life and character as a whole. This
also I must here take for granted on account of want
of space.1 At any rate, no one is entitled to see in
Christ the perfect revelation of God save he who
admits His absolute sinlessness. For this alone
renders possible and guarantees the uninterrupted
fellowship of God with Jesus, and with that the
absolute certainty of the content of His revelation.
This makes Jesus the incarnate ideal of the prophet,
who, as such, forms a class by Himself and is more
than a prophet. That is a fact which has not yet
been universally acknowledged as it deserves.
The absolute perfection of the revelation, however,
applies directly only to its content. For it is pro
duced by the immediate action of God upon the
moral feeling which derives from this its religious
aspect. By moral feeling I understand the instinct
of the (acting) personality as such, which, by its aid,
directly estimates the good as that which corre
sponds to its true nature and intrinsic aim. The
1 I shall deal specially with the sinlessness of Jesus Christ in
another place.

8 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [4
more exact establishment of this idea would lead us
too far here. This judgment must be infallible in the
case of the Sinless One. But in this state of matters
even the perfectly good One could test the divine
origin of what was revealed to Him only by its
relation to the goodness for which He had the
absolute standard in His moral feeling. Now, as the
good has its original existence only in the will and
in the disposition, Jesus' revelation, in itself, can only
contain experiences which correspond to God's love
for humanity and the divine qualities in man, and
which represent the personal intercourse between
God and man. Hence, while there is a guarantee
for the perfection of Christ's revelation in its saving
content, there can be no absolute security for the
infallibility of the form, so far as that form is a
matter of moral and religious indifference.
We can only gain the proper standpoint for
estimating with any possible certainty the concrete
elements of Jesus' revelation, by taking into account
these two marks of His mental life — His sinlessness
on the one hand, and the imperfection of His thought
on the other. The supposition that we can make a
completely unreserved use of the historical material
of the Synoptists is a self-delusion. For the value of
the several parts of the tradition, some of them
doubtful and a few even self - contradictory, can
only be tested and harmonised by means of the
whole revelation. An unprejudiced conception of
the undoubted personal purity of the historical

The Question and its Solution 9
Jesus, whose intellect nevertheless shows signs of
human imperfection, can alone put all the details in
a true light.
I can only indicate here in a few words how the
infallibility of the content of Jesus' revelation is
positively guaranteed by His sinlessness. This sin
lessness expresses the perfection of holy love. Jesus'
first revelation of His spiritual Sonship to God, which
meets us as the fundamental fact of His self-con
sciousness, must have arisen on the basis of that love.
For in this is presented, first of all, the inward
experience of the relation in which God as perfect
holy love must stand towards that man dependent on
Him whose disposition is throughout similar to the
divine. To express the complete satisfaction and
favour of God, there is no more appropriate image
in human society than the relation of father to son.
The self-evident presupposition of this unique reli
gious relation of Jesus to God as His Father is the
corresponding unique connection with God in His
metaphysical essence and origin (Mark xiii. 3 2 :
cf. Vorbrodt, Psychologic des Glaitbens, Gottingen
1895, p. 118). However, this needs no further
discussion here.
It was only in the Sinless One that the revelation
of God's purely paternal love could have been pro
duced as an organic necessity. Hence it was the
firm, unalloyed, and, consequently, the unerring
content of His moral feeling. In this subjective
experience of Jesus with regard to His divine

10 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [5-6
Sonship is concealed the kernel of His whole saving
revelation. All essential aspects of it must have
followed from this, or been measured by it.
Through Jesus' experience of God's favour, bestowed
on Him as a good man, He became sensible of God's
will to be the Father of all other good men, and to
bring them salvation by a realisation of the good
within them. Thus the Lord came to know God's
purpose to be the Father of men, and men's destina
tion to be children of God (Matt. vi. 9 ; Luke xi. 2).
But, as the Sinless One, Jesus must at the same
time have possessed infallibility with regard to the
moral judgment of men's sin as a bent of mind which
was in contradiction not only to the good, but also to
the divine good pleasure, and one that hindered
salvation. The moral and religious contrast between
others and Himself could not fail to make Him
conscious of His own sinlessness. Now, if He felt
Himself to be the Child of God, and in possession of
the salvation which others had not, He must have
felt and embraced it as His calling to proclaim in
the power and spirit and name of the divine love to
His brethren who were estranged from God and lost
through sin, the same way of access to divine son-
ship. Hence from His own unique position as Son
there naturally arose the sense of His task as
Saviour. This task He was able and obliged to perform as
the ideal prophet. For He must have felt fitted
and called upon to be the agent of redemption just

The Question and its Solution 1 1
in proportion as He knew Himself to be the bearer
of the perfect revelation of God, who, in the deepest
basis of His personal life, was one in essence and of
the same nature as the Father. By not only pro
claiming God's pitying love, but exhibiting that love
in His own life, and offering it in God's name for
immediate appropriation, He became the perfect
Mediator of salvation. The omnipotence of His
divine love, which gave itself up to death for the
reconciliation of the sinful world, blotted out guilt,
and conquered the power of sin in human hearts,
awoke in them a grateful answering love, and trans
formed them into the divine likeness. The aim, the
duty, the perfect blessedness of the divine life, which
Christ embodied in His character and walk, brought
home to men's hearts and consciences in an incom
parable way the evil of sin, and made them desirous
and capable of being delivered from it. In short,
from the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the
world to Himself, the ideal of the prophet, the
" Word " became flesh in Christ.
There is, however, another main part of His saving
mission to be deduced from His original revelation.
For it simply presents a particular aspect of the
way in which He manifested His calling as Saviour
or ideal prophet. If the good and divine, the true
righteousness of God, had a real existence in Him
alone, then His judgment of men's spiritual worth,
based on these attributes, was necessarily the only
standard by which that worth could be measured in

12 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [i
time and eternity, the only standard, therefore, by
which it would be judged by God. Nay more;
man's relation to Christ's person, in which the
spiritual ideal is realised, meant his position towards
God, and therefore decided his eternal destiny, which
depended on that position. He Himself, moreover,
as the only Mediator between God and man, was
necessarily also the Mediator of that judicial decision.
This position as Judge of the world simply proves
the absolute genuineness of Jesus' saving mission.
Hence all other revelations that are essential to
salvation are comprised in Jesus' original revelation
of God's fatherly love to Him, or of His being the
Son of God.
This revelation must have become more and more
clear to His consciousness as soon as He attained to
mature reflection on His position towards God and
man, and certainly, therefore, before He openly took
up His calling as Messiah. Its whole content em
braces the various expressions of Jesus' self-
consciousness as Mediator between God and man.
Our deliverance is effected by a believing appropria
tion of God's act in sending His Son for our salvation,
and by that alone. The complete infallibility of the
content of this salvation is guaranteed by Christ's
personal experience of God as the ideal prophet.
No doubt the concrete forms of thought in which
this religious content was unfolded — kingdom of
God, Messiah, Son of Man, etc. — were taken by
Jesus from the traditions of His people, and from

The Question and its Solution 1 3
His age. This is where Jesus was specially influenced
by the theology of the prophets, and by the Pharisees.
How far these contemporary views which He accepted
squared with their perfect religious content must be
settled by a special investigation in the case of each.
Yet it follows from the true humanness of Jesus'
mental life that His notions about the exegetical,
physical, metaphysical, in short, about every aspect
even of His religious beliefs that has no direct
spiritual value, cannot be unreservedly accepted as
authoritative. This is proved by His conception of
the 110th Psalm, and by His belief in demons.
These notions, moreover, could only share in the
authority of His knowledge of God, so far as neces
sarily followed from their connection with that
knowledge, and so far as Jesus had occasion for
reflecting on that connection. Moreover, though He
was far superior to His contemporaries in mental
power, the very absoluteness of His religious genius
must have concentrated His interest on His mission
as Saviour with such energetic onesidedness, that
anything not directly bearing on that mission seldom
entered into His mind.
On the other hand, His perfect religious experi
ence, not only through its contents, but also through
its unique form, gave Him an infallible standard with
which to test the religious genuineness of the content
of every other revelation, in so far as this revelation
professed to describe the manner of God's intercourse
with man. This supplied the test with which He

14 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [s
criticised inimitably the ideas of the Old Testament
and of the Pharisees.
Among the formal characteristics of Jesus' relation
to God, and at the same time of true religiousness,
the following are the most essential. First, its indi
vidualism, by virtue of which God enters into direct
mtercourse only with the individual. Closely con
nected with this is the subjectivism of that intercourse.
For, as a purely personal intercourse, it excludes
every material medium. In so far, again, as the Ego
confronts everything material as something external,
the subjectivism is deepened into the inwardness of
pure spirituality, the Pneumatism of fellowship with
God. This confronts us with that form of the rela
tion in which it appears in its deepest, and, at the
same time, its most concrete aspect. That is the
moral and religious relation as such. Here the
intercourse exhibits the fundamental form of a
mutual loving devotion based on confidence. Its
content is simply the reciprocal action of the two
concrete subjects, God and man.
By learning in that intercourse that love is the
fundamental attribute of God, which communicates
itself in a degree only limited by the self -surrendering
susceptibility of man, Jesus gained the standard for
determining the inmost nature of the mutual relation.
If the religious feeling is a modification of the moral
feeling, the corresponding principle in Jesus might
be termed His ethicism. If this ethicism is applied
to the mutual action of the children of God on one

The Question and its Solution 15
another as it is determined in accordance with God's
loving disposition, or to God's essential government
of the world as the realising of His saving purpose
in human society, then it follows that a ministering
and self-surrendering love, after the divine pattern,
is the guiding principle for social life.
Further, if the only condition of communion with
God on the part of man is the purely inward and
spiritual one of susceptibility for grace, the uni
versalism of salvation, and, mediately also, of the
kingdom of God, follows from ethicism socially
applied. The way by which the kingdom of God
is to become universal does not, in the first instance,
come into consideration here.
Individualism, subjectivism, spiritualism, ethicism,
and universalism are therefore Jesus' intuitive prin
ciples, which necessarily follow from His absolute
fellowship with God. Ethicism, as being the most
direct expression of the intercourse with God Him
self, is of course the fundamental form which rules
and determines them. These immanent principles
of Jesus' religious criticism are, moreover, the appro
priate test for judging of those views, ascribed to
Him by contending traditions, with reference to
particular religious ideas.
The above criteria are the expression of Jesus'
moral and religious judgments. Yet if we seek
to ascertain by their aid the actual facts of Jesus'
views in all their details, we must, in doing so,
take into account another imperfection of human

16 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [9-10
thought. In accordance with this, not only must
Jesus' world of ideas have been one of limited
extent, but He was not able to attain a perfectly
clear consciousness of more than parts of it, and
that in a gradually progressive way. The more
directly certain ideas were connected with the saving
content of religion, the more prominent must have
been their place in Jesus' mind. Hence the pre
dominance of the more abstract principles of inward
ness and spirituality was necessarily limited by the
more immediate religious interest of ethicism. When
Jesus, e.g., depotentiated the external form of the
kingdom of God, the logical consequence may, in
itself, be a complete spiritualising of it ; but it was
not on that account a psychological necessity (cf.
ch. iv.). For the religious content of that kingdom
was to Him of such importance that the immediate
interest in it would leave no place for sustained
reflection on the less important form. Nevertheless
the content must have had a corresponding form.
With regard to such things as are not of direct
religious importance, nothing but an impartial ex
amination of the text can bring out the actual views
of Jesus in all their details. We may indeed not
arrive at actual certainty, but we may attain to a
greater or less degree of probability. As He did
not look upon the demons introduced from Persia
as mere figures or personifications of impersonal
powers, but rather as personal spirits, He would
just as little, in spite of the spirituality and sublimity

The Question and its Solution 17
of His general view, see a sufficient reason for com
pletely divesting the final kingdom, though He did
regard its essence as purely spiritual, of the bodily
forms in which it was for the most part handed
down by the prophets. He may perhaps have
understood it to have a material though spiritualised
form.1 However, we can already predict more exactly the
probable direction taken by certain human imper
fections in the form of His infallible revelation. If,
in regard to this latter, He was the ideal prophet,
such defects of conception might have lain only in
the line of the prediction, especially as found in
the Old Testament, which He not only adopted with
full consciousness in everything essential, but which
He knew He had come to fulfil. In this sense and
to this extent we must expect in Him also the
characteristic defects of prophecy. This, of course,
holds good of Jesus' own predictions in so far as
they are the expression of God's revelation regarding
the future. Thus, in particular, the prophecies of
His death, resurrection, and second coming, the con
tents of "which are the future perfection of salvation,
come under this point of view. The same imper
fections of form which characterise the prophesyings
of the Old Testament generally will probably adhere
to them. Hence, like the old prophets, Jesus (1)
presented His religious and especially prophetic reve
lation in certain forms that are probably borrowed or
1 The fuller discussion of this point belongs to chap. iv. 2b.

18 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [10-11
imitated from tradition and the natural way of look
ing at things, particularly as found in His own day.
These forms were not perhaps exactly suitable, but
had no religious significance. (2) Even in the case
of Jesus, the prophetic knowledge of the exact cir
cumstances of a foreseen event cannot have been
absolutely certain. As, in particular, He could not
have had any exact acquaintance with the secret
springs and special circumstances of the historical
development, He must also have lacked perfect
prophetic insight into the duration of the periods
of the final kingdom's development, as well as an
exact knowledge of the definite moment of its
appearance, especially of the time of its final con
summation. For the reasons adduced, He would
not be able, generally speaking, to appreciate these
imperfections in His own knowledge in so far as
they were matters of direct religious indifference.
The later historical proofs of these main defects
in the form of revelation, as also exemplified in
Jesus' case, will justify their derivation from His
prophetic attributes.1
We have provisionally established the prophetic
peculiarity of Jesus and the content and sphere of
His infallible revelation. We have next deduced
the main principles and criteria applicable to the
form of His revelation, and then stated the char
acteristic imperfections of the prediction which we
1 I must defer the proof of this peculiar kind of prophetic
revelation, as such, to another place.

The Question and its Solution 19
must expect even in Him. We have thereby gained
the proper standpoint from which to estimate the
historical tradition concerning the predictions of
Jesus which are in question. We shall now, at
once, begin our investigation of these. This, of
course, will have to be a purely objective inquiry,
based exclusively on the strict exposition of the
traditional material and on the views of Jesus which
may be elsewhere historically verified. To this
extent, the investigation will maintain its inde
pendence even of the principles which I have laid
down for the conception of Christ's person. These,
indeed, are recognised, in whole or in part, by the
majority of theologians to-day, though they are
usually assumed in virtue of a certain empiric
common feeling rather than established on a satis
factory psychological basis. But even if we leave
them entirely out of account or partly deny their
justification, my investigation of the facts must be
judged on its own merits, and this estimate is not
essentially dependent on the attitude taken up
towards my general views. For myself, however,
and those who share my views, they will serve as
guiding lines which, especially in doubtful cases,
may show the way to the goal of our investigation.
If they should prove to be capable, more capable
than other points of view, of furnishing a proper
understanding of the predictions of Jesus which are
now before us, that will necessarily establish their
reliability a posteriori.

20 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [12
Jesus would not really have uttered His main
predictions but for the violent death that was
appointed Him in His calling as Redeemer. That
may at first startle us. For the predictions of the
old prophets were a main branch of their preaching.
It may, however, be explained by His special position
to the kingdom of God. Prophecy is only a special
utterance of the prophet as pastor of the nation.
Predictions in the proper sense, however, refer to
the future history of salvation, viz. the final kingdom
and the march of the divine education of the people
up to that time. But Jesus knew Himself to be
the God-sent fulfiller of those predictions and the
founder of this kingdom of God (Matt. v. 17, xii.
28). Hence His mission in itself had not neces
sarily anything to do with prediction. The only
occasion there could be for this was where peculiar
circumstances modified the fulfilment of the pre
dictions of the old prophets, which the Pharisees
had further developed. And this occasion was given
in the fact that the founding of the final kingdom
by Jesus could only, on account of man's wickedness
(Mark ix. 12 f.), be consummated in an abnormal
way. Only when He perceived it to be God's
purpose that He should die for the final accom
plishment of His mission, could He see clearly that
the founding of the kingdom would have to be
accomplished in a correspondingly different way.
Now, as Jesus' whole being was merged in His
calling, all the relative predictions virtually form

The Question and its Solution 21
members of a whole which is made a unity by the
task of founding the kingdom. For the same reason
they revolve around the future of Jesus' own person,
which was inseparably connected with the future of
His cause.
Their concrete content, accordingly, refers to the
special manner in which His Messianic vocation was
finally carried out. Inasmuch as this mission is
founded on His original revelation, that revelation
forms the ultimate basis of all His predictions.

CHAPTER II

Wc\z IJreoictum of Sesus as to $ts IBeatf)

CHAPTEE II
The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death
/^VUE first subject of investigation is Jesus' pre-
^ diction as to His death. We cannot, of course,
prove directly, from any of our Lord's utterances
which have been transmitted to us, that He expected,
at the first, to succeed in setting up the kingdom of
God in its final form during His lifetime.1 How
ever, it is a psychological impossibility that He
should have expected and foretold from the very
commencement of His ministry that it would end in
His death. For He was not omniscient, but had a
human intellect. The knowledge of His death must
therefore have gradually grown up out of definite
reasons and on definite occasions, in order that it
might receive at last the stamp of a divine revela
tion. But so long as He increased in the favour of
the multitude, who wondered at His doctrine and
mighty deeds, and praised Him as a great prophet,2
1 Cf., however, the indirect proof, p. 27 f.
2 Luke ii. 52 ; Mark i. 22, 27 f., 45, ii. 2 ; Luke vii. 16 ; while
Mark ii. 24 and Luke vii. 36 f. probably belong to the period of
conflict. Cf. Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i. 36.
25

26 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [13-14
He could have had no great occasion, in the concrete
experience of life, for supposing He would meet with
a violent death.
No doubt He must have clearly seen from the be
ginning that suffering awaited Him in His Messianic
mission. If, even before entering on His ministry,
He renounced the outward political Messiahship
as a temptation of the devil (Matt. iv. 5-10), and
would not, at any cost, swerve from the path
which God had prescribed as that on which He
should fulfil His calling (ver. 10), He could not but
observe that He thereby placed Himself in opposition
to the general expectations of the people. Accord
ingly, He must even then have surmised that that
opposition would involve Him in a hard and painful
conflict. But that did not necessarily mean that the struggle
would end in death. As Messiah, He was conscious
that God's plan aimed at setting up the kingdom by
no other than Himself. The proof of this will be
found in chap. iv. This, at first, must have seemed
to furnish a guarantee that that conflict would end
in open victory. Jesus knew also that He had come
to fulfil the predictions of the Old Testament (Matt.
v. 17, xi. 13; Luke xxii. 37). And these predictions
made no reference to a death of the Messiah.
No doubt Isaiah liii. foreshadowed the death of the
servant of Jehovah ; but this was entirely explained
away by the exposition of the Babbis (cf. Weber,
Talmud, pp. 344-346). And in a certain sense this

Tlie Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 27
was right. For, though the servant of God was
regarded as Messiah, yet the general impression con
veyed by the views of the prophets forbade any such
ideas about the Messiah, but rather described Him
as a glorious conqueror of the unbelievers, and as a
ruler over the people of God. Hence such rare and
uncongenial ideas fell completely into the back
ground. In the first period, therefore, Jesus had no call to
consider death a necessary feature in His spiritualised
view of Messiah. And it may even be concluded, at
least indirectly, that He really did not do so. This
follows from Matt. ix. 12, 13. For, according to that
passage, He indeed sees the great sufferings and the
rejection of the Son of Man foreshadowed in Isa. liii.
(12b); that is to say, He manifestly expects that He
will have to suffer to the uttermost in accordance
with that prediction (cf. Mark ix. 9 f.). But He
brings out the sharp contrast between that prediction
and another, which declares that Elias is to come and
restore all things before the appearance of Messiah
(12a). Elias no doubt did appear as His forerunner
in John the Baptist (13a). But his fate proves that
he was far from having realised his saving purpose
of converting the nation to God, so that it was rather
the sufferings of Elias that necessarily proved true
in him (13b, cf. Holtzmann, H.C. 201). Hence it is
now necessary that Isaiah's prediction of the suffer
ing of death should be fulfilled in the Messiah (cf.
Kal 'H\ta<;, 13). .Jesus finds the solution of the

28 Tlie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [15
paradoxical contrast between 1 2 a & b in 1 3b. Unless
the Baptist had been prevented by the wickedness of
men from fully realising his destiny, the Son of Man
would have had no need to die. Accordingly, Jesus
cannot, at the beginning, have expected to be put to
death. It was only after His coming into collision with
the malicious and obstinate resistance of the hier
archy, which till then had determined the faith
and life of the people, that the perception must have
arisen, and that at first in a purely human manner,
that this resistance might be carried out to the very
uttermost. And this necessarily brought before His
mind the possibility of death in His calling. From
the time that He gained this conviction from the
inexorable hostility of the leaders of the people, His
execution at their hands, supposing them to have the
power, must have seemed to Him in the highest
degree probable. The faithful Messenger of God
could neither deny His principles nor His aim in life,
and therefore could not escape His fate by flight.
Hence, humanly speaking, He could expect no
other end than death for unwarranted Messianic
claims. The fate of many prophets could only have
strengthened that conviction. But, above all, the
imprisonment and bloody end of John the Baptist
must have warned Him that the King of the
kingdom of God would not fare otherwise than
His forerunner. The passages, Mark ix. 12 f.,

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 29
Luke xiii. 32 f., Matt, xxiii. 33-39, prove that
Jesus had this very fate of the prophets repeatedly
before His mind.1
Strictly speaking, we have no right to ask when
this knowledge first dawned on Jesus. For, in accord
ance with the situation, it must have been gradually
developed out of the idea of its mere possibility
into greater certainty, and finally to the highest
probability. Yet, at a comparatively early period,
we come across a presentiment of His death. It
probably dawned on Him soon after the outbreak of
His conflict with the Pharisees. That incident in
Capernaum when He forgave the sins of the paralytic,
and the scribes who were present secretly charged
Him with blasphemy (Mark ii. 7), might have sug
gested to Him the end of the blasphemer. And now,
when even the Pharisees upbraid Him and His dis
ciples for their non-ascetic life and their intercourse
with publicans and sinners, whom they hated and
despised (Mark ii. 16; cf. Matt. xi. 19), He who
knew what was in man perceived that He would
never win those sound ones who had no need of the
Physician (Mark ii. 17). Then, for the first time,
He throws out a hint, which indeed the disciples did
not then understand, but which already plainly
declares that He saw death hovering before Him as
the end of His ministry. A time will come when
1 Let it be said here, once for all, that the proof of the Messianic
attitude of Jesus must be presupposed here, as, so far as it is relevant
to our subject, it is given in chap. iv.

30 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [ie-17
the " Bridegroom " will be taken from the midst of
the disciples, and then their sadness will find ex
pression in fasting (Mark ii. 20).1 At that time,
therefore, the habits of Jesus are accurately known,
and the hierarchy assail them in pious self-conceit,
by contrasting with Him even the disciples of the
Baptist (Mark ii. 18), whom they otherwise hated
(Luke vii. 20). His work must therefore have
already reached or approximated to a certain climax.
We cannot conjecture more about this epoch, since
those quarrels of Jesus with the Pharisees (Mark ii.
1-3, 6) are not grouped by the second Evangelist
according to historical order, but are arranged accord
ing to subject (Wendt, I.e. i. pp. 23—25, 36). From
whom, then, was Jesus to expect this violent death,

1 If Jesus at that time had supposed that His earthly activity
would at once pass over into the completed kingdom of God, He
could not possibly have contemplated a separation from His disciples
(of. Erich Haupt, Die Eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den Synop-
tischen Evangelien, p. 108 ff. ). But Haupt's idea, which leaves
death entirely out of account, that He will go to the Father to be
able to usher in the heavenly kingdom, does not seem to me to be
fortunate in the reason it assigns for the deep sadness of the disciples,
in its sharp contrast to their present joy. When He further exclaims
(Mark ix. 19), " 0 faithless generation, how long shall I be with you,
how long shall I suffer you? " the meaning seems to me to be that
He will not be much longer among them, as He who patiently bears
all their unbelief, and therefore it will soon be too late for them if
they still refuse to believe. The words can have nothing to do with
an anxious desire to go from them, without reference to death,
because even here Jesus reckons with the necessity of His execution.
In Titius' book, Jesu Lehre vom Reiche Oottes, which appeared just
after I had finished mine. I find an attempt, similar to my own, to
explain the origin of Jesus' prospect of His death. His conception
of the taking away of the Bridegroom, in Mark ii. 20, is also similar.

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 31
but from those who had already been sufficiently
declared His enemies ?
But He gives further offence to the Pharisees by
breaking their supposedly inviolable Sabbath laws
(Mark ii. 24). Nay, He even ventures to heal a
sick man in the synagogue upon the Sabbath day
(iii. 1-5). That made the Pharisees, already hostile,
watch for an opportunity to put an end, if possible,
to His " illegal " doings. And this did not escape
the great Heart-searcher. For He looks round on
them with anger, being also grieved at the hardening
of their hearts (ver. 5). Must He not have foreseen
that their enmity would be increased, when, in spite
of them, He completed the cure ? Their hatred had
now actually grown to such a pitch that in order to
destroy Him they united with the Herodians, who in
other respects were repugnant to them (iii. 6).
Mark soon after this describes the scene where the
scribes and Pharisees charge Jesus, after He has
cured a demoniac (Matt. xii. 22), with casting out
devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils (Mark iii.
22). This event, as compared with the foregoing
cases of conflict, marks an increase of hostility. For
the Pharisees had come down from Jerusalem for the
express purpose of laying traps for Jesus (iii. 22).
And Jesus sees in their accusation a blaspheming of
the Holy Ghost, the extreme obduracy of which
(Luke xi. 34) He declares shall never be forgiven
(Mark iii. 28 f.). He now also openly upbraids them
for their hostility (Luke xi. 23), and possibly looks

32 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [is
back on a relapse of these men from a former better
state (Luke xi. 24-26).1
The prediction of Jesus as to the sign of Jonas
would also belong to this connection if it meant what
Matthew, who differs from Luke (Luke xi. 30), attri
butes to it, viz. His resurrection from the grave after
three clays (Matt. xii. 40). The severe reproof with
which Jesus meets the demand of the Pharisees for
a sign, shows how keen the conflict had already
become (Luke xi. 16, 29 ; Matt. xii. 38 ff., 45 ; Mark
viii. 11 1.).
The great apostasy which took place even among
the disciples when the Lord declined the offer to
make Him a king, must have still more disturbed His
outlook into the future (John vi. 14 1., 60, 66 ; cf.
Mark vi. 34-44 ; Weiss, Life of Jesus, vol. ii. p. 394).
For now He began to lose the favour even of the
people.2 Henceforth the scribes and Pharisees, who
had come down from Jerusalem to plot His destruc
tion, found their task much easier (Mark vii. 1). It
cannot have been much later when they assailed
Jesus because He and His disciples paid no heed to
the laws of purification. Then He opposed them
with such severity as to brand them without reserve
as hypocrites, charging them with transgressing the
commandments of God for the sake of their traditions
1 Perhaps He only threatens them here with a moral and spiritual
degeneration in the future after they have rejected Him (cf. Titius,
Jesu Lehre vom Meiche Gottes, Freiburg 1895, p. 15).
2 To this period, at the soonest, belong also the woes uttered
against Galilee, Matt. xi. 20 ff. (Titius, p. 15).

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 33
(Mark vii. 6, 9-13). In the first place, however,
He was compelled by the great authority of those
laws to retire into non-Jewish regions. This retire
ment was undoubtedly occasioned by fear of the
consequences of Pharisaic enmity. The fact that
He sought to hide Himself also favours that con
clusion. He would scarcely have needed to do that
on account of the people crowding on Him in the
regions of Tyre (Mark vii. 24).
Finally, at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus shows that He
has no doubt that He will be put to death (Mark viii.
31-33 ; Matt. xvi. 21-23 ; Luke ix. 22). He speaks
here frankly and definitely about the fate that is just
awaiting Him. His reproof of Peter, who urges Him
to spare Himself, shows how firmly His resolve to
die was based upon the knowledge of the divine
appointment (cf. John x. 18, xv. 13). He regards
him as the Satanic tempter who mindeth not the
things of God, but the things of men (Mark viii. 3 2 f . ;
Matt. xvi. 22 f.). And throughout His journey to
Jerusalem, into the den of assassins (Luke xiii. 34),
which was shortly afterwards commenced, He main
tained that resolution (cf. Mark ix. 2, 30, 33, x. 1,
17, 32, 46).
Accordingly, if Jesus, now openly professing to be
Messiah, journeyed to the central sanctuary of God's
people on the occasion of their greatest and most
popular festival with the view of finally offering them
the highest exhibition of God's grace, He did so in
the full consciousness that He would thereby provoke
3

34 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [18-19
the obduracy of His enemies, and His own fate.1
The thought of death, which had arisen at a com
paratively early period, and been gradually developed,
had now reached its climax.
From this time forth Jesus repeatedly speaks of
His approaching death, and that not only in the
circle of His disciples. He does not shrink from
declaring the certain expectation of His fate as a
prophet even in the presence of the Pharisees, who
hypocritically seek to terrify Him with the plots of
Herod (Luke xiii. 32 ff., cf. Matt, xxiii. 37). To this
period also naturally belong those other sayings in
the Gospels, in which He alludes to His death. He
knows that He will have to suffer many things, and
be rejected of this generation, before His reappearance
in His day (Luke xvii. 24 f.). He is distressed at
the thought of the baptism of blood which He has to
undergo, before the fire, which He has come to cast
on the earth, can be kindled (Mark x. 38 ; Luke xii.
49, 50). Though His heart is agitated when He
thinks of His terrible fate, yet He does not pray the
Father to deliver Him from it. For the Father
Himself, in His saving purpose, leads Him into it.
And the Son is convinced that the corn of wheat
must first be cast into the earth and die before it
can bring forth much fruit (John xii. 27, 24). To
this period also undoubtedly belongs the theme of
1 The explanation of W. Brandt, in Die Evang. Gesch. u. d. XJr-
sprung d. Christenthums (1893), that Jesus' aim was to obtain the
magistrates' recognition of His preaching (p. 479), does not form
an adequate estimate of His Messianic consciousness.

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 35
that conversation between Moses and Elias concern
ing His approaching decease in the Transfiguration
scene (Luke ix. 31). The statement (Luke xxiv. 26),
" Ought not Christ to have suffered these things,"
etc., must be regarded as one which was awakened in
the hearts of the disciples by the appearance of the
Eisen One.
On the other hand, we must not regard the promise
of setting up the temple after its destruction (John
ii. 19), as originally applying to His death and resur
rection, as the four Evangelists do, but as referring
to the founding of the kingdom of God by Jesus (see
Meyer's Comm. John, 7th ed. p. 140).1
At any rate, it is clear, from what has been said,
that whatever presentiment Simeon may have had of
certain sufferings of the Messiah, he cannot possibly
have meant the death of Jesus by the sword which
was to pierce the heart of Mary (Luke ii. 35).
Otherwise, he would have been a better prophet than
Jesus Himself, who did not from the first know that
His death was necessary.
Besides these occasional statements about His
death which He made after the day at Csesarea,
Mark expressly tells us that He now began formally
and frankly to instruct the little circle of His dis
ciples more especially concerning the necessity, the
divine "Sel," of His death (Mark viii. 31 f., cf. ix.
12). The importance which He attached to this
instruction may be seen from the fact that for this
1 Further details on this point will be given later.

36 Tlie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [19-20
purpose He withdrew entirely from the others
on His journey through Galilee (Mark ix. 30 f., x.

o

9-

¦34).

It would have been inconceivable, and indeed
pedagogically inexcusable, if He had not done so.
For we see that the communication perplexed the
disciples as something new and unheard - of, even
after the first announcement at Csesarea (cf. Mark ix.
10, 32, x. 32 f.). This also proves that Jesus cannot
have communicated that to them before. Peter
could hardly have remonstrated with his Master in
such a fashion a second time (Mark viii. 3 2 f .). And
the fear of the disciples increased, the nearer they
approached Jerusalem. The idea made them so un
comfortable that they did not care to ask Jesus
further (Mark ix. 32, x. 32). They had absolutely
no idea of the fact that the Messiah must needs die.
With their fixed belief in inspiration this must have
seemed to them an impossibility, because of its
apparent contradiction to the whole of prophecy. A
dead Messiah was a contradiction in terms. Death
seemed to destroy outright Messiah's vocation.1 How
was a dead King to set up a kingdom ? Though the
atoning death of the righteous for the unrighteous
was part of the rabbinical teaching (Weber, Die Lehre
des Talmud, pp. 280 f., 286, 313 ff.), yet Paul was
certainly the first who was bold enough to apply this
proposition to Messiah. Before Jesus' crucifixion
there was hardly any pressing need for this know-
1 So also M. Krenkcl, Paulus der Apostel der Heiden, 1869, p. 211,

TJie Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 37
ledge. And even Christ was only led to see the
necessity of it through His own unique experience.
He had reason, therefore, for making the most of
the short time before the crisis. This alone agrees
with His principle (John vi. 4, xvi. 4). If He
had not, so far at least as He could, indicated the
solution of the riddle, the disciples would have been
in danger of giving way to despair when the fearful
event took place. This also seems to be a sufficient
guarantee of the essential historicity of Jesus' last
words to His disciples about His going to the Father,
as reported by the fourth Evangelist.
From the moment He felt that His death
was necessary, He would see in the picture of the
Servant of God, who in the interests of His people
endures the most terrible sufferings even unto death,
an emblem of what He Himself had to expect.
Hence He endeavoured to impress that necessity
upon His disciples by means of this emblem. It
is undoubtedly referred to in Mark x. 45. It is
also probably referred to in Luke xxiv. 2 6 (" e'Set "),
46 (jeypairTat,), as well as in John i. 29, 36. Only,
that instruction certainly did not aim at being ex
haustive or even systematic, but rather consisted of
concise but expressive hints frequently repeated.
And this was so because Jesus found the disciples
anything but disposed for a quiet development
(Mark x. 32). Moreover, the emphatic expression
of the divine necessity of His death was more
important for the future of His friends, than fuller

38 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [22
information about the details of that suffering, even
where He could have given that.1
It was not, therefore, the fault of Jesus if the
disciples were still unable to comprehend the divine
determination that the Messiah should die, but it
was a merit on His part that they recovered from
the utter prostration occasioned by His death, and
attained a belief in the resurrection which enabled
them to overcome the world. If we have no warrant,
then, for attributing their want of understanding to
defective instruction on the part of Jesus, we have
still less reason for the further inference that in
the remarks about their want of intelligence we
have a clear reminder that Jesus Himself did not
up to the end regard His death and resurrection as
absolutely necessary, and therefore did not definitely
foreknow and foretell them.2
This brings us to the revealed character of His
foresight. There is no doubt a difference between
human probability, however great, and prophetic
certainty. However much His enemies threatened
Him with death, He firmly believed in the axiom
of all pious hearts, that the Almighty, whose help
He so often experienced, was able to deliver Him
from every danger.
Only the insight into the religious necessity of
His death could have given it prophetic certainty.
But that knowledge could only have come to Him
1 Cf. also Weiss on the passage.
2 This is the view of W. Brandt, p. 495.

77k? Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 39
in virtue of an immediate divine revelation. His
heart must have anxiously addressed to God the
question whether His plan of salvation could be
realised only by the surrender of His life (John xii.
27). His conviction could only have been perfected
by the divine " yes," and this alone could have
called forth His resolution to enter on the path of
death. Thus the certain foreknowledge and pre
diction of His death depended on the perception
that in this way God has appointed Him to fulfil
His vocation.
We first meet with this knowledge as perfectly
sure of itself at Csesarea Philippi (Mark viii. 33).
But elsewhere also we repeatedly come across it as
a fact, and this in virtue of sayings of the Lord
that are undoubtedly genuine (cf. pp. 33, 37). Its
religious content and its confirmation, however,
appear most clearly in Jesus' institution of the
Last Supper. For here He describes His blood as
the blood of the covenant which is shed for the
salvation (virep) of many (Mark xiv. 24). It is
manifest that this specially refers to Jeremiah's
promise of the new covenant (Jer. xxxi. 31—34).
Consequently, the covenant between God and His
people, which was entered into by Moses with un
satisfactory results, is now finally renewed by means
of Jesus' surrender of Himself to death (Jer. xxxi.
36), and in such a way that it now brings complete
salvation. Above all, it is to impart to the people
a perfect knowledge of God, fellowship with Him,

40 Tlie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [23
righteousness, and forgiveness of sin (vers. 33, 34,
cf. xxiv. 7 and Matt. xxvi. 28).
The fact of first importance here is that the
Lord's Supper attests Jesus' foreknowledge of His
death. This fact is so far admitted even by the
acute but too sceptical W. Brandt, that he regards
the breaking of bread by Jesus as an allusion to
the destruction of His body (I.e. p. 487). However,
much more follows from this, namely, that during
the last period our Lord must have expected His
death as an event that was foreseen in the divine
arrangement of salvation. Brandt's denial of this
(pp. 290-299) seems finally to rest on an under
estimate of Jesus' consciousness of His mission.
For, as we saw, the Lord, as the Sinless One, must
have recognised Himself as the Mediator of salvation,
and therefore as the founder of a new covenant of
forgiveness of sin and perfect communion with God.
And then, as we shall soon see more fully, Jesus
must have subsequently expected this end to be
attained especially by His death as the perfect
exhibition of God's saving love. No impartial mind
can doubt the authenticity of the oft-repeated tra
dition that Jesus knew His death would finally
complete the new covenant with God. For, in
Paul (1 Cor. xi. 25) the covenant of blood is incon-
testably equivalent to the blood of the covenant in
Mark and Matthew. Hence the most recent con
troversies about the institution of the Lord's Supper
cannot in any way affect this covenant. The only

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 41
question can be about its right interpretation. The
content of this covenant must assuredly in the end
be the kingdom of God as the embodiment of the
highest good and the final aim of Jesus' mission.
For the Lord's death is simply a condition, a medium,
a preparing of the way for the perfect realisation of
that kingdom (cf. Lutgert, Das Reich Gottes nach den
synoptischen Evangelien, pp. 145—148, and Titius,
I.e. pp. 149, 151 f.). In particular, the ingenious
idea of Titius, who sees in the new covenant the
guarantee to each individual disciple of the eternal
life to which their Head had been exalted by death
(cf. pp. 149-157), may correspond to Jesus' view.
Yet he seems to me to give too little attention
here to our Lord's relation to the covenant of
Jeremiah. Otherwise he would not, without suffi
cient reason, exclude the forgiveness of sins from
the number of covenant blessings which Jesus had
directly in view. Inasmuch as the sinless Mediator
of fellowship with God is conscious of bringing this
fellowship about by the impartation of forgiveness
(cf. Mark ii. 5—10 ; Luke vii. 47—50), and now desires
to perfect this covenant by His bloody self-sacrifice,
and that with express reference to a passage of the
prophets where the forgiveness of sin forms a climax,
it must have been this blessing that He specially had
in view here. Hence the addition of Matthew, " unto
remission of sins" (Matt. xxvi. 27), touches at least
the deepest meaning of the celebration of the Supper.
But however that may be — for the several con-

42 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [24
tested points, inasmuch as they do not affect the
essence of the matter, are of no importance here —
the Lord's Supper, at any rate, proves that Jesus'
certainty as to the necessity of His death must
have been gained by revelation some time before.
The occasion which called forth the whole wealth
of His insight into the significance of His death
may possibly have been furnished by the festival
itself. But the divine height and breadth and
depth of this perception, which sums up in a few
words and in a short symbolical ceremony the entire
fulfilment of the law and the prophets, does not
look like a child of the moment. Such a fulness
of conviction, accompanied by the surpassing firm
ness, certainty, and calmness of His attitude, could
only have resulted from the deepest inward experi
ence and mature consideration of the significance
of His death before God, and could only have
received the stamp of its completion from an
immediate divine revelation.
We have now to examine more exactly the psycho
logical explanation, hitherto only touched upon, of the
way in which that prophetic certainty regarding the
saving significance of His death may have originated.
For it could not have been communicated to Him
magically, and therefore must have had a connecting
link in His soul. As being of a religious nature, it
must have had its origin in His moral and religious
feeling, for that alone was capable of receiving
the revelation that the Saviour of the world must die.

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 43
The genesis of this conviction will have to be
conceived as follows. In virtue of His first revela
tion, Jesus knew that men's salvation lay entirely
in their love to God. Only in this divine disposition
was it possible and lawful for them to partake of
the divine nature, and thereby of the true source
of life (cf. 1 John iv. 16). But He was certain
that the only thing that could induce them to love
God was a full knowledge of God's love for them.
And He knew, in virtue of a divine revelation, that
He was called to proclaim by word and life this
heart-transforming love of God in the form of the
divine purpose of salvation (John xv. 9—11).
In giving Himself wholly up to this ideal prophetic
calling, He learned by experience that men were
deeply depraved and alienated from God. Hence
it must have become more and more evident to Him
that if ever they were to be brought to a knowledge
of their inherent wickedness, and converted to God,
it could only be by the highest manifestation of
divine love. This love, which Jesus knew Himself
sent to reveal, must necessarily consist in His sur
render of all things, even life itself, for the salvation
of His brethren — in His suffering death at the hands
of the very men He sought to save.
The sin of man was so great that it could only be
conquered by the whole wealth of the love of God,
who for their sakes sacrificed His well- beloved and
only - begotten Son. This love must victoriously
assert itself in its own divine nature, not only in the

44 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [25-26
deepest suffering and amidst the hatred and contempt
of the world, but through that very hatred and con
tempt reach its highest development, and thus over
come the world by the unfathomable depths of divine
love (John xv. 13, iii. 16; Mark viii. 35, x. 45;
John xii. 24, cf. 1 John v. 4). The utter worth
lessness of egotism and estrangement from God, and
again, the value of fellowship with God and the
omnipotence of God's love in Jesus, could only have
been brought to light by this last result (cf. Eom.
viii. 31 ff., v. 8ff; John iii. 16). The unbelief of
the world must be ultimately overcome by this final
sacrifice. Hence Jesus was justified in the conviction
that He would gain that victory by the surrender
of His life (cf. Weiss, Life of Jesus, vol. iii. p. 7 2 ff.).
These are the thoughts which necessarily repre
sented in more or less developed form the deepest
inward experience of Jesus while yielding obedience
to His Father's saving purpose. His pure moral
and religious feeling could alone have fathomed
the depths of human sin and the greatness of the
divine grace which became manifest in Himself. It
was the correct estimate of the relation of- these two
elements in His own soul that made Him see the
necessity for His own uttermost sacrifice of love.
Hence in this genuinely prophetic revelation, judg
ment and grace blend into one.
To the objective ideas of salvation must have been
added subsequent subjective ones, which, on the basis
of a divine revelation, made clear to Him the neces-

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 45
sity for surrendering His life for man's salvation.
Jesus' love for God and man could only have ripened
into perfect holiness by an act of faith persisted in
to the end (Mark x. 18 ; Heb. xii. 1-3, v. 6). For
this reason also His death was the only thing that
could give the highest revelation of the divine love
for His brethren.
To Him who understood the inmost meaning of
Scripture, this knowledge must have been made clearer
and stronger by the example of the Servant of God
(Isa. liii. 1 0—1 2). The passages which we have already
in part referred to show that He really did look back
to this example (Matt. xxvi. 54; Mark ix. 12 ; Luke
xviii. 31, xxii. 37, xxiv. 25-27, 44-47). We have
already stated that Jesus nowhere else found His
own sufferings so plainly typified. And again, He
could only have found the idea of the Servant of
God and His vicarious sufferings entirely fulfilled
in Himself. For only He who was in perfect and
continuous fellowship with God, while innocent Him
self, took upon Himself the guilt and punishment of
those who brought Him to death, in order to procure
for them, by His faithfulness unto death, the full
forgiveness of sin.
Thus by His death He redeemed many from death
(Mark x. 45 : cf. Lutgert's admirable development of
the idea of " ransom " in D. Reich Gottes n. d. synop-
tischen Evangel, p. 142 f.).1 The question as to whether
1 When, on the other hand, J. Weiss (Die Predigt Jesu vom Reichc
Gottes, 1892) makes Jesus see in the sin which will destroy His life

46 Tlie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [27
the revelation of God in Christ's perfect life might not
of itself have been sufficient for redemption, seems to
me an idle one. As a matter of fact, God has accom
plished that redemption through His death. Hence
this certainly was the best way to reach the goal.
The question here is how Jesus came to recognise
the divine necessity of His death, a knowledge which
received, through an inner illumination, the stamp of
revelation. Though the way indicated does not
claim to be correct in every point, yet it must have
lain, at all events, between the two poles of the divine
love on the one hand, and human sin on the other.
For He knew that He had come to reveal the former,
and to destroy the latter, and with i; Satan's right
and power over men.
Accordingly, the inner reason, and therefore also
the necessity of the divine decree that the Messiah
should die, are easily understood from this moral
and religious standpoint. This death really belonged
to the divine plan of salvation, which included the
radical victory of God's love over the sin of the world
by the giving up of His Son (Eom. viii. 32). How
ever little we may be able to understand the union
the main hindrance to the coming of the kingdom of God, and now,
" in a bold paradox," makes Him be seized by the thought " that His
death is to be the ransom for the people who have fallen into ruin "
(p. 28), this conception does not seem to me to take sufficient account
of the psychological medium and soteriological significance of this
idea. In opposition to this, Ehrhardt (Grundcharakter der Ethik
Jesu, 1895, p. 104) recognises that Jesus regarded the death which
He foresaw "as Saviour and deliverer of souls ... as an atoning
sacrifice offered to God."

Tlie Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 47
of human freedom with divine necessity both in this
and other cases, the death of the Saviour of the
world cannot possibly be due to an accident of which
the contrary might just as well have happened. The
fate of the Lord could never have depended on the
humour of a Pilate. We must rather confess with
Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, that men gained
their power over Him only because He was given
into their hands by the deliberate counsel and fore
knowledge of God (Acts ii. 23).
Though, indeed, that necessity was made known
to the Lord by an inner revelation, yet, even for
Him, this obedience unto death denoted a climax of
His redemptive work that could only be reached by
bloody sweat. Hence Gethsemane and Golgotha
cannot destroy Jesus' insight into the divine necessity
of His death. When Jesus prayed to God, appealing
to His omnipotence, that the cup might pass from
Him (Mark xiv. 36, and parallels), He no doubt
meant the cup of death, and not merely the cup of
agony (cf. Jer. xlix. 12). The latter cup is substi
tuted only because we do not like to entertain the
idea that Christ was not heard. A short time before
however, in presence of the sons of Zebedee, He uses
the same word, woTrfpiov, in the same sense of the
cup of death (Mark x. 38).
And when the fourth Evangelist makes Jesus, after
the scene in Gethsemane, speak of the cup which the
Father has given Him (John xviii. 11), this cup
likewise can only be the cup of death.

48 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [2s
A similar account is found in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. There Jesus is represented as offering up
prayers and supplications, with strong cryings and
tears, unto Him who was able to save Him from
death (v. 7). Here also, then, the object of His
prayer is this deliverance from death. When, how
ever, the author continues, Jesus " was heard in virtue
of His piety," or " through His freedom from fear," 1
the latter conception is self-evident. According to
the former, He was of course delivered from death
itself, yet manifestly in the sense that He did not
remain in death (Acts ii. 24). But Jesus cannot
have prayed for that here, but rather to be kept from
death. And in this sense He was not heard. The
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems then to
have modified, at all events, the significance of the
matter, in order to exclude the idea that a prayer of
Christ was not heard.
Some endeavour to avoid the admission that Jesus
here entreats His Father to deliver Him from death,
in the following manner. Immediately before it is
said, He prayed that, if it were possible, the hour
might pass away from Him (Mark xiv. 35). This,
then, is applied to that hour of agony itself. But it
means rather the " hour " of the death sentence (cf.
also John xii. 27). That is clear from the whole
situation, but is also evident from the fact that Jesus
immediately afterwards used this expression un
ambiguously in the same sense. For He says : " The
1 " o7r6 rijs ei\af3elas."

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 49
hour is come ; behold, the Son of Man is betrayed
into the hands of sinners" (Mark xiv. 41).
But the expression, " if it be possible " may God
let this cup pass away, should not be taken as a
conditional clause, in the sense of a real possibility,
however far off. He who had just founded the new
covenant of the forgiveness of sin in the shedding of
His blood and the breaking of His body, and was
sure that He would first drink wine again with His
disciples in the final kingdom (Mark xiv. 24 f.), could
not have thought of this.
Granting the accuracy of the tradition, the state
ment must be interpreted not logically, but psycho
logically. It does not express fluctuation of ideas,
but convulsion of mind. These feelings were so
agonising that they followed neither logic nor logical
expression. It is the agonising cry of the heart
which is wrestling with God and self about a com
plete surrender to God's will. Jesus wrestles for
strength to bear that which is inconceivably fearful,
for a joyful persistence in love towards the men for
whose salvation He is to endure the uttermost, and
who are just about to murder Him. He passed
victoriously through the conflict, and heavenly powers
cheered Him on to carry out His resolve. That is
the truth declared in Luke xxii. 43.
From this side we reach in another way a result
similar to that in the Epistle to the Hebrews. If
Jesus could not have thought of any real possibility
of escaping death, neither could He, from this strictly
4

50 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [29-30
logical standpoint, have prayed for it, but only for
power to bear His fate ; and then the real hearing of
His prayer would be found in His inner strengthen
ing. But this same strictly logical standard does
not fit the situation in which Jesus was then placed.
And yet once more He was seized with anguish of
soul in a more violent degree ; I mean that moment
when He exclaimed, " My God, My God, why hast
Thou forsaken Me ? " The genuineness of the
exclamation, notwithstanding the Gospel of Peter,
cannot be doubted ; just because of the dangerous
offence it must have contained when superficially
understood, and which perhaps may have caused the
change in that Gospel, as well as in D, and in the
recently- discovered Syrian translation (cf. Holtzmann,
JET. C. 293).1
Now, many would fain use these words as a proof
that Jesus up to that moment had not expected that
1 Brandt, indeed, as it appears, tries to set aside an articulate cry
of that kind altogether. ' ' Where . . . natural feeling is overcome
by physical pain, and finds relief in an exclamation, it does not
speak in quotations" (p. 240). But it is an arbitrary assumption to
suppose that this loud cry could only have been an exclamation ex
torted by bodily pain. As proof of the contrary, it may be sufficient
to point to the story of James Jones, told by himself, to whom a
man who had been five hours crucified expressed his pain in an
intelligible and objective manner (p. 191 f.). On the other hand, the
airi )iaKpb6ev Bewpovcrcu (Mark xv. 40) should not be strained to mean
that the women had stood too far off to understand such words from
the cross. The standing far off need not be absolute, but may have
been meant in comparison with the soldiers who were standing near
the cross. Nay, if those who passed by could abuse Jesus in complete
sentences, with the manifest presupposition and intention of being
understood by Him (Mark xv. 30), they must also have been able to
hear the words of the Crucified.

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 51
God would give Him up to death. If this was im
possible after the institution of the Supper, it is still
less conceivable after He had conquered in the last
keen conflict in Gethsemane, and had finally yielded
His will to the hardest of all divine decrees.
And then, at the same time, His utterance would
have been a declaration of His loss of faith in His
Messianic mission. It does, no doubt, express a
troubled and disquieted mood of soul. But it cannot
possibly mean despair of that cause whose truth is
certified in the progress of humanity as the eternally
victorious principle of a morally pure religion. That
would not only be a historical absurdity, but would
contain a flagrant accusation against God. But it is
also psychologically impossible. Whoever believes
in consistency of character, especially of such a
character as that of Jesus, must admit the following.
A man such as this, whose purity and believing sub
mission to God are above all praise, could not possibly
have been in doubt as to the truth of His mission in
any situation of life. This would be still less con
ceivable after He had long been immovably convinced
of it by the clearest and deepest revelation, and from
constant uninterrupted intercourse with His Heavenly
Father, and after it had been daily and hourly
approved, hundreds of times, against all kinds of
temptation. Characters less noble and firm in faith
have since His day stood firm in His strength in
spite of fearful torments.
Yet even here, only he who is unable to realise in

5 2 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [si
thought the most painful moments of Jesus, will
measure the exclamation by a cold, logical standard.
It again requires to be psychologically, or, properly
understood, pathologically interpreted.1 Jesus did
not know, but felt, that He was forsaken by God.
In this climax of pain His heart could no longer feel
God's fellowship, which had been the food of His
soul all through life.
The ground of this heaviest weight which burdened
His spiritual feeling may be easily understood. We
have only to think of the fearful bodily pain, the
hopelessness of all human help, the bitter sorrow
which the righteous, sensitive conscience must have
felt at being cast out as the scum of humanity. But
all that is not sufficient. Many martyrs have cheer
fully and heroically endured the same. The whole
wretchedness of humanity and its dreadful sin and
misery must have grieved the Holy One far more.
But the triumph of wickedness which had become, as
it were, visible to the senses in His own crucifixion,
and which was now accomplishing its uttermost in
giving up the best of men and the Saviour of sinners
to the most shameful death that could be inflicted on
a malefactor — this grieved Him most of all. For
triumphing it was, in its deadly hostility to the divine
purpose of salvation, the carrying out of which Jesus
had taken upon Himself for love of men.
We should not entertain the objection which a
cold logic raises against this, namely, that Jesus knew
1 Vorbrodt, Psychologic des Glaubens, p. 75, takes a similar view.

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 53
His death was to be the very means of victoriously
carrying out that plan of salvation. He knew it, no
doubt, but He did not feel, did not contemplate it.
And contemplation and feeling have an almost over
whelming power over the human being subject to
sense, such as He was when He suffered. In the
eyes of men, even of His friends, His cause was
actually ruined. And with it the cause of God, the
triumph of His love, the deliverance of sinners.
Their wickedness seemed to have robbed them of
their salvation. On the other hand, the conscious
ness of His final victory rested wholly upon faith
and not on sight. Such a situation, where all appear
ances seemed 'to be a mockery of Jesus' victory,
where He broke down under the power of man's sin
and the malice of the devil, where even the personal
feeling that God would not abandon Him and His
cause was for a moment obscured, contained the
severest test of faith.
But He steadfastly maintained His faith until the
cup was emptied to the dregs, till He had finished
His work, and was able to commit His spirit to His
Father's hands. Nay, He clung to God even when
He cried, " My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken
Me ? " The proof already urged by Schleiermacher,
and repeatedly advanced since, lies in the words of
the psalm itself (cf. Holtzmann, H. C. 293). The
words, as is well known, are taken from the intro
ductory strophe of the 22nd Psalm. The singer,
probably an exile, utters them when, apparently

54 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [32-33
smitten by God, tormented in body and soul by his
triumphant and mocking enemies, he suffers in reality,
or in idea, the extremity of pain. Here he possibly
feels himself to be the representative of the exiled
community, plagued by its heathen enemies (cf. Smend,
Lehrb. d. 0. Tl. Religionsgeschichte, 1893, p. 393). It
was therefore prayers of the most pious of the
old covenant in their hours of fearful conflict with
which Jesus' mind was occupied in the moment of
His deepest agony. In the cry of him whose soul
was in deep waters, but who even then clung to God
when He seemed to have forsaken him, He found the
expression for the similarity of His own situation
and the deepest emotions of His soul. We are
therefore justified in laying weight on the beginning
of the saying, on the repeated " My God, My God."
Jesus could not have appropriated these words if at
that moment He had lost the belief that God was
still His God, and would remain so. We must
remember also that, in the psalm, the singer by his
steadfast clinging to God raises himself from the
deepest agony to jubilant triumph. This energy of
his faith is vigorously expressed two verses after that
exclamation, vv. 4-6, and then again, vv. 10—12.
But the clear tone of victory and the certainty of
being heard echoes from ver. 2 3 to the end (especially
ver. 29). To Jesus, who moved in the Scriptures as
in His element, it was scarcely possible, even in the
most fearful torture, to quote the beginning of such
a song without feeling in anticipation something of

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 55
the triumph expressed in the outburst of the psalmist
who had become certain of his deliverance. Borne-
mann, in his Unterricht in Christenthum, justly
drew attention to this not long ago (3rd ed. § 33,
note 4).1
Now, many admit that Jesus foresaw His death
with certainty. But they think that the want of
understanding shown by the disciples, and the
despair which His death occasioned, can only be
explained by supposing that He foretold it in a very
indefinite form. Thus, even Holtzmann thinks that
the half of the prediction in Mark viii. 31, which is
applied to the sufferings, was explained ex eventu,
and was therefore clothed in more exact expressions
(H. C. 195). But Jesus did not, in the first instance,
expect death from the administration of the national
law, but from the priests and scribes as His deadly
enemies. Consequently, He must have expected
that this would follow in virtue of the condemnation
of the Sanhedrim on account of religious offences.2
But then would follow the condemnation of the
Eoman magistrate, who at that time alone had the
power of death and life (John xviii. 31). Hence
Jesus might very well have foreknown that " the Son
of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by
1 Immer, Theologie d. N. T., 1875, pp. 173 f., has a somewhat
different view.
2 Brandt's objection to the trial for blasphemy (p. 63) does not
seem to be cogent. He appears to me to make far too wide an appli
cation of the judicial enactments in the Talmud, which are possibly
of later date.

56 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [u
the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be
slain" (Mark viii. 31). This holds good also of
Mark ix. 31, where we have the same prediction,
and even in a shorter form. In the same way, x. 33
has nothing new. On the contrary, the derision,
probably also the spitting of ver. 34, and perhaps
the scourging also, belong to the later redaction,
which looked at the history when finished.
On the other hand, perhaps the very first express
prediction presupposes the crucifixion. At least, this
inference may be drawn if Jesus originally connected
with it the summons to His followers to bear the
cross (Mark viii. 34 ff.). If He should be executed
according to Eoman law, the punishment of cruci
fixion could have been foreseen from the very begin
ning, as He was not a Eoman citizen (cf. Luke xiv.
27 ; Weiss, in his Life of Jesus, vol. iii. p. 27, ex
presses a different opinion).
What makes the prediction a prophetic utterance
is, moreover, not this outward content, but the inner
revelation which imparts to it the certainty produced
by God. The particulars have no connection what
ever with the real prophetic revelation.
It is, indeed, possible to question whether Jesus'
foresight of His death was a prophetic one. It is
admitted that His discernment of its being necessary
for salvation first gave Him the complete inward
certainty of its taking place. It is also admitted
that He could only have got this conviction from
prayerful mtercourse of His heart with God. But

Tlie Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 57
that does not make the expression of it a pre
diction. No doubt the proclamation seems to have no
bearing on the spiritual welfare of the people which
is the motive of prediction proper. For prophecy
is wont to aim at the conversion of the nation. But
Jesus, in the first instance, uttered the prediction of
His death only in the narrowest circle of His dis
ciples. And though He referred to it in the presence
of Herod's messengers (Luke xiii. 32 ff), yet He did
not do so with the immediate intention of influencing
the people.
One motive for this announcement of Jesus to His
disciples certainly was, that He felt the need of
imparting to them, as their Friend, the grievous fate
awaiting Him (Luke xxii. 28 ; John xv. 14 f.). But
that was not the main thing. The motive here also
was rather an immediate pastoral one. Jesus desired
to prevent the disciples from being led to doubt His
Messiahship by the fearful trial. He therefore
speaks to them about the necessity of His death
only when, in virtue of their express confession of
His Messiahship, He deems them capable of bearing
it, or at least of understanding it, later on. But He
does not defer that communication a moment longer.
An indirect pastoral purpose is connected with
this. For. He viewed the disciples, with their faith,
not only as men and friends, but also as messengers
and heirs to His preaching of the kingdom. Viewed
in this light, therefore, His announcement was that

58 TJie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [35
of a universal Pastor (cf. John xvii. 20). The pre
dictions of the old prophets were not always ad
dressed directly to the present hearers only. They
were often composed in writing, from the first, and
were even designed for future generations.

GENERAL SUMMARY
Let us now sum up the result. At a comparat
ively early period there dawned on Jesus, who did
not at first expect nor could have expected death in
His vocation, the presentiment that this would be
His final fate. Then this presentiment advanced,
step by step, to an ever greater probability through
His experience of the malicious resistance of His
opponents. Yet the absolute certainty regarding
it which He manifests at Csesarea Philippi can
only have been gained in a prophetic way. For
the Messiah, who was at all times certain of the
almighty help of His Father, could only have been
convinced of His execution in the exercise of His
calling after He had recognised its spiritual necessity
as a means of perfectly fulfilling that mission. He
could only gain this knowledge through His religious
feeling, in which God gave an affirmative answer
to the question as to whether this was the only
way of effecting the salvation of His people. The
answer of God contained a simultaneous revelation
of judgment and salvation. The certainty of His
death contained in this answer proceeded from the

The Prediction of Jesus as to His Death 59
prophetic insight, that the power, the guilt, and the
evil of sin, in which men resisted their own salvation,
could only be broken by the highest exhibition of
the love of God. Seeing that He was destined to
be the instrument of this love, He resolved to offer
that hardest sacrifice. Jesus' full conviction of the
necessity of His death as a sacrifice of Himself,
which was finally to conclude and guarantee the
covenant of forgiveness of sin and perfect fellowship
with God, is demonstrated in His celebration of the
Last Supper. Since He therewith recognised, not
an imaginary but a true and final saving purpose
of God required by man's fallen state, the necessity
of the sacrifice, under existing conditions, could not
have been a merely relative one, nor could the Lord
have regarded it as such. It was not intellectual
doubt but the deepest suffering of the soul that
assailed Him in Gethsemane. Inasmuch as the
discernment of the necessity that He should die
was thoroughly prophetic, every expression of it
after the day at Csesarea Philippi bears also the
impress of genuine prediction.
Jesus' foreknowledge and foreannouncement of
His death proves, therefore, to be a prophetic ex
pression of His consciousness as Messiah and Saviour
of sinful humanity. But, on the other hand, the
prediction of His resurrection, which we have now
to consider, must have proceeded from the same
source. It will be shown that the one goes with
the other as its necessary correlate. While, how-

60 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [so
ever, it is mainly the genuineness of the more
definite form of Jesus' prediction of His death that
is here and there assailed,1 many will not admit a
real prediction of the resurrection. It will there
fore be our next task to subject this matter to a
closer investigation. 1 Cf., however, Brandt, p. 495.

CHAPTEE III

Sesus' Prediction of Ms Resurrection

01

CHAPTEE III
Jesus' Prediction of His Eesurrection
1. the fact of this prediction
^ITEAUSS comes to the conclusion that Jesus
^ never foretold His resurrection, and that the
supposition of His having done so grew out of the
disciples' belief in the resurrection.1 But if, in the
passages adduced from Mark viii., ix., x., the predic
tion of His resurrection is inseparably connected
with the announcement of His death, which latter
prediction is a certainty, this already furnishes ex
ternal evidence of the historicity of the former. And
if the disciples anxiously discuss the words which
Jesus spoke to them when coming down from the
Mount of Transfiguration concerning the resurrection
of the Son of Man (Mark ix. 9), we are forced to
conclude that the impressiveness of this prediction
as regards the disciples is at least historical. This,
therefore, likewise confirms the fact of the prophecy.
1 In this matter also, W. Brandt, In his recently published book,
Die evangelische Geschichte, 1893, p. 495, again adopts Strauss' views.

64 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [37
But, further, its religious content can also be
vouched for psychologically. This, even according
to the Pharisaic view which was universally pre
valent in the days of Jesus, consists in the inde
structibility of the personal life by death, in the
continuity of life after death. This advance in faith
had arisen in opposition to the earlier assumption,
that all who died sank for ever into an empty
semblance of life in Hades. That deepest content
of the idea of resurrection can again be shown, on
the authority of the Gospels, to have been the view
of Jesus. For resurrection and eternal hfe are
guaranteed to the pious by their connection with
the Almighty God of life who loves them (Mark
xii. 2 6 f.). All the more must the Son of God,
whose experience of the Father's boundless love
was clear and constant, and who had an infallible
sense of that connection, have known that God
Himself would secure for ever the value of His
personal existence and work. He who lived in
God, as God lived in Him, must have experienced
in Himself the indestructibility and the eternal in
herent value of this divine life. Thus, in the giving
up of (sensuous) life for the sake of His calling, He
perceived, especially with regard to Himself, the way
ordained by God for gaining eternal life (Mark viii.
35-37); He hoped to obtain His personal glorifica
tion through death itself (John xii. 23).
But the same thing also follows from the stand
point of His Messiahship. He must have despaired

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 65
of God's omnipotence, His all-embracing love and
omniscience, and, in short, of God Himself, before
He despaired of the victory of His cause as the
cause of God's kingdom. Hence Jesus could not
have grasped the idea of His death, and still less
have been certain of its necessity through revelation,
without being cohvinced of the victory of His Messi
anic mission in' and after death.1 Now, since this
mission was viewed by Him as inseparably connected
with His personas its perfect organ, He expected that
He would lead /it to victory in person, unhindered
by death (Maik xii. 10 f.). In this way His death
became to Him theVieaas of the heavenly completion
of His Messiahship,Which was necessary to the found
ing of the perfect kingdom of God. The result of His
work could only be\ perfected after He had passed
through death (Luk\ xii. 49 f. ; John iv. 35-38;
cf. pp. 33, 37, 38, 45). Having this conviction,
He must also have felt that the glorification of the
Servant of God in Isaiah was typical of Himself
(cf. p. 37). After presenting the priestly expiatory
sacrifice for the sins of His fellow-men through
death, Jesus here saw Himself assured of a long
life of dominion, the prosperity of Jehovah's cause
in His hands, and a (spiritual) posterity (Isa. liii.
10-12). But if He could not believe in His being put to
death without, at the same time, being certain of
His resurrection, in the literal sense hitherto attached
1 Cf. E. Ehrhardt, Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu, 1895, p. 104.
5

66 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [38
to it, in order to effect the more glorious founding of
the kingdom, neither could He have spoken to His
disciples about the first of these kindred revelations
and been silent about the other. For this prediction
of the resurrection could alone remove the terrible
trouble of mind arising from the announcement of
death. Hence the tradition, which almost always
presents these two predictions of Jesus concerning
death and resurrection in the closest connection, is
simply the immediate expression of what follows
inevitably from Jesus' consciousness of revelation.
Accordingly, we can only separate the prediction
of resurrection in its essential content from that
of death, by sacrificing our belief in Jesus' earnest
conviction that He was the Son of God and the
Messiah. The need for completing the historico-critical point
of view by the psychological comes out here with
special clearness. If we assume that historical
criticism cannot say with perfect certainty that
Jesus predicted His resurrection, then it is manifest
that its decision must depend on psychological con
siderations. Ideas of Jesus which do not bear the
peculiar stamp of His mode of thought must appear,
in relation to His most essential nature, to be more
or less accidental, even when they are sufficiently
vouched for as historical. Those notions, on the
other hand, which follow inevitably from Jesus' self-
consciousness have the stamp of intrinsic truth. If,
therefore, the idea of the resurrection is a necessary

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 67
consequence of His thought of death, Jesus must
have had it.
In so far, then, as it was in keeping with His
calling to leave no essential idea of salvation un
expressed, especially to His disciples, but rather to
declare to them all things that He had heard of
His Father, " if they were able to bear it," — words
of the fourth Evangelist that are intrinsically true
(John xvii. 8, xv. 15, xvi. 12), — He must have
said something of that kind. It could only have
been the result of accident if there had been no
such sayings in the tradition. If, on the contrary,
we have, in the material of the original tradition,
such Statements as that of His resurrection, it would
be absurd to contest their authenticity.
The question now is, whether the form at least
of the prediction of the resurrection, as handed
down by Mark, can be justly called in question.
Keim (Jesus v. Nazara, ii. 558), Weiffenbach (Der
Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, pp. 380—384), Holtzmann
(H. C., p. 195 f.), and others, do so, because Jesus
could only speak in obscure phrases of His expect
ations of the future. But when the disciples, in
reference to their Master's words (Mark ix. 9 ff.),
ponder what " the rising from the dead " should
mean, Jesus must have said that He would rise
from the dead, and cannot merely have mysteriously
hinted at it. And yet, again, it is inconceivable
that they were ignorant of what was meant by
resurrection from the dead in itself. They knew

68 The Prophecies of 'Jesus Christ [39-40
that, as well as all Jews of that day. These Jews
even hoped that Messiah would bring the resurrec
tion (John xii. 24). The truth rather is, that they
did not understand the meaning of a resurrection
of Messiah, because, for reasons already adduced,
they could not see the possibility, far less the
necessity of His death (cf. p. 108). Moreover, the
more obscure the prediction of the resurrection
was, the less it could fulfil its aim, and the more
was it out of keeping with the pedagogic tact of
Jesus. If, therefore, as is generally recognised,
Jesus frames His promise in conformity with the
words of the prophet, " After two days will He
revive us, and on the third day He will raise us
up" (Hos. vi. 2), He probably spoke expressly of a
" resurrection on the third day," and not in hints that
were quite general. This is the more probable in
that He could not help sharing essentially the
Pharisaic view of the resurrection which was held
by all the pious of the nation (the details of this
will be given later). Since this form in which the
above genuine religious content was embodied for
the Jews does not injure this content, but rather
has no bearing on it, one cannot see what could
prevent Jesus from accepting it. As He never,
so far as we are able to compare His views with
those of His time, changed the traditional notions
without some special reason, as He does not so much
adapt Himself to them as simply adopt them, so
is it here. For these reasons, therefore, we must

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 69
suppose that He really uttered the prediction in
question essentially in the form actually given to
it in the Gospels.
Hence the statement of the time of His resurrec
tion probably rests on a correct tradition. In all the
main passages, and eve "^ a^, 3 0f Mark, it is found
in the wording " after ^op^ % .fS » (viii. 31, ix. 31,
x. 34). If, instead of t^->/0 . % other Synoptists, as a
rule, say " on the third, ual , the interchange of the two
expressions (cf. Mark*" xvi 2, 9 ; Matt, xxvii. 63, and
on the other hand, 64,1) proves that no sharp opposi
tion was felt between them.
If, according to Jesus' statement in Matt. xii. 40,
the Son of Man is to be three days and three nights
in the heart of the earth, this will at least confirm
the tradition of Jesus' prediction in relation to the
time we mention, although the passage itself, in this
form, is an addition of the Evangelist (cf. Luke
xi. 30; Fr. Zimmer, Der Spruch vom Jonazeichen,
1881; and Wendt, Lehre Jesu, p. 1 0 3 f .). The only
reason we could have for contesting the definition
of the three days as unprophetic would be that
Jesus had meant them literally. That this is not
the case will immediately be shown in the dis
cussion of the more exact meaning of the prediction.
Since Jesus here refers to that passage of Hosea, the
only point in question will be the choice between
the wording, " after three days," or " on the third
clay." In itself there would be no impossibility in
supposing that Jesus had twice expressed the triple

70 Tlie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [41
number of the days in the same way as the prophet.
There we have a so-called enumeration, in which the
statement of numbers alternates between " after two
days " and " on the third day " (cf. Gesenius-Kautzsch,
Hebraische Grammatik, 25£h ed., 1889, p. 423). And
the phrase, "after two -e pc is expressed by the
preposition " min," which if. pie case of dates origin
ally denotes the starting-rJtioit of the enumeration
(cf. Gen. xix. 34 ; Ex. ix'. 6\ ; Gesenius' Hebrew
Dictionary, under " Min "). i , Now, assuming that
Jesus did not express the aunkber in a twofold way,
He might likewise have chosen a phrase with " min,"
which would signify " from three days forwards " =
" from the third day forward." That would explain
how His enumeration might be understood and re
produced alternately as " after three days," or " on
the third day." If the wording " on the third day "
was to have settled the moment of the first appear
ance of the Eisen One, it certainly ought to have
been the prevailing one.

2. the more exact meaning of jesus' prediction
of the resurrection
What exact meaning did Jesus then attach to the
prediction of His resurrection ? That depends upon
His exact idea about the life after death. A thorough
examination of contemporary ideas on the subject
is needed, in the first place, to enable us to compare
them with that of the Lord.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 71
Ezek. xxxii. 17-32 (cf. especially vv. 18, 21 f., 24)
seems to indicate that the idea of Sheol was at first
formed from the notion of a general burying-place
(Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 418 ff, 420 ff. ;
Schwally, p. 6 2, thinks somewhat differently). At any
rate, it meant, at first, the abode of the dead, and, in
keeping with the development of its concept, was
under the earth (Joseph., Antiq. xviii. 1. 3). When
the conviction that the divine requital extended
beyond the grave had once taken root, Sheol naturally
became also the place of punishment. Only after
ward, as " a place for the unclean," can it have been
called Gehinnom, after that valley where in earlier
days sacrifices were offered unto Baal, and which in later
times had become a place for burning things unclean.1
Moral and religious necessity then demanded a
separation of the lot of the pious from that of the
godless. From this the division of the common
place of abode must have easily originated, though
the national consciousness, with its conservative
leanings, partly clung to Sheol as the place of abode
of all the dead (cf. Joseph., Wars of the Jews, ii.
8. 14; Antiq. xviii. 1. 3). In contrast to this, we
find, as early as Ps. xlix. 15, that it is not Hades,
but God, that is, Heaven, which immediately receives
the pious.2 In the Wisdom of Solomon the departed
1 Cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 10 ; Jer. vii. 31 f., xix. 2-5 ; Kimchi on Ps.
xxvii. 13 ; Holtzmann, H. C. 109 ; Weber, I.e. p. 327.
2 The subject of the psalm and the object of the reception cannot be
the Church, hut only the individual, on account of the contrast with
other individuals who are rich and wicked. Cf. especially vv. IS, 20.

72 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [42-43
saints all go thither. This view, at the time of Jesus,
must, according to Josephus, have been represented
specially by the Pharisees. And indeed, according to
it, the souls of the righteous after death immediately
pass into the holiest place of Heaven ( Wars of the
Jeivs, iii. 8. 5). Even Paul imagined this " Gan
Eden " or " Paradise " in the (seventh) Heaven (2 Cor.
xii. 2, 4). The corresponding view of the Eabbis,
which is preserved in the Talmud, must therefore
have belonged to the time of Christ at least (Chagiga,
12). According to this, Abraham, who in Mace.
xiii. 16 exercises with Isaac and Jacob a kind of
lordship over Paradise, comes down from Heaven
to Sheol (Erubin, 19a; Jalkut Chadasch, 35),1 and
Manasseh ascends to Heaven (Debarim rabba, chap. ii. ;
Bammidbar rabba, chap, xviii. ; Weber, p. 328).
At any rate, in the older historical view there is
only one Gehinnom for the godless, and one Gan
Eden for the righteous, with no intermediate place
between them (Weber, p. 327). Even the penitent, so
far as these are assumed to exist, spend a long time
in Gehinnom, and among these were reckoned at a
later period almost all Jews, so that Hell thereby
became a purgatory (Chagiga, 15a; Weber, pp. 326 f.,
328, 351).
It is only in the later Cabbalistic theology of the
Middle Ages that Gehinnom is not identified with
Sheol. That theology recognises, in addition to the
1 Weber, p. 329. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Uberlleferung des
Lulcas, 1891, p. 88.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection

73

heavenly Paradise, a lower one, forming one part
of Sheol, Gehinnom being the other, which, as the
forecourt, is separated from the former by a mere
partition. On the other hand, the " abode of bliss " of the
first men cannot have been originally conceived as
twofold, or even as under the earth, but as in Heaven.
Accordingly, the heavenly Paradise made a second
provisional place of abode for the righteous under the
earth superfluous. For it served them as a dwelling-
place only till the resurrection. After it had come
down from Heaven to earth with the Messianic era
(Eev. xxi. 1-3, x. 24-27), the dwelling-place of
those who are raised from the dead is rather the
heavenly glorified earth (cf. Weber, p. 384).
The notion, therefore, of a second Paradise was
probably formed only after eternal life was conceived
as entirely in another world, in Heaven itself (cf.
Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
div. ii. vol. ii. p. 133 f.). The righteous remain in
the lower Paradise till the resurrection, when they
pass into the upper.
On the other hand, the rewards in Hades, of which
the same Josephus speaks ( Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 14 ;
Antiq. xviii. 1. 3), cannot mean that there was
only one heavenly Paradise at the time of Christ,
as he probably accommodated himself here to the
Hellenistic view, in the interests of the friendly
Eomans. From this heavenly Paradise the souls of the

74 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [a
righteous, not only in the common view of the Phari
sees, but also in the Book of Enoch (cf. the passages
in Schwally, Das Leben nach d. Tode, 1892, p. 140 f.),
the Eevelation of John (vi. 19, cf. iv. 1), and else
where, return to earth, in order to be fitted, by their
resurrection, for taking part in the Messianic king
dom.1 And this is regarded by Martha, the sister
of Lazarus, and by Paul (1 Thess. iv. 15 ff), — that is,
by the contemporaries of Jesus in general, — as taking
place at the last day (John xi. 23 f., cf. v. 25, 28),
at the day of Messiah. For the resurrection, in
keeping with its genesis, signified throughout the
equipment of the departed for taking part in the
kingdom of perfection into which they then passed.
So far as I know, there is no indication that people,
in the time of Jesus or at any time, believed in a
real final resurrection apart from this preparation
for taking part in the kingdom of perfection.2
Now, if we compare the Lord's own view with this,
it would seem as though He followed the Pharisees
here, as in almost all their eschatological ideas. His
1 The peculiar Hellenistic phrase of Josephus, that the souls of the
lighteons are again transferred to pure bodies in the change of sons
( Wars of the Jews, iii. 8. 5), can only refer to the assumption of the
glorified body by the souls which have returned from Heaven at the
beginning of the Messianic seon ; just as his expression, " ava.fitxi.ovv,"
and the " passing into another body," certainly refers, nottoamigra-
tion of souls (Schwally), but to the resurrection (Antiq. xviii. 1. 3 ;
Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 14).
2 Neither the awakening of Lazarus, nor the superstitious fancy,
verging on the migration of souls, of the half-Jewish Herod, about the
resurrection of the Baptist, is opposed to this, just because neither
is to be understood as final.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 75
promise to the thief upon the cross, that " to-day "
he would be with Him in Paradise (Luke xxiii. 43,
cf. Mark xv. 27), shows, at any rate, that those who
were here found worthy were, immediately at death,
received into Paradise. This would hold good even
though we could not absolutely vouch for the authen
ticity of the details of that scene. For even the
patriarchs, such as Abraham, were with God, though
they had not been raised from the dead (Luke xvi.
22, cf. John viii. 56 ; 4 Mace. xiii. 16). Thus,
according to the context, Luke xvi. 22, Lazarus at
his death is carried to Abraham's bosom. And this
does not form a division of Hades, but lies high and
far above it. For there is here a great gulf fixed
between them (Luke xvi. 26). The rich man, how
ever, sees Lazarus only afar off in Abraham's bosom,
and must raise his eyes to do so (eirapat,, ver. 23, cf.
xviii. 13, for the significance of the word). Hence
Jesus must have regarded Paradise as being in
Heaven, and Hades as under the earth. Nay, if the
rich man can see Abraham and Lazarus, and Abra
ham again can see him, the agreement with the
popular view extends to the smallest details (cf.
4 Esra vi. 61, 66 ; Schemoth rabba, 6).
At the same time, it appears that Jesus regarded
Hades as the same place of punishment which He
elsewhere calls Gehenna (Mark ix. 43, 45, 47). This
is confirmed by the fact that, as a punishment of
its unbelief, Capernaum (Matt. xi. 23) is to be cast
down to Hades (against Schwally, p. 175) at the last

76 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [45
clay (Matt. xi. 22, 24). As regards the last day, at
least, Gehenna can be thought of only as a place of
punishment. This is also characterised as being
under the earth by the phrase being " cast down."
Here, where the question is as to its eternal destiny,
the mere rhetorical contrast to the being exalted to
Heaven would be inconceivable, especially in the
mouth of Jesus, who is an enemy to all untruth, even
in expression. Schwally 1 is therefore wrong when
he supposes that Gehinnom, even as a place of
punishment, denoted at all times only the accursed
valley of that name, and did not rather characterise
the place of woe as being under the earth.2
Now, if Jesus held that the righteous passed im
mediately into Heaven at death, how was it that He,
who knew that He was more than all the righteous
of former days, and who even promised Paradise to
the thief who believed on Him, expected to descend
first to Hades ?
By supposing that He will be there " to-day " per
sonally with him, He unquestionably excludes the
idea of a descent into Hades even for Himself. If
His soul went there at all, then indeed the going to
Hades could have reached its close only through the
resurrection. For a passing back and forward of the
soul between Heaven and Hades before the resurrec-
1 So also J. Weiss, D. Prcdigt Jesu, p. 37.
2 When, in the Revelation of John, Hades itself is cast into the
lake of fire, this can prove nothing in favour of Schwally (p. 175 f.).
For that lake is here manifestly a picture of the abolition of the con
quered power of death.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 77
tion would be an idea as unbiblical as it is fantastic.1
His resurrection, however, takes place only on the
" third day." The contradiction, therefore, is mani
fest. If Jesus means to be in Paradise " to-day," He
cannot have meant to make a prior descent into the
lower world.2
Now, the view of at least one part of the early
Christian community was that Jesus passed imme
diately into Heaven. This is confirmed by the
recently discovered fragment of the Gospel of Peter,
edited by Harnack.3 For here Jesus is " taken up "
(dveXitydT), ver. 19) immediately after His dying cry.
But, according to the context and linguistic usage,
that can only mean the reception into Heaven.4 In
the same sense Jesus, when dying, commends His
spirit into the hands of the Father (Luke xxiii. 46),
1 If He went into Hades at all, this must have happened imme
diately after death. But then He must have ascended into Heaven
"to-day," that is, taken strictly, in three hours at most (Mark xv.
33 f. ), in order to return to the grave after one and a half days.
Or is He to be supposed as having gone once more into Hades even
before this ?
2 This expectation of Jesus would be established, according to the
above, on the basis of the Bible and of His self-consciousness as the
Sinless Son of God Himself, even if the view of the immediate pass
ing of the righteous into Heaven should not absolutely prove to be
held by the Pharisees. Thus even Paul, in point of fact, accepted
in general the descent of the departed into Hades (cf., however,
Phil. i. 23, about which more will be said later).
3 Fragment of the Gospel and of the Apocalypse of Peter, Leipzig
1893, Heinrichs.
4 Cf. av&XriiAipts, Luke ix. 51 ; ave\-qix(p6in, Acts i. 2 ; and the
phrase completed with the words "into Heaven," eh ovpaviv, in
Acts i. 10, 11, and Mark xvi. 19. Cf. also in the same sense, but
without the latter addition, Acts i. 22, cf. x. 16. Cf., with the
addition " into glory," iv Sb^-n, 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; cf. also Brandt, p. 543,

78 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [46-47
to whom also, according to the fourth Evangelist, He
"now" wishes to go (John xvi. 5, 7, 17, cf. xiv. 2 f.)
— words which he spoke to His disciples immediately
before the catastrophe. Consequently, if Jesus ex
pected to go to the Father immediately at death, His
resurrection could not have had this aim. If, on
the contrary, it had to prepare one for taking part
in the kingdom of perfection (cf. pp. 38 f., 42 f.), the
Lord could not have expected to take part in that
kingdom Himself before the moment in which He
appeared to enter on His Messianic reign. This was
really what the disciples assumed concerning the
Eisen Lord (Acts i. 6).
If, then, as we have seen, it has been critically
established 1 that He would rise from the dead after
three days, this can only signify, after what has been
said, the period that must elapse before He can set
up the kingdom, and that in the sense of " a short
time." In the passage which originates this expression,
Hosea understood the time in precisely the same
way (vi. 2 ; cf. Weiss, Life of Jesus, vol. iii. p. 76).
Had Christ, on the contrary, taken the statement of
time literally, then we should have had an act of
soothsaying foreign to Him, in place of a prediction
worthy of Him. This meaning of the phrase " three
days " in Jesus' mouth may also be confirmed by a
similar use which He makes of it elsewhere. Thus, He
announces to Herod, when about to set out for Jeru-
1 Cf. the preceding division.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 79
salem, that He must work to-day and to-morrow, and
" on the third day " He will be perfected (Luke xiii.
32 ; cf. also Brandt, p. 429). Here, undoubtedly, it
signifies a short interval, which may, in Jesus' mind,
have represented several weeks.
In the same manner He had predicted that He
would destroy this temple made with hands, and in
three days would build another not made with hands
(Mark xiv. 58). Both the context of the passage
and the repetition of it as an accusation in Mark xv.
29, and also in the trial of Stephen (Acts vi. 14),
indicate that Jesus really couched that well-known
utterance pretty much in this, and not in the milder
form given by John (ii. 19), according to which He
challenges His opponents to destroy the temple. The
words have been so well preserved just because they
were spoken shortly before the arrest of Jesus.
Thus He here declares Himself to be the One who
seeks to found a new spiritual worship of God,
after the abolition of the old external cultus which
was essentially connected with the temple (cf. Matt.
xi. 13).1
1 His own context contradicts the fourth Evangelist's exposition
of Jesus' death and resurrection (John ii. 21 f.). For Jesus has just
given the symbolic proof of His claim to the dignity of a thorough
religious reformer by the purification of the temple. He feels cer
tain of the necessity of this renewal even as early as Mark ii. 21 f.
That must put an end to the whole temple service in its old form.
And this idea is confirmed by that celebrated passage of John's
Gospel (iv. 21-24), in which He likewise predicts that God will be
no longer worshipped in Jerusalem, but will be worshipped in spirit
and in truth.

80 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [48
Consequently, when He promises to effect this
complete reformation within " three days," this means
strictly the interval between then and the setting up
of the kingdom, an interval which He elsewhere
describes as ending " within this generation " (Mark
ix. 1, xiii. 30).1 From all this it appears that His
prediction of the resurrection was, in the first place,
meant as an assurance that death would not destroy
His personal life, but would set it free for an eternal
life. But it meant, in the second place, that He
would in a short time rise from the dead for the
purpose of setting up His kingdom.
As this conviction has nothing to do with mathe
matical certainty, but with prophetic foresight, we
can easily understand how He chose to clothe it in
the words of a passage where the prophet trusts that
God will shortly revive and set up the wounded and
bruised. A few words more, in closing, with reference to the
more definite form in which Jesus may have imagined
the event and the circumstances of His resurrection.
We may suppose that He agreed with the more
spiritual form of the common Pharisaic notion (cf.
Weber, p. 353) in viewing the resurrection as a trans
formation of the body, or its remains, into the form
of the glorified body (Mark xii. 25, cf. Matt. xiii. 43).
This, indeed, was necessary for life on the glorified
earth.2 He could scarcely have imagined this pro-
1 We shall deal with this latter definition of time farther on.
" The details on this point will be given in chap, iv, 2c.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 81
cess as something different from the corresponding
transformation of those who survived. He could
scarcely have avoided the thought of this transforma
tion in reference to those bystanders who were to live
to see the consummation of God's kingdom (Markix. 1).
The emphasis and the certainty with which Paul, in
1 Cor. xv. 50 f., speaks of the transformation as "a
mystery," becomes conceivable only if based on cor
responding words of the Lord. And since he ex
pressly traces back to a saying of the Lord, the con
solation which he offers to the Thessalonians, namely,
that they which are alive and remain to the second
coming, shall not prevent them that are asleep
(1 Thess. iv. 15), Jesus must have referred to the
form in which the survivors would assume the new
body with which to meet the Lord (1 Thess. iv.
16—18). Of course he thought of this revival or
change in a spiritualised fashion. For the new
body is angelical and exalted above the mere material
and sensuous (Mark xii. 25). This alone corre
sponds to the fact that the resurrection takes place
in the power of God (Mark xii. 24), by means of the
spirit returning not from Hades but from Heaven.
But, on the other hand, Jesus does not regard the
likeness of the risen ones to angels as in any way
abolishing the glorification of their earthly body.
This remains the substratum of the change (Phil. iii.
21, cf. Matt. xvii. 2). As men never can become
angels, but can only be as the angels, neither can
they receive the bodies of angels, which, as a matter
6

82 TJie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [49-50
of course, have nothing to do with earth, but only
bodies like them.
It is in keeping with this that Jesus, like His
contemporaries, assumed that the body to be revived
was that which was lying in the grave. He is con
vinced that He can only obtain the full fruits of
salvation when He has passed through death, burial,
and resurrection, just as the corn of wheat must be
cast into the earth and die before it can bring forth
much fruit (John xii. 24, cf. v. 28).
Thus the Gospels throughout confirm the fact,
which already follows from His human and prophetic
nature, that He adopted substantially the entire form
of the Pharisaic view of the resurrection, even in
respect to His own person. This is likewise true of
the time at which He expected His resurrection. For
no religious interest was connected either with the
form or the time of this preparation for taking part
in the final kingdom. On the other hand, these very
two points correspond exactly to the connections in
which, as we pointed out in the introduction, pro
phetic knowledge has its necessary limits. Hence
even the judgment of Jesus could not be authoritative
on these points.1 This brings us to the question of
the relation between the prediction of the resurrec
tion and its fulfilment.
1 With reference to the "time," cf. M. Vernes, Histoire des idies
Messianiques, Paris 1874, p. 233.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 83
3. THE PREDICTION OF THE RESURRECTION AND
ITS FULFILMENT
We have seen that what Jesus specially desired to
impress on His disciples by the prediction of the
resurrection was His continued existence in a divine
glorified form as a victorious Messiah. All believers
in Christ know that this was splendidly fulfilled.
This eternally valid religious content of the predic
tion is the life-giving object of our faith and the
ground of our hope.
But how does it stand with Jesus' notion of the
form, the circumstances, and the time of His resur
rection, in which no authoritative knowledge belonged
to the prophet as such ? (Cf. p. 1 7 f .) To answer
this question we have only to sum up what has
already been discussed.
Let us first of all keep in view that He assumed
the resurrection would be in a glorified body.
Though the advance of knowledge in metaphysics,
natural science, and psychology has made many
things clearer to us than they could have been to an
earlier generation, yet we must admit our ignorance
as to the exact nature of the form of existence in
the other world. We cannot, therefore, maintain
with absolute certainty either that we need or that
we do not need a body for our future existence. My
personal conviction that we shall receive a new
glorified body is based on the finitude of man as
such. To me, his body represents the organic union

84 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [si
of the instruments which mediate and render possible
the intercourse of the spirit with the outer world.
He does not, indeed, need the body for his inter
course with God. For God is everywhere and at
all times present with him as the deepest ground of
his existence, surrounding and preserving him. But
he needs a microcosm for the reciprocal relation
between him and the macrocosm, because he does not,
like God, contain the world in himself ; but rather
the world, and that, too, as something external to
him, contains him in itself. Accordingly, there is a
deep truth in the view of Scripture that we are to
obtain the new body along with the transfiguration
of the whole external world. For the body can only
mediate intercourse with it in so far as it is adapted
to it, though not of like nature. We need, therefore,
a glorified body for the glorified world.
If Jesus were absolute, not only in the religious
but also in the metaphysical sense, so that, like God,
He filled and penetrated all in all, then a new body
for Him would be meaningless and a self-contradic
tion. But it would also be unbiblical. For not only
in accordance with reason, but according to Jesus'
express statement, God must be thought of, in con
trast to us men, as (pure) Spirit (John iv. 24). Yet
we must suppose that Christ has such a body as cor
responds to the divine elevation of His nature and His
religious position of Lordship (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 40—42).
If, then, Jesus presupposed the absolute reviving
of the buried body, we would hardly be able to

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 85
assent. For the material atoms which compose
the old body must have been completely dispersed
among innumerable millions of men after so many
centuries, and after serving as constituent parts
of many hundreds of bodies in succession. Such a
notion would be simply impossible to the scientific
knowledge of the present day. This consideration,
however, could not have had so much force in the
case of Jesus, because He expected the resurrection
in His own generation.1 Moreover, this question, as
such, lay outside His interest, and therefore also out
side His independent reflection.
We must also confess our ignorance with respect
to another pertinent point. So far as I see, our
knowledge is too limited to enable us to decide
whether our future life will be spent only in the
heavenly sphere of the other world, or also on the
glorified earth. Jesus, as the Eisen One, hoped to
set up His final kingdom on this earth, as we will
have to prove more definitely in chap. iv. But, as
the question has no immediate religious value, it also
lies beyond the reach of our faith. Jesus, however,
could not have had any authoritative conception of
it, as the subject only concerns the outer form of His
belief in the resurrection. On that very account,
again, He had no occasion to deviate from the opinion
of His pious contemporaries, who expected those who
rose from the dead to inhabit the glorified earth.
1 Cf. Haller, in Gottschick's Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche,
ii. 3, pp. 286, 292.

86 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [52
Finally, the time which He assumed for His
resurrection, as being also a matter of no immediate
religious interest, is not a subject of divine revela
tion. If He, therefore, with His contemporaries,
conceived it as the transition to the setting up of
the kingdom, this borrowed view could not have
been absolutely authoritative.
On looking back, we find that the fulfilment of
the religious content of the prediction of the resur
rection is an incontestable fact to the believing mind.
We might even suppose that Jesus, on returning to
the Father, received the new body in order to rule
His heavenly dominion. However, even as regards
His own person, He could not have had any absolute
certainty about the exact forms and circumstances 1
of the future eternal life, either in respect to its
beginning or to its continuance, or to the time when
the spirit will receive the new body. Hence, so far
as we can see, He did not make the clothing with
the latter directly subservient to His Lordship over
Heaven, but rather to His heavenly Lordship over
earth.2 Hence, also, He expected His resurrection
only for the sake of His second coming and with it.
Accordingly, in the true manner of the prophet, He
assumed the moment of the former to be nearer than
it was, in so far as He regarded it as mediating the
setting up of the final kingdom, and believed the
1 Cf. p. 10 f.
2 Details of this heavenly Lordship over earth will be given in
chap. iv.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 87
latter to be nearer than it was. But if we presup
pose the objectivity of the outward second coming,
He, on the other hand, believed His corporealisation
to be farther off than the fact proved to be.

4. THE ORIGIN OF THE DISCIPLES' BELIEF IN THE
RESURRECTION OF JESUS ON THE THIRD DAY
This brings us to a very important misunderstand
ing of the apostles as regards their conception of
Jesus' resurrection. As this conception contains the
full religious truth, though in a form not quite
adequate, the most magnificent blossoms and fruits
of faith must, notwithstanding, have proceeded from
this kernel. For all that, it cannot be denied that
the disciples understood literally Jesus' prediction of
His resurrection on the third day. Even Paul, the
more cultured Eabbi, is no exception in this, as he
manifestly agrees with them in referring the ful
filment of Hosea's prediction to the third day. He
would otherwise have necessarily felt a contradiction
between the resurrection of Jesus on the third day
and that prophecy, which he does not seem to have
done (1 Cor. xv. 4). Notwithstanding the meta
phorical sense of this date, in the mouth of Hosea
and of the Lord, a freer conception of such passages
and words, especially by the unlearned disciples,
was scarcely conceivable, considering the superficial
methods of exposition commonly adopted by the
scribes in the days of Jesus.

88 TJie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [53-54
In consequence of that misunderstanding, however,
they must necessarily have expected Jesus' resurrec
tion on the third day. This hope, indeed, might
only have slumbered in their inmost heart. But
yet there can have been no other object of their
inmost longings, the ardour of which kindled their
feeling and laid hold of their thought, all the more
that they had at first to wrestle with the most
fearful temptations and the most terrible despair of
total unbelief. For Weizsacker, Keim, Weiss (Life
of Jesus, iii. 338), Steude (Die Auferstehung Jesu
Christi, p. 76 f.), and others, are right in supposing
that the disciples' belief in the divinity of their
Saviour, as it originated with God and was genuine,
must in the end have prevailed. For God's power
is the prevailing influence in the heart of the
sincere man. It must have overcome their doubts
as to His Messiahship which were called forth by
His death.
But if their faith in the buried Messiah was
renewed, it could only be so as faith in the resurrec
tion. I shall shortly prove this expressly, but
presuppose it here provisionally, in order not to
mar the clearness of our reasoning. The moment,
again, in which the new-born belief in Messiah as
belief in the resurrection gained the upper hand, the
disciples must have remembered the prediction of
their Master, the greatest of all prophets, that He
would rise from the dead on the third day. Bound
as they were to the literal methods of exposition of

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 89
their time, they could do nothing else than secretly
hope, though with fear, for the resurrection on the
third day.
But, considering the bodily and mental strain and
excitement of the disciples, we can easily understand
that they may have had appearances of the Eisen
One that were purely subjective. We can under
stand this the more easily when we take into
account the peculiar temper of their time, the
excitability of which called forth a decided tendency
to a onesided manifestation of fancy. This tendency
would seek to reflect in those images the victorious
awakening of faith.
Holsten's assumption, that an appearance of Christ
as a vision so shortly after His execution is an
impossibility (cf., e.g., Holsten, Die Messiasvision des
Petrus, p. 125), cannot be entertained. For "the
tradition that Jesus rose from the dead on the
third day can only have arisen in virtue of the fact
that appearances occurred on that day " (Weiss, I.e.
iii. 389).1 It has also been justly urged that this
is confirmed by the early Christian observance of
Sunday (1 Cor. xvi. 2; Eev. i. 10; Acts xx. 7;
Epistle of Barnabas xv. ; Justin's Apology, i. 67;
cf. Keim, iii. 550 ; Beyschlag, i. 441).
1 Brandt's construction of this fixed time seems to be unnatural,
when we remember that Paul, who could only have got it from the
fresh tradition of the early communities, expressly traces back the
resurrection on the third day to that tradition, and demands too
low an estimate of the power of memory and the conscientiousness
of the whole apostles (cf. Brandt, p. 430).

90 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [55
The disciples, notwithstanding their fearful dis
appointment, were still unable to give up all faith
and hope, but continued to hope from day to day
and from hour to hour for a miracle (Steude, D.
Aufersteh. J. Ch., p. 121).1
At any rate, the belief in the resurrection must
have existed in germ before the supposed appear
ances of Christ. Even if these appearances were
bodily, that faith was the indispensable presupposi
tion of their being recognised as a divine revelation,
and not as a delusion of Satan (2 Cor. xi. 14). For
the Lord Himself says, "If they hear not Moses
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded
though one rose from the dead" (Luke xvi. 31).
And the account of the fourth Evangelist shows that
the belief in the resurrection really existed before
any appearance of Christ to Peter and John, the
first witnesses of the resurrection (John xx. 8).
But if this belief existed, we cannot point-blank
deny that it may have been a means of producing
visions of Christ.
This abstract possibility, however, is far from
disproving the corporeity of Christ's appearances. I
shall now have to deal more fully with this point,
because it forms at present one of the most im
portant controverted points of the resurrection
question. I hope to be able to do this in an
1 The objective corporeity of the resurrection, as will be shown, is
in no way to be excluded by this account of the subjective genesis of
belief in it. (The italics are mine. )

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 91
impartial way, because I am conscious of having
the greatest interest in maintaining the content of
faith unimpaired, while, on the other hand, I take
up an impartial attitude towards whatever does not
exhibit any special religious value. I have not,
therefore, the least prepossession for or against purely
historical results as such. Since the all-important
thing for faith is to show wherein saving value lies
and wherein it does not lie, I have subjected this
very question of value to a thorough examination.
An actual unprejudiced fixing of the historical facts
will only be possible when Christians are at one on
this point.
From this standpoint, which fears no danger for
faith where there is none, I feel bound, in the
interests of clearness and truth, to concede some
things which believing Christians have not hitherto
been wont to grant. For only after all the defective
reasons for the corporeity of Christ's appearances
have been refuted, is the way opened for that proof
which, so far as I can see, is alone of convincing
power. On this, if on any, their objective reality
must be based, and on this I myself ground it.
5. THE CORPOREITY OF CHRIST'S APPEARANCES
(a) Their Possibility
There can be no doubt whatever as to the fact
of Christ's appearing. Paul, Luke, and John, and

92 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [m
even Matthew, as well as the supplement to Mark,
a secondary source, no doubt, are at one in this,
that Jesus appeared to the Eleven on the evening
of Easter Sunday. Nor is there any ground for
questioning the appearance to Peter which is re
ported by Paul and Luke, and which preceded the
appearance to the Eleven. Even the appearance of
Christ to Paul himself is established beyond all ques
tion. And the three other instances, mentioned by
him in the fifteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians, are
assuredly to be regarded as genuine (vv. 5-8).1
Again, so far as I can see, no one can maintain
the impossibility of bodily appearances of Christ,
although some presuppose rather than prove their
impossibility (cf. Weiss, Life of Jesus, iii. 391 ;
Steude, p. 20 ; Beyschlag thinks differently, i. 458).
Human knowledge is too defective to be allowed to
contest the possibility of supersensuous spirits being
able to act upon our sensuous world. Our own
supersensuous spirits constantly make themselves
perceptible to one another by sensuous influences.
But the spirits of the other world as such are
similar to those of this world.
As finite spirits, which they still remain, they
would probably, like ourselves, require a special
organic instrument for this purpose. But we might
suppose that they had at their disposal, though
1 Even W. Brandt recognises the historicity of the appearances
adduced by Paul, with the exception of the appearance to the
Twelve (p. 418), tho counterpart of which he traces back to the
fabrication of Matthew (p. 351 ff.).

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 93
conditionally, a kind of corporeity in the higher
sense. Of course, we cannot enter into direct
intercourse with the spirits of a higher sphere.
But it does not necessarily follow that this inter
course could not take place from out that sphere
which, as we may well assume, comprehends our
lower one.
If the forms in which things in themselves appear
to us can only express their essence so far as a
conception of that essence is possible to the special
nature of our sensuousness, this would also hold
good for the spirits of the other world. Yet I
do not see why these, if they really act upon our
world, should not make themselves perceptible in
a way that would at least be a more or less adequate
presentation of their nature.
This possibility cannot be questioned even in
the case of Christ's spirit which had gone to the
Father. Still less can this be done on the supposi
tion of His divinity. But all these considerations
do not of themselves carry us far. For, on the
other hand, we cannot at once absolutely assert
even the possibility of such appearances, because
we know too little of the nature of spirits in the
other world.
And, finally, it is questionable whether they really
exercise such an influence. It seems to me that in
no single case has this been proved with certainty.
On the other hand, innumerable appearances of
spirits have turned out to be products of imposture

94 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [57-58
and self-deception, or of a mental disorder of a
partial kind at least in the person who saw them.
Accordingly, experience furnishes us with no clearly
proved analogy to a bodily appearance of Christ.
Thus it must, for the present, remain uncertain
whether God has made an exception here. At
any rate, He would not do so without a special
purpose. Now, though a sufficient reason for a
bodily appearance of Christ will be shown later
on (cf. " h "), yet this could not have been that
a belief in the continuance of Jesus' Messianic life
might not otherwise have arisen. We have already
seen that this belief existed before the Christo-
phanies (John xx. 8; cf. p. 90, and the further
discussion of the historical value of the belief . in
the resurrection in " g ").
Moreover, it was only a small circle whose faith
was the result of seeing, while we, and all others,
see not and yet believe. This proves that seeing
with the eyes is not indispensable to faith, or at
least in a very limited sense.
Further, as sense has nothing at all to do with
faith directly, since this, as will be more exactly
shown, rather originates only in the heart, an appear
ance of Christ could, in any case, have done no more
than support the genesis of faith in the resurrection,
for the faith itself must necessarily have had a
different origin. And the objective vision which,
as will be shown (" b "), the apostles would have
taken for a bodily appearance, would of itself fulfil

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 95
this purpose. Now, if such visions as we have
pointed out (p. 89) were easily conceivable in the
temper of the disciples already described, it must
in the meantime remain questionable whether we are
not to see these visions in the actual appearances to
the disciples.

(b) The Historical Guarantee for the Bodily Appear
ances of Christ
Since the possibility of a bodily appearance of
Christ can neither be called in question without
hesitation, nor definitely affirmed, the question comes
to be, whether this appearance can be regarded as
having a sufficient historical guarantee. If this
can be proved, then we would have to recognise
it, even if we were unable to conceive the possibility
and necessity of such a fact.
But it seems that this proof cannot be given with
certainty. This can be shown even with regard to
that phenomenon which is frequently urged as an
incontestable proof of the corporeity of Christ's
appearances ; I mean that appearance to five hun
dred brethren, which in point of fact is guaranteed
as the experience of a great number of men (1 Cor.
xv. 6). It is thought that we may set aside the
supposition that such a number of witnesses, some
of whom were still alive, could all have been mis
taken when they believed that they saw the Eisen
One bodily.

96 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [59
Now, it was even then difficult to prove that
the five hundred were accurately counted, and that
they all gave, not merely an honest, but an im
partial testimony. But we will for the present
assume this. Further, I shall leave entirely out of
account the fact that even then it was not possible
to make out with certainty whether they all saw
the same or only a similar appearance.
But even though we admit this, it should not in
any way be regarded as an absolute guarantee for
the objectivity of the form which they saw. For
it is well known that the fact of men being in
this precise frame of mind, excited and absorbed
in themselves, especially when they are gathered
together in masses, only serves to promote the com
munication of ecstatic and visionary conditions. We
have only to think of the Jansenist enthusiasts
(Kurtz, Kirchengeschichte, ii. 293), the enthusiastic
fanaticism of the Crusaders, many of the visions
among the Catholics, and the spiritualism of our
own day. Any kind of extreme spiritual tension
has a contagious effect on men of an excitable
nature both for good and for evil. If the excite
ment of feeling goes beyond a certain degree, fanatic
impulses of a noble and ignoble kind appear, and
the creations of overstrained fancy more and more
abound. And here, indeed, the concentration of
men's feelings on the same subject begets a similar
illusion. For when the prevailing mood of many
is similar, its projection must also be similar. And

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 97
so they all speedily suppose that they are seeing
the same thing.1
Yet this in no way prevents such a vision from
possessing a thorough objective content of truth.
But of that we do not speak here. The point in
question at present is, whether, in the given circum
stances, it must not be admitted as possible that the
form of Christ's appearance was only a subjective
product. And this possibility cannot, to begin with,
be contested. That, however, does not, of course,
exclude the opposite possibility. Accordingly, as
the difficulty cannot be solved in this way, we
are compelled to investigate the evidence which
ultimately guarantees what actually happened, and
therefore also the reality of the bodily appearance
of Christ.
In matters of this kind, the question finally con
cerns the reliability of the eye and ear witnesses of
the event. The historical guarantee of the alleged
genuine appearances of Christ is now in a certain
respect very reliable. Here, I of course except the
details which are by no means free from error and
in part very materialistic. Yet if we fix our atten
tion on the fact of the appearances themselves, we
shall be able to show that all reports of them can
be traced with great probability to Paul, and through
him to the immediate narratives of the apostles
1 With regard to the infectiousness of visions and their peculiarity
from this point of view, I may refer to the abundant literature
quoted by Keim, iii. 587-592.
7

98 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [oo
who themselves had the vision. Above all, Peter,
the head of the Christian community, will be its
surety. It would carry us too far to establish this
in detail here, and it is scarcely questioned by
critical experts.
But if Peter and Paul become security for the
reality of the appearances, they cannot absolutely
guarantee what is here of main importance, namely,
their corporeity. For in such extraordinary events
even Paul's judgment cannot be depended upon.
Even this philosophic intellect viewed as objective
realities events which every unprejudiced thinker
nowadays estimates as taking place within the soul.
Even with regard to his well-known ecstatic visions,
he has no doubt as to the outward objectivity of the
event, but is only uncertain as to whether he was
caught up into Paradise in the spirit or in the
body (2 Cor. xii. 2f.). Now, how should this man,
who thinks it possible for a living man to be caught
up into Heaven, hesitate to suppose that the heavenly
Christ appeared to him in an embodied personality,
even though the appearance was only subjective in
its form. We shall immediately have a special
discussion of the appearance at Damascus, on account
of its unique significance. Yet the knowledge of
the position which Paul takes up towards his visions
in general may enable us to estimate the psycho
logical childlikeness of less cultured people, such as
even Peter and the rest of the apostles. The more
firmly they held the kernel of religious truth in

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 99
the appearances, namely, that Jesus lives as a
victorious Messiah, the firmer must have been their
belief in the reality of the form which they could
not separate from it. And of course they, as well
as Paul, must have viewed it as an outward objective
reality. If the content had been untrue, they would like
wise have taken the vision, in this reality and
significance, for an outward event, but in that case
for a Satanic one (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 13-15). We must
not forget that even the great Luther still believed
in the personal intercourse of men with diabolical
powers.1 We cannot, therefore, regard as absolutely
authoritative the judgment of the apostles, or even
of Paul, as to whether such occurrences were purely
inward or outward at the same time.
The Appearance to Paul near Damascus
Still, it is thought that there are psychological
reasons which force on us the conviction that the
appearance to Paul on the way to Damascus was a
bodily appearance. If that be so, then the assump
tion of a merely subjective vision, both in the case
of Paul and in that of the primitive apostles, at
once falls to the ground.2 The fact that Paul, a
1 Cf. Kostlin, Luther's Leben, i. p. 471, and Freitag, Doctor Luther,
1S84, p. 81 f., as well as the long passage in Roskoff's Geschichte des
Tcufels, about Luther's position in this matter.
'- When W. Brandt (I.e. p. 501 ff.) represents the disciples, whose
love for their Master was not destroyed, as being filled with an ea;

i eacer

100 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [01-02
professed enemy of Christ, became a man who sacri
ficed his whole life to Christ in a strength of faith
which overcame the world, cannot be explained by
an appearance which in form and content was a
mere imagination. If the belief in Christ is a truth,
then it can only have been awakened in the man's
heart by the immediate intercourse of the living
God, or of Christ. Whether, therefore, the appear
ance at Damascus was bodily or not, this at any rate
was its religious content, that God revealed His
Son in Paul's heart, exhibited Jesus as the victorious
Messiah exalted to Himself, and thereby called him
who was an opponent to be His apostle (Gal. i. 1 5 f .).
Hence it is plain that it must at least have been an ob
jective vision which contained this objective revelation.
Holsten, in his controversy with Beyschlag, does
not give due weight to the fact that the activity of God
cannot be thought of as merely immanent, but must
rather at the same time be conceived as transcendent.1
longing to see Him, which was awakened by a study specially of
Ps. lxxxvi. 12, 13, and ex. 1, 2, and was then intensified by fasting
and prayer into the enthusiasm in which Peter first saw Him, he
not only denies the significance of the Lord, but also the inner truth
of all prophetic revelation (cf. p. 507 f. ), according to which the living
God does really enter directly into converse with the pious. The
founding of the early Church, whose love and truth were of an ex
emplary kind, upon a self-deception of enthusiasts, whose piety was
by no means sound, is a historical absurdity.
1 Holsten, Zum Ev. des Paulus u. Petrus, pp. 38, 63-66 ; cf.
Hausrath, N. Tliche Zeitgesch., 1872, ii. p. 445. Opposite views are
advocated by Beyschlag, Stud. u. Kr., 1864; Die Bekehrung des
Apostels Paulus, p. 197 ff. ; the same, Die Visionshypothese in Hirer
I\reusten Begrundung, 1870-71; cf. his Leben Jesu, 1887, 2nd ed.,
i. 437 ff.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 101
God's unquestionable activity in the world, even as
manifested in the human heart, must therefore be
at the same time supramundane, since He is in
Himself a supramundane Spirit. Holsten himself,
however, recognises that Paul, " like every religious
man, felt the new spirit of life flowing from the
transcendent source of the Divine Spirit " (Holsten,
p. 44). On the other hand, Beyschlag fails to realise that
the conditions existed for a vision of Christ on the
part of Paul, a fact which Holsten and Hausrath in
the main strikingly prove (cf. Hausrath, in particular
pp. 445-451).
One cannot immediately disprove the possibility
that the appearance to Paul at Damascus was a
vision, by the fact that he himself distinguishes it
from the ecstatic visions which he knew to be such.
He does not even regard these as visions in the
sense of mere subjective and inward events, but
rather, as we saw (p. 98), ascribes to them an ob
jective, outward reality. But when, in 1 Cor. xv. 8 f.,
he singles out from these the appearance at Damas
cus, he likewise has sufficient reason for doing so.
The overpowering inward revelation with regard to
the Messiahship of Jesus (Gal. i. 15, 16 ; 2 Cor.
iv. 6), and the call to the apostleship connected
therewith (1 Cor. xv. 9, ix. 2, cf. 1 Tim. i. 12 f.),
must have made it in his eyes equal to that given
to the original apostles (cf. Luke xxiv. 47—49 ;
Acts i. 8).

102 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [63
There can be no doubt that Beyschlag is also
right in regarding Paul's conversion as inconceivable
without an immediate interposition of God. This
holds good of every conversion, and in a special way
of his. But though such a change of heart can
only be brought about by God's power, it does
not immediately follow that that power could not
have converted Paul without a bodily appearance of
Christ. If the change in itself had been psychologic
ally impossible, such a Christophany would not have
effected it (Luke xvi. 31). It could at most have
furthered the faith which had inwardly arisen, but
in no way have called it forth.
We must rather acknowledge that the super
human power of the faith of Christ's disciples could
not, in the end, have failed to impress its truth on
this enemy of Christ, distinguished as he was for
his genuine religious feeling and love of truth.
Neither his zeal for the righteousness of the law,
whose adversary he at first recognised and withstood
in Jesus, nor the grievous stumbling-block of the
death upon the cross, could in the long run have
hindered him from recognising Jesus as Messiah.
His own experience had painfully taught him the
impossibility of keeping the law by his own power
(Eom. vii. 7-24). The idea, however, that a per
fectly righteous one could vicariously fulfil the law,
and through his atoning death make the sinner
righteous before God, not only had its roots in the
Scriptures themselves, but arose at the same time

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 103
on genuine rabbinical soil (cf. Weber, Die Lehre des
Talmud, pp. 301, 280 f., 286, 313 ff). Hence this
idea, which we find so vigorously developed by
him at a later period, must, as soon as it arose, have
been welcome to his deepest longings.
And there were abundant occasions to suggest it
in his own special surroundings. For then there lived
in the hearts and on the lips of all believers the
praise of Jesus the Messiah, as the blameless Servant
of God, whom God had given up as a sin-offering
for the salvation of His people, in order to confer
on Him afterwards a long life and a sovereign posi
tion, and through Him to accomplish the Lord's pur
pose (Isa. liii.; Acts iii. 13 f, 18, 26, iv. 27 f, 30).
In this way, the truth that the crucified Jesus was
really the Servant of God who was to bring forgive
ness and a time of salvation to His people lost in
sin, was more and more brought home to his heart
with its thirst for justification with God (Acts iii. 1 9 f. ;
Weber, pp. 333-336). But as it was just the death
of the Messiah that produced that atonement, the
offence of His crucifixion fell to the ground of itself.
Nor was there any psychological impossibility in
the actual moment of his conversion, namely, when
he was just about to persecute the Christians of the
Diaspora, even in Damascus, especially if, as Bey
schlag himself admits, he was " already in his inmost
soul seeking after Him (Christ) without knowing it, and
was reaching out towards Him" (Leben Jesu, ii. 486).
Finally, if we suppose it, at any rate, conceivable

104 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [64
that Paul may have got a vision of the crucified but
not of the glorified Christ, we must remember that
the faith which gave its content to his vision of
Christ was originated by the conviction of the Chris
tians whom he persecuted. These, however, pro
claimed Jesus as the living Messiah, risen from the
dead and exalted into Heaven. After the truth of
this fact dawned on him, the vision could only have
placed before him this Christ exalted to divine glory
whom he was persecuting in His disciples. And
that is just what it did. Moreover, before his own
eyes, Stephen, in whose martyrdom he had taken
part, had seen, in ecstasy, Jesus standing at the right
hand of God. That would render intelligible the
form of Christ which appeared to him, if we take it
as visionary. Accordingly, such a vision on the part of Paul as
is described in his Epistles (1 Cor. ix., xv ; Gal. i., ii. ;
2 Cor. iv., etc.), and the Acts of the Apostles, is very
possible in the situation in which he was placed.1
Only we must not forget that all this merely proves
that the appearance of Christ might possibly have
been, but by no means that it really was, a vision.
(c) The Abstract Possibility of the Vision of the Christ
who rose from the Gi'ave
But even though we were prepared to admit the
vision hypothesis in the sense described, we would
1 The variations in the reports are of no importance here.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 105
not require to acknowledge what some of its advo
cates maintain, that the Christ who appeared to Paul,
and originally also to the Jewish Christian apostles,
was only the glorified Christ, and not the Christ
who rose from the grave (Holsten, Die Messiasvision
des Petrus, 1889, pp. 121, 128 ff). This assump
tion cannot be proved, even in the case of Paul (cf.
Beyschlag, Leben Jesu, i. 448 f.). For, in 1 Cor. xv. 4,
the burial of Jesus appears between His death and
resurrection, and, directly connected with them in a
continuous and integral fashion, is represented, just
like them, as an essential part of the tradition along
side the other main facts of our salvation. Here,
then, it is impossible to regard the resurrection as a
mere endowment with a heavenly body, which would
have nothing whatever to do with the earthly one
lying in the grave. We must rather admit that it
is to be conceived as a coming forth of the body
from the grave. And we must admit this all the
more that Paul's conception here in no way differs
from that of the primitive apostles. Otherwise he
would not be able to appeal to them so expressly
and in the way he does in vv. 3 and 11. The
assumption, however, that they also had originally
regarded the Christ who appeared to them as the
heavenly glorified Messiah, and not as the Christ
who had risen from the grave, is utterly without
biblical support. But even as a Pharisee, Paul
could scarcely have had any other conception of the
Eisen One than that of a glorification of the buried

106 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [65-oo
body.1 For, as we have seen, the Piiarisees viewed
the resurrection as including the return of the soul
to its body in order to reanimate it (cf . Eom. viii. 1 1 ;
Heb. xiii. 20). The aim of the resurrection, as I
have frequently emphasised, was the taking part in
the Messianic kingdom, which implied the entrance
into a life that, though glorified, was still enacted on
the earth.2
There is nothing opposed to the resurrection from
the grave even in 2 Cor. v. No doubt Paul there
hopes for a body from heaven (ver. 1 f.). He would
fain be clothed with that body while still alive at the
second coming (ver. 3). But it is just the analogy
which makes us look for an essentially similar trans
formation of the body lying in the grave into the
heavenly body. In both cases, however, it must
be transformed by the Spirit of God (Eom. viii. 11)
from a " natural," perishable, earthly body, doomed
to death, into a spiritual, incorruptible, immortal,
heavenly body (1 Cor. xv. 43-49, 52-54). How
ever, the idea that the future eternal blessings are
preserved in Heaven, from which they come down at
the final Messianic period, is not only a Pauline but
a general rabbinical notion (Phil. iii. 20 ; Holtzmann,
H. C, on the passage ; 1 Pet. i. 4 f. ; Eev. xxi. 2, cf.
Matt. vi. 2 0 ; Weber, pp. 1 9 8 , 3 3 9 f.).3 And, indeed,
1 This is essentially the view of even Brandt, p. 326 f.
2 The proof will be given later that the Messiah's kingdom is the
kingdom of the glorified earth.
3 This is the view of Haller also : Zeitschrift f. Theologic u. Kirche,
ii. 1892, p. 290.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 107
Paul considers that in this respect Christ's resurrec
tion in no way differs from that of other men. For
these are to be changed in the same way with Him
who is the first-fruits of the resurrection (1 Cor.
xv. 20—23), transfigured by His Divine Spirit into
His image (Phil. iii. 21).
The comparison of the resurrection body with the
plant which springs from the dead seed-corn into a
new body (1 Cor. xv. 42 ff.) must confirm this. For
it is the dead grain itself which is quickened, and on
which a new body is bestowed (1 Cor. xv. 37 f.).
Thus a natural body is sown, a spiritual body is
raised up (ver. 44). It therefore, to follow the image,
springs, as it were, from the dead body in the grave.1
This conception is all the more probable that Paul,
in constructing the figure, seems to have remembered
a saying of the Lord, as reported in John xii. 24.
In the exactly similar utterance of Jesus, the corn
of wheat cast into the earth (kokkos tov atrov, as in
1 Cor. xv. 37) in like manner brings forth much
fruit only after it has died (verbally expressed as in
1 Cor. xv. 36). But the meaning of this parable
was undoubtedly the resurrection of the buried body
(cf. Haller's Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches
bis auf Tcrtullian, I.e.).
If it is now established that Paul, as well as the
apostles, saw in the Christ who appeared to them
the Christ who was no doubt glorified, but had risen
from the grave, there seems to arise a special difficulty
1 Cf. Haller, I.e. p. 288.

108 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [66-67
as regards the hypothesis of the objective vision.
B. Weiss, Beyschlag, and in their footsteps Steude and
others, make the partial admission that the disciples
might have been led through a vision to the conviction
that Jesus, as a victorious Messiah, was alive with God.
But these authors suppose that the disciples could
never have reached in this way the belief that He
had risen from the grave (Weiss, Life of Jesus, iii.
390 ; Beyschlag, Leben Jesu,i. 447 ff, 431 ; Steude,
Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi, 1892, pp. 8, 17). The
resurrection from the grave, as believed by Jesus'
followers, can therefore be explained only by an
appearance of Christ that was outwardly and object
ively real.
Here we start from the correct assumption that
the content of the vision can only be an expression
of the ideas that were actually existent in their
hearts. Now, if it could be proved that the content
of the disciples' faith in the Eisen Lord was different
from the abstract view of the resurrection current in
their day, then the former could not be sufficiently
explained by the latter, that is, by a vision, but would
presuppose an outer fact for its origin.
It seems to me, however, that if the disciples had
a vision of Jesus on the third day after His death,
that vision could hardly have shown anything else
than the Lord who had risen from the grave. The
proof of our former assumption, that they could only
have expected the reanimation of their Master in this
form, will now fill up the gap left above (p. 86)

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 109
in the genesis of the disciples' belief in the
resurrection. Though, as we have seen, Jesus assumed that the
righteous, and He Himself also, would pass into
Heaven immediately after death (Luke xvi. 22, 23,
43), yet the vulgar Jewish view, which in this matter
was evidently that of the disciples, banished the
souls of the departed to Sheol (Weber, pp. 323, 326,
351; cf ., e.g., Bereschit rabba, ch. xii. ; Jalkut Schim.
Bereschit, xix. ; Erubin, 54a; Jalkut Schim. on Isaiah,
269 ; Bereschit rabba on Gen. xliv. 8). Even Paul
seems to share this conception, though in a more
spiritual form (Eom. x. 7, cf. Eph. iv. 9). Moreover,
the opinion that Jesus must have passed into Hades
had its special support in the belief of the Jewish
Christians. For, according to that belief, the very
task of the Messiah as " Jinnon " was to bring up
the dead from Hades (Weber, pp. 352, 160). To do
so He must therefore go down Himself. But what
time could have been more convenient for Jesus'
doing this than immediately after His death ?
Hence one section, at least, of the first Christians,
after the resurrection of the Lord had restored their
belief in His Messiahship, supposed that the purpose.
of His descent into Hades was the proclamation of
His Messiahship to its inhabitants, or even their con
version. This is manifest from several passages, as
in the First Epistle of Peter (iii. 19, iv. 6). In these
passages the object of Jesus' descent into the lower
world is clearly the conversion of its tenants. It is

110 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [es
the same in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter. As
Jesus comes forth from the grave, a voice from Heaven
cries, " Hast Thou preached obedience to those who
have fallen asleep ? " and the answer is heard, " I
have" (ver. 41 f.). But there are also certain
allusions to it in the Pauline and some other of the
New Testament writings (Eom. x. 7 ; Eph. iv. 8-10).
And even in Matt, xxvii. 52 f., — a passage, however,
whose genuineness may be questioned, — we find traces
of the notion that a resurrection of the saints is a
result of His descent to Hades.
Accordingly, if Jesus, in conformity with the idea
of His disciples, went to Hades at His death, they
could only have supposed that His reappearance as
the Living One would be brought about by His
resurrection from the grave.
No doubt, according to a certain Jewish assumption,
those not perfectly righteous who have to suffer in
Gehinnom a long time, mostly twelve months, pass
from thence to Heaven without a resurrection. The
sojourn, also, is longer or shorter (Weber, p. 328 f.).
However, a return from Hades on the third day,
even in the case of the penitent, cannot be proved.
Though this mode of thought may have been found
among the contemporaries and disciples of Jesus, —
an assumption of which we know nothing, — yet it
would have no application to Jesus, as none of His
disciples could have supposed that He had anything
to expiate in Hades. That view of the cleansing in
the lower world, of those not perfectly righteous,

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 111
presupposes, on the other hand, the immediate
passing of the perfect into Heaven at death, a belief
of which we find no sign among the disciples.
But apart from this there is no means of returning
from Hades than by the resurrection (cf. Schiirer, The
Jewish People, div. ii. vol. ii. p. 13). Consequently,
the apostles must have regarded the appearance of
the Lord, which they saw on the third day after His
burial, as a rising from the grave, even though that
appearance had been a vision.
But in the special nature of Christ's appearance
as the Glorified and Eisen One, Steude sees an
objection to the possibility of a vision in this case.
He thinks that if the appearance of Him who had
risen from the grave had been a vision, the disciples,
according to the Jewish notion, could only have seen
Him in the same body in which He was buried
(I.e. pp. 85—89), only this body must be imagined
as placed in a condition of normal soundness. On
the other hand, a glorified body such as the Lord
showed could, according to the view of the Jews,
only belong to Him who was exalted to Heaven, but
not to Him who had risen from the grave.
He should bear in mind that a section of the Jews,
and unquestionably the Lord Himself, regarded the
resurrection as an element of the future world (Luke
xx. 35 ; Mark xii. 25). In that case, he would not
only compare Weber, p. 353, but also add what he
says in p. 364, that "the glory of the primitive
state " returns to those who rise from the dead, and

112 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [69
there is given to them " the brightness of the glory
of Adam's countenance, his life, his greatness," his
immortality, etc. (cf. I.e. pp. 383—385 ; Dan. xii. 3 ;
Matt. xiii. 43). Jesus Himself had spoken in the
hearing of the disciples of the angelical nature of
those who were raised from the dead, and this, from
the context, includes the body (Mark xii. 25 ;
cf. p. 77).1 This transfiguration of the body into a
heavenly essence alone answers to that other state
ment of Jesus concerning the regeneration of all
things (Matt. xix. 28, cf. Acts iii. 21),2 which is to
take place at the commencement of the final kingdom
(John v. 25, 28, vi. 39 f., 44, 54, xi. 24; cf. Haller,
I.e. p. 2851). And this kingdom was believed to
begin with the resurrection of Jesus (Acts i. 6).
If, in the Gospels, the Eisen Lord nevertheless
retains some features of a crass, sensuous body, as
when He eats and drinks in order to prove that He
is not a spirit, but has flesh and bones (Luke xxiv.
40, 43), we need not be too much surprised at these
materialistic husks.
Enough. If we, nevertheless, must finally acknow
ledge Jesus' bodily appearance at Easter (in the sense
of an outward reality), the objections hitherto brought
against the (objective) vision are not sufficient.
1 Titius thinks differently, p. 32.
2 This will be dealt with more fully in chap. iv.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 113
(d) Were the Appearances at Easter in Jerusalem
or in Galilee ?
There is still another reason why many find the
belief of the disciples in the resurrection from the
grave inexplicable on the vision hypothesis. If the
appearances were really seen on the third day (see
p. 86), then they took place in Jerusalem, and not in
Galilee. For the disciples could not have arrived
there on the third day, even though they had fled
immediately on the apprehension of the Lord
(cf. Beyschlag, i. 422). And the assumption of a
flight from Jerusalem at that moment is altogether
arbitrary, and one that can by no means be justified
by Mark xiv. 50 (cf. Weiss, Life of Jesus, iii. 389 ;
Beyschlag, i. 421 ; Steude, p. 120 f.). Those words,
" they all forsook Him and fled," can only refer to
the fact that they were scattered abroad in Jerusalem.
They would probably find sufficient protection there,
and at the same time an opportunity of following
their Master's further fate. The very fact that no
one but the Master was apprehended in Gethsemane
makes the assumption that "all" the disciples felt
themselves irresistibly forced to flee directly into
Galilee seem to be without justification. And even
the " all " should not be taken too strictly. For only
three verses after the flight is mentioned Peter's dis
ciple expressly relates of his master that he followed
Jesus, though at a distance, into the palace of the
Hio-h Priest (Mark xiv. 54). In his repeated denials,
8

114 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [70-71
also, which no doubt betray a certain fear, Peter
escapes unmolested. And there is nothing in the
report to indicate that he then immediately withdrew
from Jerusalem (Mark xiv. 72). All this does not
look like a universal panic-struck flight to a distance.
It is therefore an arbitrary proceeding on the part of
W. Brandt when he again seeks to show from Mark
xiv. 5 1 f . that there was a " real panic " among the
disciples generally (p. 22). He himself even admits
that they may have remained near to Jerusalem on
the day of the crucifixion (p. 489). Further, on the
authority of an undoubtedly correct tradition, we
find the favourite disciple with the mother of Jesus
even under the cross (John xix. 26 f.). There is
" nothing, therefore, to indicate that the personal
safety of the disciples was seriously threatened in
those days, and if the women from Galilee, including
the mother of Zebedee's children, remained in Jeru
salem on the day of the crucifixion, and for days
afterwards, their natural protectors will certainly not
have run away from it " (Beyschlag, i. 422 ; cf. Weiss,
iii. 392). Hence the Gospel of Peter is possibly
right in making the disciples return to Galilee with
the multitude only after the celebration of the
festival on the last day of unleavened bread (ver. 5 8 ;
I.e. p. 16), though it knows as little as Mark of
appearances to the disciples at Jerusalem, notwith
standing its grandiose narrative of the resurrection
before the eyes of the watchers at the grave.
However, there is no doubt that the appearances

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 115
to Peter and the Eleven, at least, took place in
Jerusalem on Easter Sunday. The third and fourth
Evangelists agree in assigning that day as the date
of the appearance to the latter, and, according to
Paul and Luke, the appearance to Peter precedes
that (1 Cor. xv. 5 ; Luke xxiv. 34). One cannot
see how these reports should not be derived from
the testimony of the original apostles in Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, Galilean appearances, which are almost
the only ones now commonly regarded as authentic,
may have taken place later. The only point of
importance here is that those most momentous ap
pearances which established the belief of the early
Church in the resurrection took place in Jerusalem
itself. (e) The Empty Grave
This particular occurrence now seems to present
a new hindrance to the vision hypothesis. If those
fundamental appearances of the Eisen One took
place in Galilee, far from the grave, then the grave
could no longer play an important role. But if
they happened in Jerusalem, and on the third day
after Jesus' death, then the grave must have been
empty. Otherwise the disciples would never have
been able to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus from
the grave in the hearing of His enemies without
being given the lie. For, if He had risen from
the dead, there fell upon His murderers, and that
from the clay of the resurrection, the fearful reproach

116 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [72
of having slain a righteous man. God Himself
made manifest His righteousness by raising Him
from the dead. And, indeed, this man raised from
the dead as the first-fruits of them that sleep could
hardly have been any other than the Messiah. We
cannot conceive of them, in such circumstances, not
attempting to cleanse themselves from that fearful
stain of the murder of Messiah, by proving to the
senses that the resurrection had not taken place.
This they could have clone by an exhibition of the
corpse as it was in the grave. The aversion to a
corpse could not certainly, in this case, have pre
vented them from doing so (cf. Weiss, Life of Jesus,
iii. 395 f.).
But from other parts of the Gospels it is also
manifest that the body of Jesus was not in the
grave. Nothing but this fact could have occasioned
among the Jews of that time the rumour that the
disciples had stolen the dead body of the Lord.
This rumour, according to the statement of the first
Evangelist, prevailed " until this day," and therefore
must have been in circulation in early Christian
times (Matt, xxviii. 15).1
The objection of Holsten (Die Messiasvision des
Petrus, p. 126) and others, that people could have
had no interest in the inspection of the corpse, rests
on the assumption, which has been already refuted,
1 The assumption of W. Brandt that the empty grave was an
"invention" of Mark (p. 318 f.) has itself rather the look of an
invention, and that not exactly of a pious kind. One should have
a little more confidence iu the moral personality of the Evangelists.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 117
that not only Paul, but the original apostles also,
understood the resurrection to be a purely spiritual
one. We saw, on the contrary, that both alike
conceived it as the reanimation of the buried, though
now glorified, body. To men, therefore, who held
such an opinion, Jesus could not have risen from
the dead, if His body was lying in the grave.
In point of fact, then, nothing remains to the de
fenders of the vision hypothesis but the assumption
that Jesus' corpse, for some reason, had been taken
from the grave. This reason, of course, can no
longer be established with certainty. But that is
no absolute proof that there could not have been
such a motive. Even the fact that we do not know
who stole the body would not positively pronounce
against the possibility of theft.
At any rate, the Jews could hardly have had any
motive for such an act. It must therefore, in all
probability, have been Christians. But certainly it
was not Christians from the more select circle of
disciples. That is opposed by the fact that they
all found in the empty grave a confirmation and,
in part, a reason for their belief in the resurrection.
We have 'no right whatever to attribute any dis
honesty to them. Accordingly, they must them
selves have been deceived. On the other hand,
we might possibly seek for the originator in the
large circle of adherents, less closely connected with
Jesus, who admired and venerated, but did not
sufficiently understand the great wonder worker.

118 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [73
Not only have the bones of saints in later times
been held in great honour, but, when it was pos
sible, they have even been procured for memorials,
or for the purpose of working miracles. In the
days of Jesus, also, the people looked on objects
which had only an outward relation to the venerated
saints as capable of working wonders, and used them
as such. A case in point is the aprons and hand
kerchiefs of the Apostle Paul, which the Ephesians
used for the healing of sickness (Acts xix. 12,
cf. v. 15). How much more, in the belief of the
multitude, must the wonderful powers which during
His lifetime proceeded so often from the holy body
of Jesus have proceeded from it after His death
(Mark v. 28 ff, iii. 10, and elsewhere). Even the
body of the dead Elias was able to give life to
another who was laid beside him in the grave
(2 Kings xiii. 21). And that this remained the
belief even of the later Jews, is evident from the
Talmud. For, " according to Sanhedrin 47b, dust
was taken from the grave of the Leader, the great
Saint, .4 . . in order to cure fever, and indeed not
secretly; Eabbi Samuel approved of it. It was
also a tradition, as we are taught in Jalkut Schim.
Beresch. 156, that the bones of Joseph were not
allowed to remain in Egypt, because the Egyptians
might have been redeemed by them, since miraculous
healing influences proceed from the bones of lesser
saints, and even from the dust of their graves "
O
(Weber, p. 289). A sense of shame, or some such

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 119
feeling, might probably, in such a case, have been
the reason why such a superstitious half-adherent
of Jesus did not care to acknowledge this act.1
Now, whether the empty grave be explained by
the taking away of the body, which was the original
thought of Mary Magdalene (John xx. 13, 15), or
by the bodily resurrection of Jesus ; TJlhorn, at any
rate, is wrong when, in the first case, he makes the
whole course of the world and the whole history of
our race depend " upon the chance that the mysteri
ous unknown resolves to take the body of Jesus
from the grave," and that he keeps silence about
it (l.c. p. 175). In point of fact, the course of
the world's history was not affected by the empty
grave, but by belief in the Messiah who had passed
to the right hand of God. And this belief might,
in itself, have arisen without the empty grave. On
the contrary, it could not, as we saw, have been
produced by the empty grave, and was not produced
1 If Joseph of Arimathea, who was well known to the Christian
community, had only provisionally placed the corpse in the rock
tomb, and then buried in his (Joseph's) native place, the apostles
would no doubt have known this (notwithstanding Scholten ev. Naar.
Joh. 182, and Jesus von Nazareth, by " Amicus Veritatis," 1894, p. 56).
W. Brandt, on his part, makes the very improbable assumption that
the disciples, and even the mother of the Lord herself, troubled
themselves so little about His corpse, that they were unable to fix
the place and identity of the grave (p. 328, cf. p. 489). But, in that
case, the reckless preaching of the resurrection would stamp them as
fanatical deceivers. In order that Joseph, who buried the Lord,
may be able to give no information, he must have done this not
only in all quietness (contrary to Mark xv. 47), but have imme
diately withdrawn to the Diaspora. There, of course, he was sure of
protection (cf. pp. 312 f., 435 ff.). How ingenious !

120 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [74-75
by it. That could only have been the external
cause or means of strengthening the faith of the
heart, which was inwardly originated and maintained
by the power of God (cf. p. 86 f.).
But if, on the other hand, the enemies of Jesus
had been able to exhibit His body in the sepulchre,
the disciples' belief that He had risen from the
grave could neither have arisen nor been maintained.
In that case, the belief, which would certainly have
been produced by the power of the Divine Spirit in
spite of this, would necessarily have referred only
to the victorious Messiah, who, after His death, was
exalted to God. His resurrection would then have
been expected only in connection with His second
coming. But assuredly this belief could not in such
circumstances have spread so rapidly.
Another reason to which a special force is attri
buted is frequently adduced in favour of the bodily
resurrection of Jesus as the only possible cause of
the empty grave. It is supposed that it would
have been unworthy of God if the corpse of Jesus
had been stolen. But if it was worthy of God to
allow His living Son to be put to death as a male
factor, why should it be absolutely unworthy of
Him to allow the material body, decomposed into
its atoms, to be taken away from a motive of
idolatrous veneration ? If even we show a mistaken
reverei.ce for His perishable human body, it may
be feared that the worship of His immortal divinity
will thereby be damaged. Church history has more

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 121
than once proved this danger to be real. We have
only to think of the worship of relics.1
Finally, the other objection, that psychology and
the economy of salvation make it impossible for an
error to be the basis of a religious revolution so
mighty and so blessed, has no real meaning. The
removal of the body and the empty grave are in no
circumstances the grounds of believing in the resur
rection. On the contrary, the renewed impression
of the overpowering divinity of the person of Jesus
awoke, as we saw (p. 86 f.), the conviction that He
was the Messiah, the Conqueror of death. Faith
itself, therefore, would have given their content to the
appearances of Christ, on the supposition that they
were objective visions. They would then, on the
strength of the empty tomb, have received an
explanation in accordance with the ideas of the
age, but not with the actual fact, by the resurrection
of the body from the grave. The empty grave
could only have served to confirm that conviction
and defend it against assaults. But the kernel
would have remained the God-produced revelation
of the heavenly Messiahship of the slain but living
Jesus.2 It is a fact that, in God's guidance of history, the
idea of the speedy return of the Lord, conceived
in the most sensuous way, a mistaken notion which
1 This of course, is not to be taken as an assertion that the body
was stolen.
- Cf. the more exact proof under " g."

122 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [70
we intend shortly to demonstrate, must have exercised
a most blessed influence on the earnestness of the
faith and life of the first Christians. And yet in a
certain sense the hope of the second coming is but
the reverse side of the belief in the resurrection.
Considering this belief, an error which was not
essential to the content of faith could not have
encountered any absolutely greater difficulties.
We are therefore treating the matter too lightly
if we think that such reasons form absolutely con
vincing proofs of the resurrection of the body from
the grave.
(/) The Symbolical and the Assumed Resurrection Body
of Jesus (B. Weiss and Steude)
If, in the foregoing, I have refuted the reasons
which have been brought forward agamst the
hypothesis of an objective vision, and in favour of
the corporeity of Christ's appearances,1 I have not
thereby refuted the fact itself, nor wished to do so.
On the contrary, I shall presently adduce a powerful
reason in its favour. But the defenders of the
corporeity should not give up a presupposition which
lies at the basis of their view. For they would
thereby, as it seems to me, deprive their standpoint
of its basis and its specific value. The man who
assumes that Christ appeared in a heavenly body
admits that such a body can be manifested to the
1 In the sense of outward reality.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 123
senses. As we saw, the possibility of that cannot
be called in question (p. 92 f.). Now, the sensuous
body in which Jesus appeared was certainly not in
the view of the disciples a mere sign and testimony of
His having come forth bodily from the grave (Weiss,
I.e. iii. 392). Neither the view of the Jewish
people nor the account in the Gospels give the least
support to that. On the contrary, the disciples
believed that they had seen the very body which
Jesus at that time possessed (so Beyschlag, Leben
Jesu, i. 458).
Thomas would not believe in the resurrection
until he placed his hands on the nail prints of the
body which had risen from the grave (John xx. 25).
And this was just what the Lord challenged him to
do (ver. 27). Are we then to suppose that if he had
attempted to do so he would have grasped the air,
because " the nature of the heavenly body which
Jesus then had was such that it could not be
manifested to the senses " ? What a deception
would we then attribute to the Lord, and what a
disillusion to Thomas ! Or, can Thomas have felt
flesh and bone indeed, but not that of the body
which Christ then had ? Such an explanation
would not only be decidedly laboured, but would
destroy the perfect purity of Jesus' mode of acting.
The Gospels take a very different view of the
matter. Whatever legendary additions may belong to
the eating and drinking of Jesus and such like

124 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [77
materialistic features, He could not possibly have
assumed an apparent form, or, as Steude supposes,
resumed His former earthly body for a short time in
order to convince the disciples of His resurrection.
This body was itself transformed into the heavenly
one. Did Jesus retransform it back to its former
state ? Steude assumes such a retransformation in
all the appearances of Christ, " in which more was
perceived than a mere dazzling lustre" (I.e. p. 20).
And yet this itself can only be perceived by the
senses. In this way, the advocacy of the bodily appearances
of Christ loses the very thing which it would fain
hold, namely, the identity of the embodied though
glorified personality. For if Jesus, only "for a
time and for the purpose of the appearance,"
assumed a form which might " just as well have
resembled the former human form with the traces
of the crucifixion as been another form unknown to
the disciples" (Steude, p. 123), then the body which
they saw was not that of Him who had risen from
the dead, but only one He had assumed, and foreign
to Him as such. But if the Eisen One did not
appear to the disciples as such, a view of that kind
has no longer any advantage over the hypothesis of
the objective vision. On the contrary, an objective
influence of God upon the heart, which from the
laws of mind assumed the form of a corresponding
vision of Christ, seems to me more worthy and more
truthful than to make Jesus assume a form which

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 125
in relation to His actual present body is only an
appearance. Only if we admit that the heavenly body could
in certain circumstances make itself perceptible to
the senses, can the idea of the bodily appearances of
Christ be defended in an acceptable form.
Now, we might admit that no strict proof of the
corporeity of those appearances could be given in the
way indicated, but think that we are able to show,
instead of that, their absolute religious value. If
that were so, then we would have at once to recognise
the fact as an immediate postulate of faith. We
have therefore, in the last place, to subject this most
important point of the question to a still further
examination.

(g) The Historical and Religious Value of the Belief
•in the Corporeity of the Appearances of Christ,
and in the Resurrection of Jesus from the
Grave
The Historical Value of the Belief in the Resurrec
tion of Jesus from the Grave
There can be no doubt that the Church was
based on the belief of the first Christians that
Jesus had risen from the grave. But it is just as
true that the victorious power of their faith could
not, and did not, lie in the medium, but only in the
contents of the revelation itself. The appearances

126 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [78
of Christ established in an outward form, to those
who witnessed them, the certainty of their faith in
the victorious Messiahship of Jesus. From these
appearances, which they regarded as bodily, they
concluded that Jesus had actually risen from the
grave. And the empty grave ratified the conclusion.
This in itself, however, had no value for their faith ;
its only value was an indirect historical one. Even
in their case the only point of ultimate importance,
from the religious standpoint, was their gaining a
belief in some form or another in the eternal
mediatorship of the Son of God.
We can see plainly from the New Testament that
the only saving value which the resurrection from
the grave had for them lay in the assurance of this
Messiahship (Acts ii. 36, cf. with 24 and 32 f. ;
iii. 15, 19-21, 26, iv. 10-12, v. 29-32, x.
40-43). To Paul also this kernel was the only
thing of religious value (Eom. i. 4 ; 1 Cor. xv.
13-18). This, in all cases, is the faith which could and
did overcome the world. But it remained essentially
the same, whether united with a correct or with a
false psychological or metaphysical conception of the
form of Christ's appearances.
Hence it is an exaggeration of the historical
value of the form of the resurrection from the grave,
to maintain that it was the necessary condition for
the renewal of the disciples' faith in Jesus' mediator-
ship, and therefore for the founding of the Church.

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 127
Whoever believes in the power of divine truth will,
as we have already indicated, have no doubt as to
the victory of the resurrection-belief, though it be in
a more spiritual form (cf. p. 120), even though there
had been no appearance of Christ.
So far as the belief in Jesus' Messianic victory
grew up by God's guidance in the form of the resur
rection from the grave, and would, at any rate, have
had greater difficulty in originating in another shape,
there must be ascribed to this form a qualified but
not an absolute historical value.
Yet many think they can indirectly prove that
it has an absolute historical value. They maintain
that if the appearances of Christ to the disciples
were visions, then the Christian Church is based on
a deception. And that, they say, is a historical
impossibility. This objection, however, concerns
only the purely subjective vision, the contents of
which would be erroneous, imaginary, and deceitful
(cf. p. 97 f.). The objective vision does not neces
sarily exclude even the resurrection from the grave.
We may, indeed, believe that Jesus assumed the
glorified body in the grave, and yet doubt whether
the Eisen One was able to show Himself with that
body to the eye of sense. Even B. Weiss regards
this latter point as impossible. As we saw, how
ever, he does not infer that there was a vision, but
that Jesus assumed an appearance visible to sense in
order to give a symbolical sign of His resurrection
(cf. "./'")•

128 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [79-80
The objective appearance of Christ, which has the
same religious contents as the bodily appearance, is
distinguished from it only by the fact that its form
signifies an inner and not at the same time an outer
reality. However important in other respects this
distinction may be, it cannot be shown to have any
direct religious value. The belief in the ascension of
the victorious Mediator to the right hand of God
would not have been a deception of the senses even
in the form of a mere inner reality of the appearance
of Christ, inasmuch as it rested on the real revelation
of the living God.
The same thing applies to the whole revelation
of the old prophets, even when we leave their visions
entirely out of account. They also, naturally, re
garded the words of revelation which they heard in
their souls as uttered to them with a human voice
by the God in whose counsel they were, and whose
language they heard. Now, the form of such words
of God could really be nothing but a creation of the
human soul. And yet the false ascription of an
objective reality to this form did not make its divine
objective contents an error or an untruth.
Hence, though we were even forced to believe the
apostles wrong in regarding not only the content but
also the form of Christ's appearance as objective
(which we do not), yet they might have been pro
phets filled with the Spirit in the act of their vision.
For, even in this case, the knowledge of the life of
the Mediator of their salvation, a knowledge due to

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 129
the direct operation of the personal God, remained
undiminished in its objective reality and truth. Even
though they were vouchsafed no later appearances,
they knew that the Spirit of the victorious Christ
was always present wibh them. And this gave their
faith the power which it needed no less than before,
when it had no lack of the resonance of sense.
Accordingly, objective visions and bodily appear
ances of Christ have essentially the same significance
for the historical genesis of faith in Jesus as the
Messiah who is the Conqueror of death.
This brings us to the relation between the form of
the appearance and the intrinsic content of the belief
in the resurrection.
The Religious Value of the Belief in Jesus' Resurrection
from the Grave
It may be objectively proved that Jesus' position
as Mediator of salvation derives no real value from
the assumption of His resurrection from the grave.
That, of itself, cannot even prove the historical fact
of His sinlessness, to say nothing of His position of
Messiah and Saviour. For all pious sinners are to
rise from the dead. And the first Evangelist reports
the raising of the " saints " even before Jesus' own
resurrection (Matt, xxvii. 5 2 f.).
It is of still less importance for our salvation in
Him alone. For in whatever way and under what
ever circumstances Christ's exaltation was brought
9

130 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [si
about by God, the important matter is this event
itself and its result. Jesus' Messiahship and our sal
vation depend on it alone, and not on the body He
had in the grave. Jesus Christ even now rules as
King among believers. His victory is manifest in
the renewing of the world by the power of His word
as light and salt, in the regeneration of the hearts of
men who surrender themselves to the influences of
His Spirit. Complete fellowship with God, with all
its saving effects, has been actually brought about by
the love of God revealed in Christ. The objective
religious value of belief in the resurrection lies,
therefore, in the exaltation of Jesus to an infinitely
sublime and central sphere of religious power. For
that is what secures and seals for all eternity the
result of His redemptive work. On that alone, too, is
based the hope of our own resurrection, that is, our
confidence that we also after death will be with Christ
in a higher form of existence (furnished with a new
body), and through Him and in Him stand in inmost
fellowship with God.
But the form in which Jesus went to the Father
makes no difference as, to the fact of that going and
its saving results.
With direct reference to His exaltation, Christ
says, " It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh
profiteth nothing " (John vi. 62-64). By that He
means His own Spirit, which is at the same time the
Spirit of God. Hence the only thing of fundamental
religious value is the fact that Jesus, as the living

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 131
Christ, conquers the world and rules it by His Spirit.
It matters not whether He appears to His people
bodily, or only reveals Himself to them spiritually ;
whether He passes straight from the cross or only
from the grave to the right hand of God. One
cannot see how the value and power of belief in this
dominion over the world should depend on whether
Jesus assumed His glorified body in the grave or
in Heaven.
We sometimes hear it said that if Jesus had not
risen bodily from the grave we would then have a
" dead Saviour." A remarkably absurd supposition
underlies this statement. For it looks as if the
spirit of Jesus had been laid with His body in the
grave, and was itself dead till the resurrection of the
body from the grave. This view verges on the old
Jewish conception. But for us Christians the Spirit
of Him who belongs to the God of life, and still more
when it is the Spirit of the Prince of Life Himself, is
altogether indestructible by death. His resurrection,
therefore, cannot signify the regaining of a living
personality. The contrary can only be maintained
by those who, in opposition to the later Pauline
view (Phil. i. 23), know of no life with God before
the resurrection from the grave.
That residuum of the old Jewish and heathen
mode of thought maintains itself so long only because
it finds support in the mechanical conception of the
inspiration of the Bible. Paul himself seems to
share that view in those passages of his Epistles

132 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [82
where he presupposes, as a direct contrast to the
resurrection of Christ from the grave, His annihilation
or corruption, as well as that of those who have
fallen asleep in Christ (1 Cor. xv. 18, 16, 32).

Jesus' Resurrection from the Grave and Christian
Faith as such
From all this it is manifest that no saving value
can be proved to belong to the corporeity of Jesus'
resurrection in itself. But it may be shown from the
idea of faith that that corporeity cannot be its object
in the strict sense. For faith is a religious idea.
That should not need to be stated. Hence it has for
content neither metaphysical nor other conditions on
which salvation becomes possible or actual, but this
salvation itself in its reality and truth.
Faith and salvation in this sense are correlates.
They present the subjective and objective sides of
the same thing, namely, religion. Our personality, in
feeling, mind, and will, is united with the personality
of God through the faith which lays hold of salvation.
Hence the only object of our faith, in this deepest
personal sense, can be, strictly speaking, God
Himself. On its receptive side, then, it is the personal heart
experience in which man is made directly to know
that God and divine things are truly and really
his highest good. Its content, therefore, is always
a present experience which we, by means of the

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 133
religious feeling, perceive /to be a religious one, an
expression of the personal /relation of God to us.1
So far, then, faith is a (state of heart and disposi
tion. It always begins when God lays hold of me
and I lay hold of God in my inmost heart. Through
the believer becoming senjsible, by his experience of
God's love, that God desjires his salvation, he feels
constrained to recognise the truth of this saving
purpose, and resigrfs himself to it in full self-
surrender and with* perfect certainty. Thus the
receptive experience \f the divine purpose of love
finally develops intc' aWtaneous confidence in that
love. . x%
In the love of CJS> , then, which man experiences
in faith, and which ne Virus bs, are found the motives
that are strong enough/to effect the transmission of
the divine power of - love,2 and therefore a com
plete return of love, regeneration, and sanctification.
However, faith becomes me.'ged in the experience
of God's love, and in reliance on it. Those fruits
of faith, therefore, have nothing to do with the idea
of faith in itself (cf. Augustana, art. 24. 5, 6, 12).
Accordingly, as the content of this state of mind
is a personal relation, it is not, as such, directly
concerned with objective truth. It is self-evident,
of course, that there can be no fellowship of love
1 Cf. also Lobstein, " Der evangelisehe Heilsglaube an die Aufer
stehung Jesu Christi," in Gottschick's Zeitschrift filr Theol. und
Kirchc, 1892, p. 354.
- We may here be allowed to use this figurative expression for
brevity's sake.

134 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [83-84
with a person of whose existence we have any doubt
(Heb. xi. 6). Hence I must in some way learn
that God loves me before I can feel or acknowledge
or trust His love. For all that, however, the pre
liminary knowledge in question does not belong to
the content of faith, but is its presupposition.
Now, since God reveals and confers on men His
perfect fellowship only in Christ, the idea of faith
attains to perfect reality and truth in Him alone.
It is in Christ, as Mediator, that the believer
experiences the living God'? present relation to
himself, and it is in Hinijityiin that he realises
his relation to God. Thu^hn Christianity, faith
remains a relation of person to person.
Only in the wider sense can certain facts be
objects of faith ; though here we no longer use the
word in its proper significance. We mean those
which may be indirectly experienced to have
religious value, in so far as they stand in an
inwardly necessary relation to a religious value
that belongs to the experience of faith. To these
belong the carrying out and perfecting the work of
salvation as such, without which Jesus could not be
my Saviour.
However, even facts connected with the history
of salvation do not so much as possess indirect
religious value for faith, unless they modify God's
relation to us in Christ. For, indeed, faith is not
the indirect discernment and acknowledgment that
a saving event has actually or probably taken place,

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 135
which we ourselves, or even others, have perhaps
experienced long ago. It is rather, as we saw, that
present personal religious experience itself.
Hence the bodily resurrection of Jesus, as a mere
historical event, can only be an object of intellectual
conviction, but not of faith in the proper sense.
Even faith in the wider sense, though convinced
that the exaltation of Christ is the necessary con
dition to our salvation being perfected, does not
dogmatise on the process of its accomplishment. For,
in fact, this process is a matter of direct religious
indifference. Even apart from Jesus' bodily resur
rection, there still remains objectively the whole
religious significance of His saving work. And,
subjectively, our faith in the exalted Lord as our
only Saviour is not destroyed by a doubt of that
bodily resurrection. In this sense the general con
tent of the belief in the resurrection lies in the
words of Jesus, " because I live, ye shall live also "
(John xiv. 19 ; so also Steude, I.e. p. 5).
Accordingly, no one can have faith in anything
else than this religious content of the resurrection of
Jesus Christ. A resurrection from the grave, on the
other hand, can only be regarded as true.
Consequently, the question as to the bodily
resurrection of Jesus does not belong to Christian
saving faith in the narrower sense, but to Christian
science, to theology. It is not, therefore, in any way
suited for being the measure of one's Christianity,
however often it is misused for that end. That

136 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [85
standard should rather be the eternal and essential
content of faith, salvation by Christ alone.
Even Ulhorn admits that those who assume an
objective vision thereby acknowledge " a miracle
effected in the hearts of the disciples, a deed of
God . . . which assures us that He did not remain
in death, but is alive " (Das Leben Jesu in seinen
neueren Darstellungen, 4th ed. p. 168 f.). He adds:
" That is a great matter, and nothing is further
from my mind than to deny to those who occupy
that position faith in the living Christ." No doubt he
judges the vision hypothesis, even in this form, as " a
serious attenuation of Christian faith," which must
logically undermine the ground on which the Church
rests. I hope I have proved that this is not the case.
Steude, also, personally accepts the resurrection of
Jesus from the grave, but shows more liberal views
on this point. He recognises the object of the true
Easter belief not in the bodily resurrection from the
grave, but in the " personal continuance of the life
of Jesus in heaven " (pp. 3-6), and asserts : " Those
who cannot convince themselves of the bodily
resurrection of Jesus, may have this Easter faith
just as truly and as joyfully as those who, on
historical grounds, have acquired the certainty of
that divine miracle" (p. 6). Indeed, we saw that
this is the very thing that cannot be attained by a
purely historical method.1
1 Since the above was written, the work of Vorbrodt, Psyckologie
des Glaubens, 1895, a pioneer work in this department, has come

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 137
(h) Proof of the Bodily Resurrection of Christ
Truth and clearness required us to establish that
a bodily appearance of Christ can neither be proved
into my hands. I see that my idea of faith agrees with his in all
essentials and even in many details, so that I do not feel any need
to change a single word. That is a satisfaction to me personally as
well as for the sake of the subject, and all the more so because my
special task merely led to an incidental and somewhat empirical
sketch of my fundamental view, while Vorbrodt develops his on all
sides with systematic thoroughness and psychological acuteness. To
him also the real "religious" faith is originally a "surrender of
heart to heart " (p. 90), the expression of a, purely personal relation
(pp. 92, 108 f.) between God and man (pp. 131, 193, 220), with which is
contrasted the "theoretical objective intellectual faith" as one that
has no specific religious character (p. 108f., and elsewhere). Vorhrodt's
discovery, however, is that he defines faith, that "most peculiar,
most personal, most immediate individual thing, " as the " enjoyment
of the blessing of divine grace and communion " (p. 101 ), especially the
' ' communion of life with Christ " (p. 221 ), " by which enjoyment all
other blessings are appropriated and made plain, and the two main
factors of faith, the invisible element and the personal certainty, are
brought to expression " (p. 101). And indeed one enjoys a "blessing,
object, thing, by appropriating it through the pleasure which one
feels " (p. 52). " Pleasure, feeling, is a means to enjoyment " (p. 52).
From this description of the essential content of faith, hit upon with
masterly tact, follows the position of faith towards the reality of the
invisible personality which is its object. Here the only point in
question is whether God exists, and not how He exists, which is
rather the "result of the judgment of vplue"; whether "He of
whom the judgment of value speaks is a reality " (p. 183). But faith
does not reflect on this point, because this existence is as "self-
evident as that of the father, whom he does not at the moment see,
and whom he yet trusts, is to the child " (p. 97). It is only as an
after consideration that the " certainty of the value " relates to the
' ' existence of the thing, . . . but primarily it concerns the emo
tional enjoyment wdiose object is that which in its nature is
invisible" (p. 196). For the "feeling of certainty" is only "an
accompanying phenomenon of the value-judgment of trust " (p. 222).
With that is connected the relation of faith to history as such.
In history religious facts have only their roots (p. x.). Hence

138 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [86-87
as incontestable in a purely historical way, nor be
a proper object of faith. The proof of this may
' ' historical facts are to be added to faith in thought, without being
really and logically in it " (p. 94). As regards Christianity in par
ticular, we appropriate the "real" "objective" that is appraised
in faith, in the contemplation of the "basis of faith " afforded by the
picture of Christ's history and life (the basis of faith as distinguished
from the content of faith), (p. 166). Consequently Vorbrodt, too,
does not regard the existence of the personality believed in as belong
ing to the content of faith, but only as a necessary presupposition
of the concept proper.
The psychological formula "of religiousness,'- "the abiding in
faith, " is now the "judgment of value " (pp. 154, 104) which organic
ally comprises will, feeling, and notion (p. 101). The entire sum of
religious knowledge is exhausted in judgments of value (pp. 102, 131).
For the religious value (in enjoyment) which consists in the relation
of the Ego to God (p. 156) finds conscious expression in these judg
ments (pp. 151, 101). As enjoyment "is the fundamental religious
experience " (p. 179), religion as a good that is enjoyed can " only be
fixed and experienced by the judgment of value" (p. 162). On the
other hand, the "forms and means for describing the experience
gained in a judgment of value" are "judgments of existence" (p. 162).
With all that I am thoroughly at one. Vorbrodt's special merit
lies in not only having established the relation of faith to the
personal human spirit in its totality, but also in having demon
strated it psychologically. Nevertheless, though I quite agree
with his definition of the content of faith, his conception of its
origin or mediation in the subject has not convinced me. I may
therefore be allowed to indicate briefly my doubts. I leave out of
account whether he is entitled to class enjoyment with notion and
will, feeling and judgment, as an elementary state of soul (p. 47 f.).
Above all, I do not understand his definition of the relation of
enjoyment to feeling. He seems to have been especially led to it by
his comparatively well-grounded fear of resolving "religion into
feeling " (p. 52). Besides, he himself recognises the great importance
not merely of the accompanying feelings (p. 220), but also of feeling as
"medium of ideas, mainspring of will, fulness of enjoyment " (p. 215).
Now, I think I must make a greater concession to Schleiermacher's
and Lotze's conception of feeling. Faith indeed is ' ' neither feeling
nor feeling of independence, ... it rather presupposes a relation
between God and man" (p. 225). This would be much too narrow a
definition of faith. But yet by means of enjoyment one becomes

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 139
probably seem to many too exhaustive, and scarcely
suggest that I do not hold the hypothesis of the
sensible not only mediately but also immediately of the value of
fellowship with God involved in it. And by what other means
should this consciousness be brought about than by a feeling, that
is to say, in this case by the specifically religious feeling ? (This I
regard as a moral feeling directed to God, as the immediate con
sciousness gained by the (practical) personality as such, of the
immanent and yet at the same time transcendent basis of life that
rules it.) For Vorbrodt himself admits that the "objectivity of
the value" is dependent "on the fact of definite feelings" which
of course ' ' cannot be embraced and described by any other concept
than by the idea of value." The content of this immediate feeling
of value seems to me to consist more exactly in a qualitative
affection of the practical Ego only learned by experience, but its
objectivity as a religious feeling to be made perceptible by the
accompanying sense of constraint ; whence subsequent reflection sees
itself compelled to seek the cause of the moral feeling as a religious
feeling outside the Ego. Thus, in the religious feeling we perceive
the self-determined relation of God to us, which is the presupposition
and spring of our relation to Him.
It is therefore essentially the same relation as in the case of
external perception. That the object of a notion has external
reality, can likewise be gathered only from the feeling of necessity
which accompanies the objective notion, while it is not inherent in
the purely subjective.
Moreover, Vorbrodt's view itself seems logically to lead to the
acknowledgment that in the enjoyment of faith the religious feeling
represents the immediate consciousness of the subjective value
which God has for men. If he regards feeling as the "local sign"
that, somehow and somewhere, something psychical is taking place
(p. 221), the religious feeling is just the medium of the direct percep
tion that something religious is taking place, namely, a relation
of God and man. Further, if enjoyment consists in appropriating
a good through the pleasure one feels (S.O.), religious enjoyment
consists in appropriating the fellowship of God through the pleasure
one feels in it. Now, if Vorbrodt takes the judgment of value as
"embryonically '' immanent in enjoyment, it follows that the
religious feeling is the more exact place of origin of the former. If
the personality directly perceives in this the value of communion
with God for its own life, one might define the judgment of value as
the intellectual expression of the value immediately perceived in

140 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [88
objective vision, but that my personal conviction is
rather with those who recognise an appearance of
Christ in a spiritual body. The fulness of the
above discussion, and the efforts to do justice to
honest opponents of the bodily appearance of
Christ, are perhaps needed to dispel the mental con
fusion of many who are only too ready to charge
every one who questions this fact with wilfulness,
scepticism, and even untruthfulness and unbelief.
I would fain hope that the disclosure of the great
difficulties surrounding this article of faith on its
intellectual side, and the perception of the true
religious value of the fact of the resurrection, may
make them more patient with those who recognise
the kernel of faith existing in that fact, though
unable to appropriate the form in which it is pre
sented. I would fain hope that in this respect the
good example of men like Ulhorn and Steude may
be followed in wider circles.
Moreover, I do not hesitate to trace back my
anxiety for such true Christian toleration to that
understanding of the standpoint of opponents which
I have gained from my own theological development.
And this leads me further to adduce the grounds on
feeling and appropriated in enjoyment, and this judgment of value
would then receive its ideally developed dogmatic form in corre
sponding judgments of reality. The action of the Divine Spirit on
the human, an action which seizes and comprehends the whole Ego
(p. 55), is immediately exercised only on the moral and religious
feeling. It can hardly be proved that this action can immediately
embrace view and will without the instrumentality of the above
feeling, as Vorbrodt seems to assume (p. 55).

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 141
which believers base their conviction of the personal
appearance of the Lord. The way is first cleared
for this fact by the perception that, however common
the opposite assumption is, the impossibility of de
parted spirits appearing cannot be proved. And
indeed, as regards this, it is of no consequence
whether we suppose them to have a spiritual body
or not. But still, whoever insists on the impos
sibility of this has, so far as I see, no scientific
right at least to recognise personal appearances of
Christ, but only at most to assume objective visions.
No doubt, even if the above impossibility be denied,
the real possibility of the contrary cannot, as we saw
(p. 9 2 f .), be immediately proved. Whether we are to
assume this, and consequently the reality, in the case
of Christ, ultimately depends on the significance
which we logically ascribe to His person and its
religious position. The conviction of the sinlessness
and divinity of Jesus Christ gained from other reasons
— a conviction which stamps Him as the unique and
perfect Mediator of fellowship with God and of
salvation — attributes to the perfected and glorified
God-Man the whole power and authority of God in
religious matters. This God, as the All-embracing
One, is in Himself invisible (1 Tim. vi. 16 ; John i.
18). As regards His inmost essence, He can only
reveal Himself to men in a man. The saving and
blessed love which impels Him to give Himself to
men, has accomplished this revelation for their salva
tion in His Son Jesus Christ. Hence it is in keeping

142 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [89-90
with the latter's historical destination as Mediator of
salvation, that in the other world also God should
communicate with the glorified through Him (1 John
iii. 2 ; " (pavepcoOfj " refers to Christ). The organ of
this intercourse is His glorified body, which He
received after death. By already revealing Himself
in this form to His people who were left behind on
earth, and whose faith so much needed strengthening,
He gave them not only a spiritual guarantee of His
heavenly Messiahship, but also one that was corrobor
ated by the senses. Love must have impelled their
Lord to do this if He could ; and it must, on the
other hand, have moved God in any case to confer on
Him the power of doing so. For it was in thorough
harmony with God's gracious condescension to
facilitate in this way the first genesis of belief in
the resurrection. Thus Jesus revealed Himself to
His friends in a spiritual body, in order to root that
conviction in their minds, and so found His Church
on a basis that could not be moved.
That is the dogmatic train of thought by which
theology and Christology reach the conclusion that
the appearance of Christ was a bodily one. It
scarcely needs to be asserted that the genesis of the
disciples' faith in the bodily appearance of the Lord
was brought about by no such abstract argument.
Even yet it is not wont to arise in such a reflective
way, but in the same manner as then, because the
faith which lays hold of us by its rehgious content
carries its form immediately with it. From this,

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 143
however, it only follows that an outward and even
an inward event is entirely different from the sub
sequent reflection on it, which seeks to prove in
an indirect way that the form of the thing believed
is historical. Now, from this point we certainly get a clearer
light on the relation between this view of the bodily
appearance of the Lord and the hypothesis of the
objective vision. The two standpoints are closely
connected with, though not necessarily based upon,
somewhat different estimates of Jesus' position as
Saviour. For we saw that whoever thinks logically
about the full conception of this mediatorship of
salvation, is driven further to the corporality of His
appearance. In fact, in the case of the disciples, the
overpowering impression of His heavenly Messiahship
must have conquered all doubt as to the corporeity
and reality of His appearance. Now, if our convic
tion is firmly based, that the glorified Lord revealed
Himself bodily to His disciples, then this must
appear to us as a glorious act of God, a jewel of
universal history. For the indisputable and manifest
triumph of the divine power and love, which is, as it
were, embodied in the personal appearance of the
victor over death out of the imperishable world for
which we long, must have a different effect on the
disciples and on us than the purely inward victory
of belief in the Messiah. It is quite another thing
for a father who is supposed to be lost to appear
suddenly in the midst of his children, than for him

144 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [91
to give them a sign of life from a distance whence
he is for ever debarred from returning in the flesh.
The divine power of faith is indeed a guarantee that
the disciples would have regained their faith even
without the personal appearance of their Lord. But
the inner certainty and vitality of that faith seem to
have received the surest possible guarantee from the
bodily appearances of Christ. And though it might
still be asked whether the faith regained in a purely
inward manner would not necessarily have been
exposed to the attack of severe doubts, the inspiring
heroism of the witnesses of the resurrection, which has
influenced men continuously for thousands of years,
seems to us a matter of course in the other case.
And further. However worthy of God it may be
that the imagination of the excited disciples should
have created phantoms of real life for the genuine
belief of their heart ; yet, on the one hand, a product
of fancy, even though its content be true, has not in
the long run the power of a real outer event, and,
on the other hand, it agrees better with the sobriety
of those who founded the Christian Church — a
sobriety which they were taught by the King of
Truth, which was morally grounded, and which was
approved by their whole after life — that they should
not have needed any sobering down in that important
point. Especially as, notwithstanding their great
sincerity towards themselves and others, we never
afterwards find among them the slightest trace of
the perception that the appearances of the personal

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 145
Christ rested on imagination. Finally, it is un
questionably more in keeping with the religious
feeling that God, in His power, love, and wisdom,
should have caused the Lord of Glory Himself to be
seen in place of a deceptive phantom that could not
stand the test. For though the similar early Christian
error with regard to the time of the second coming
was on the whole accompanied by blessed results,
yet there is a difference between committing an error
with regard to a point of future time, and taking the
phantom of the Eisen Son of God for an (outer)
reality. Such is the significance — qualified, no doubt, but
not to be underrated — that the belief in Christ's
bodily appearance has for the historical origin of
the first Christian Church. But this belief is also
important for the vitality of the faith of later genera
tions. The significance of the living super-historical
Christ for the founding and permanence of salvation,
even in the Pauline Christology, has recently and
with justice been emphasised by Schrader (Die Bedeu-
tung des lebendigen Christus fur die Rechtfertigicngslehre
nach Paulus, 1895, pp. 12, 27, 30, 182, 184), and
Titius, in his newly published book (Die Neutesta-
mentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung
fiir die Gegenwart, 1. Jesus Lehre vom Reiche Gottes,
Freiburg 1895), insists that the covenant concluded in
the Lord's Supper can only be realised through God's
Spirit and Christ's glorified person (p. 169, etc.). No
doubt the fellowship of God in Christ does not,

146 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [92
in the case of believers, depend on the absolute
correctness of the notion as to the way it is brought
about. A sincere belief in the personal super-historical
work of Christ as such is possible even to the advo
cate of the objective vision. However, it must be
admitted that the disciples must have been all the
more thoroughly convinced of the presence of Christ
in His Spirit, and of the comprehensive and saving
activity of the Glorified One in all future time, after
He had revealed Himself to them in the body. For
us, also, as regards the inner quickening of faith in
Christ, the same conviction can have no other than
fruitful results.

(i) General Summary
Let us now look back over the path we have
travelled. The oft-disputed fact of the prediction of
the resurrection is not only critically established,
but rests psychologically on a basis that cannot be
assailed. It is certain that Jesus was conscious of
being the Son of God and the Messiah, and clung to
this consciousness even in view of His approaching
death. He must therefore have been convinced that
His personal existence, which was bound, through the
closest fellowship of love, to the God of life, could
not be destroyed by death, but that, if He should be
slain, He would then in a glorified body complete the
founding of the kingdom — a work God had reserved
for Him alone. In short, He could not have believed

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 147
in His death without at the same time being certain
of His resurrection.
He must, however, have uttered that revelation in
the presence of His disciples in the form of a pre
diction. The pedagogic reason for this is, that He
must have feared that the mere prediction of His
death, without that of His resurrection, would plunge
them in unbelief and despair. For a dead Messiah
was a contradiction in terms.
Accordingly, the prediction of His resurrection, a
fact which is a psychological necessity, is confirmed
by the unanimous tradition of the New Testament.
Moreover, the fixing of the resurrection within three
days, after the example of Hosea, probably formed
an original part of the prophecy.
On the other hand, as regards its stricter mean
ing, Jesus' parable of the rich man, and His promise
of Paradise to the penitent thief, show that He
assumed an immediate passing of departed saints
into Heaven, and expected that for Himself. For
He knew only a heavenly Paradise. In this, too,
He shared the view of at least one part of His
people. The application to Himself of that ascent to
Heaven which takes place at death, is alone in
keeping with His unique and inward fellowship
with God. But in that case He could not have
thought of a descent into Hades.
Accordingly, as He did not look upon His going
to God as dependent on His rising from the dead,
the only thing which the resurrection can have

148 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [93-94
brought about, in accordance with the Pharisees'
idea, was the transition into the final kingdom. It
entailed, therefore, for His person in particular, the
equipment with a glorified body for the purpose of
ruling over that kingdom. Accordingly, the three
days' space, after which He was to rise, could only
have signified to Him a short time, just as it did to
Hosea. Strictly speaking, He meant the time which
had still to run till that kingdom was set up. Its
final term, as we shall see from His prediction of
the second coming, is the end of this present genera
tion. If we compare the fulfilment of the prediction
with this meaning of it, the believer knows, in
accordance with its religious content, that Jesus
was exalted to God as a victorious Messiah at His
death, and there He exercises a heavenly Lordship
over His people, and certainly also in a glorified
body, as He assumed. If, however, He must have
expected to receive that body only at His entrance
on the dominion of earth, the fulfilment will have
outdistanced His expectation here.
The genesis of the disciples' belief in the resurrec
tion must have taken a path somewhat deviating
from the view of Jesus. Though overwhelmed by
the death of their Master, they soon regained their
confidence in His Messiahship. For the divinity of
His person was too deeply impressed upon their
hearts. And this belief must then have reawakened
as a belief in the resurrection. In common with

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 149
the vulgar view, however, they expected the resur
rection of one who had descended to Hades, and not
of one who had ascended to Heaven.
The end He had in view in assuming the glorified
body from the grave, was properly the commence
ment of His dominion over the heavenly kingdom
upon earth. But as the disciples, immediately on
the genesis of this belief, remembered their Lord's
prediction that He would rise on the third day,
and as the literal conception of that terminus
corresponded to the current Eabbinical exposition,
the appearance of the Eisen One at that point of
time probably formed the object of their longing
and secret hope, mixed though that hope might be
with suspense and fear.
Now, as a matter of fact, the Eisen One repeatedly
showed Himself to them as such on the third day,
and also later. That raises the question whether
we are to ascribe only an inner, or both an inner
and an outer reality to these appearances. There
can be no doubt that the disciples, as well as Paul,
believed in then: corporeity. However, the correct
ness of their psychological judgment about the differ
ence between an objective vision and real bodily
appearances is subject to legitimate doubt.
There can, of course, be no thought of mere sub
jective visions. For the rehgious content of the
revelation that the living God produced directly in
the hearts of the disciples, namely, that Jesus is
exalted to the right hand of God as the glorified

150 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [95
Messiah, is guaranteed by the truth of Christianity
itself. But though we cannot contest the possibility of
bodily Christophanies, that does not decide the
question whether the outer reality of those appear
ances is not to be regarded as an error. And that
because the objective vision in itself seems fitted to
call forth faith in Jesus as a Messianic victor with
out really prejudicing the religious content.
Now, some admit that visions of the glorified
Christ, as the Christ who had gone to Heaven,
might have been possible, but not of the Christ who
had risen from the grave, as seen by the apostles and
Paul. Here they rightly assume that a vision can
only be the expression of a view actually existent in
the mind, but they wrongly suppose that the dis
ciples were acquainted only with a material, and not
rather with a glorified resurrection body. And yet,
on an important occasion not long before, the Lord
Himself had, in their hearing, maintained against the
Sadducees that those who rose from the dead were
like the angels. And among the scribes themselves
there was a party which had a similar and more
spiritual view of the resurrection body. Hence we
are not forced to conclude that such a glorified body
cannot form the content of a vision, but can only
belong to a bodily appearance of Christ.
A greater difficulty as to the vision hypothesis
seems to spring from the fact that those phenomena
which are of fundamental importance for the

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 151
apostles' belief in the resurrection took place as
early as the third day after Jesus' execution, and
therefore not in Galilee, but to all appearance in
Jerusalem. It follows from this that Jesus' grave
must have been empty. Otherwise the enemies of
Christ would have given the lie to the apostolic
preaching about Him who had risen from the grave,
by proving the state in which the grave was found.
Accordingly, if the advocates of that hypothesis do
not recognise the resurrection from the grave, they
must admit that the body was removed, for some
reason no longer ascertainable, perhaps from super
stitious veneration.
However, a possibility of that kind cannot at
once be set aside as unworthy of God or as an
historical absurdity. For it cannot be directly
proved that the same God who gave up His Son to
the most cruel death of a malefactor, must necessarily
have preserved the disfigured body from an act of
superstitious veneration.
Nor would this supposition make the whole course
of the world depend on the silence of the unknown
actor. This course is not conditioned by the empty
grave, but by faith in the Messiah who has gone to
the right hand of God. And that faith would have
arisen without the empty grave, though in a somewhat
different form. For the same reason the salvation of
the world would not rest on this error of the resurrec
tion from the grave, if it were an error, but on the
belief in the heavenly Messiahship of Jesus. At

152 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [96
least, a similar incorrect notion actually brought
great blessing to the first Christians, because it did
not concern the content, but only the form of saving
faith, namely, the assumption, to be expressly dealt
with in our next division, that the second coming of
the Lord was to be expected by the generation then
living. If, notwithstanding, there is a reason for assuming
the corporeity of the original appearances of Christ,
the advocates of this view must above all maintain
that the embodied, though glorified, personality of
the Christ who appeared was His very self. Other
wise they would give up the very thing which con
stitutes the value of their view as against the vision
hypothesis. The symbolical assumption by the Glorified One
of a body in the grave, as well as the transformation
of the heavenly body into that which was buried
for a time, destroys that identity. Moreover, these
notions seem to me to contain something mechanical,
indefinite, arbitrary, and even ambiguous, which fails
to do sufficient justice to the dignity of Christ.
But they are also manifestly a mere expedient of
the same fear which produced the vision hypothesis,
namely, that a heavenly body cannot reveal itself to
the eye of sense. That, however, as we have seen,
can by no means be proved to be impossible (p. 9 2 f.).
Finally, it is very much to be desired, in the
interest of the certainty of our conviction, and of
the mutual forbearance of Christians, that we clearly

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 153
see wherein lies the value of belief in the bodily
appearance of Christ — that is, in His resurrection
from the grave. The religious kernel is the belief
in the exaltation of the Mediator of salvation to the
central sphere of religious power. This can be
shown to be that which has overcome the world, and
still does so. If it had not arisen in the form of the
resurrection from the grave, it would, thanks to the
power of God and of truth, have appeared in a more
spiritual form.
It is therefore an exaggeration of the historical
value of that form, and a depreciation of its religious
content, to suppose that without it the Christian
Church would not have been established. Yet we
cannot but admit that the belief in the bodily
appearance of Christ must have aided the genesis
of belief in the resurrection. It is true that it can
not even be absolutely proved from this that the
actual body was necessary.
On the other hand, the assertion that the Church
would have been based on a deception if the appear
ances of Christ had been visions, is true only of the
subjective, but not of the objective vision. For
this latter does not affect the revelation of the
continued victorious life of the Messiah, a revelation
which founded the Church. It therefore leaves the
proper rehgious value of that revelation unimpaired.
For our salvation depends upon this fact, and not
upon the coming forth of Jesus from the grave,
which would not even of itself prove His sinlessness.

154 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [97
Whether the Exalted One had no need whatever
for a body, or whether He received His glorified
body in Heaven or in the grave, are questions which
have no importance for our faith in its saving aspect.
Nevertheless the idea that we would have only
a dead Saviour if Jesus had not risen from the
grave, is extremely absurd. It would have a mean
ing only if the spirit of the Prince of Life had not
gone to God, but had been laid with His body in
the grave.
But whether Jesus may have been exalted to His
position of Divine Euler by means of the resurrection
from the grave, or in a more spiritual form, this
form in itself cannot in any way be an object
of faith, but only of intellectual conviction. This
follows of itself from the strict sense of the evan
gelic idea of faith. For that is a rehgious idea.
The Christian faith has therefore nothing to do
with the historical conditions of salvation, but lays
hold of the personal God in the exalted Christ, and
therewith of salvation as a present possession.
Let us finally sum up our attitude towards the
resurrection of Jesus. We also assume it to be an
objective fact which is primarily to be taken as
supernatural. Its kernel is that Jesus personally
as the living Christ is exalted to God, who has
transferred to Him the dominion of the religious
world. Even now He rules in Heaven in a spiritual
body, and on the earth He rules by His Spirit.
We acknowledge further the resurrection of Jesus

Jesus' Prediction of His Resurrection 155
in the form of a spiritual body. We hold that He
received a spiritual body at His death, and since
then dwells with the Father in that body.
But it is also in keeping with the divine plan
of salvation and the love of the exalted Mediator
to His people, that He should have shown Himself
to them in His glorified body as a living Messianic
victor. The genesis of the belief in the resurrection
is not, indeed, dependent on this conviction, but its
inner vitality and self-evident certainty for the first
Christians and for all coming generations are, in
directly at least, dependent on it.
Finally, the coming forth of Jesus' body from the
grave must at any rate not be conceived in the crass,
sensuous way in which we meet with the idea among
the common Jewish people, and even partly in the
Synoptists (Matt, xxvii. 5 2 f .).
But though the Lord in His lifetime expected
His resurrection not on the third day, but at the
epoch of His second coming, this, considering the
limitations of the disciples' understanding, could
not have prevented the Glorified One from showing
Himself to them as alive on the third day.
Here the intimacy of the connection between
Jesus' predictions of His resurrection and of His
second coming is manifest. It is precisely in the
above-mentioned connection that the former cannot
be completely understood without the latter. This
brings us to our last task, namely, the investigation
of our Lord's prediction as to His second coming.

CHAPTEE IV

Sesus' $ reliction of Ms Secono Coming

167

CHAPTEE IV
Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming
"IT7E shall now consider Jesus' prediction of His
' * second coming, a question discussed with
special keenness in recent times. Here we have first
the historical fact that the whole of early Christendom,
without the least exception, most eagerly awaited
the personal return of the Lord in its own day,
and that the whole character of its practical life
bears this peculiar stamp of hope for that event.
This is an almost crushing fact for those who would
entirely spiritualise or explain away Jesus' prediction
of His second advent.
That fact is reinforced by another, namely, that
this universal belief of the early Christians is un
questionably derived from the apostles themselves.
For we do not find a single passage in the whole
New Testament where the sacred writers, including
the apostles themselves, so far as the writings go
back to them, display any view other than the
belief that Jesus will come personally in their
generation, and that they will yet live to see this
coming (cf., however, p. 169 f.).
159

160 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [99
1. expectation of the second coming outside
the synoptics
In those Epistles of Paul of whose genuineness
there is no doubt, the speedy coming of the Lord
is repeatedly represented as a self-evident expect
ation. Nay, the Apostle to the Gentiles confidently
assumes that he will live to see it. The First Epistle
to the Thessalonians is specially instructive on this
point. Believers there were greatly distressed in
mind by the death of some of their number. For
they feared that those who had fallen asleep might
on that account have been deprived of their part
in the final kingdom of the returning Christ. They
had therefore hoped to experience the longed-for
second coming before any of them were visited by
death (1 Thess. iv. 13-17). So Paul comforts
them with an assumed word of the Lord, " that we
which are alive and remain until the coming of
the Lord shall not prevent them that are asleep."
On the contrary, " the Lord Himself shall descend
from heaven with a shout and with the trump of
God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, and then
we which are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord
in the air" (1 Thess. iv. 15-17).
Here, then, we see that Christians expected that
return at the time when the generation of Christ's
contemporaries was beginning to pass away. Paul's
statement assumes it as self-evident that " we " shall

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 161
really live to see it. By the " we " must be under
stood that generation at the furthest. But he mani
festly hopes to be among them, as he repeatedly
includes his own person in this way.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, which was
written some years later, is in complete harmony
with this view. There Paul informs the Corinthians
as a mystery that "we shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changed," that is, those who have not
fallen asleep or are alive. And this is to take place
at the time of the last trumpet, and therefore at the
return of Christ to judgment (1 Cor. xv. 51 f., cf.
1 Thess. iv. 16).
In 2 Cor. v. 4, also, he regards it as possible
that he may still be among the living at the
Lord's second coming. For he desires to be clothed
upon, that is, transformed (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 5 2 ff),
rather than to be unclothed, that is, to die before
the second advent. From this, then, it is certain
that Paul hoped he would live to see that second
coming. Again, in the Epistle to the Eomans, which is
some time later, he knows that salvation is now
nearer than when " we first believed," and that
" the day," that is, the day of the second coming,
is at hand (Eom. xiii. 1 1 f.).
Finally, in the Epistle to the Philippians, which
we must number among the latest of Paul's writings,
he, no doubt in view of his possible execution,
seriously regards his death as perhaps taking place

162 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [100-101
before the second coming (Phil. i. 20—24, iii. 11).
He hopes, however, to be still spared to his Church
(i. 2 5 f.). And when, with this prospect, he, along
with his Philippian converts, looks " for the Lord
Jesus Christ from Heaven," who will change the
body of their humiliation that it may be conformed
to the body of His glory (Phil. iii. 20), he here
again, in the first instance, at any rate, presupposes
their being changed while yet alive.
In a similar way he exhorts his Corinthian com
munity to use the world and its goods in every
respect as people who have no permanent possession
of them. Hence they are to retain, as far as pos
sible, the worldly position in which Providence has
placed them, even though it be a painful one, and
to have as little and as loose a connection with the
world as they can (1 Cor. vii. 18-24; cf. the whole
seventh chapter of 1 Cor.). For it is but a short
time to the second coming, and the fashion of this
world is already passing away (1 Cor. vii. 29—32).
Now, it is certain that Paul can only have received
this hope from the Jewish Christians, and, consider
ing its universality and definiteness, it is more than
probably derived from the leading primitive apostles
(cf. 1 Cor. xv. 11, 1, 3, xi. 23 ; Gal. ii. 2, 9). This is
confirmed by their writings. If we look upon the
Epistle of James as an early Christian writing, we
find it exhorting believers to patient endurance
under the oppression of 'the unrighteous and violent
rich " till the coming of the Lord," which is already

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 163
near, so that the " Judge standeth before the door "
(Jas. v. 7—9). Those who are at present oppressed
are therefore to live to see the Lord's return.
In like manner the Acts of the Apostles hopes
for " times of refreshing from the presence of the
Lord " in the immediate future, when God will send
Jesus, whom in the first instance He meant as
Messiah of the Jews, and whom the heavens must
receive until the times of the restitution of all
things promised by the prophets. But the com
mencement of this time depends entirely on their
conversion (Acts iii. 19-21, 25 f.). The speedy
appearance of this parousia is also repeatedly certi
fied in the New Testament Apocalypse (xxii. 12,
20),1 which expressly delineates the coming of the
Lord and the last things, as well as the development
of the times till then.
The First Epistle of Peter likewise knows that the
end of all things is at hand (iv. 7), and sees in the
sufferings of Christians the beginning of the time
of judgment which precedes that end, and which
must begin at the house of God (iv. 17).
In the same sense, the deutero-Pauline Epistle to
the Hebrews exhorts its readers to hold fast the
profession of hope without wavering, namely, hope
in the blessings of the future kingdom, since He
1 The Jewish origin of part of the Book of Revelation, that is, the
possible transmission of certain portions of it from Babylonian times
(Gunkel Schbpfung und Chaos, 1895), does not further come into
question here, inasmuch as the idea of Jesus' speedy return as the
Christ is specifically Christian, in its direct aspect, at any rate.

164 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [102
is faithful who has promised. And so much the
more as they see the day approaching (Heb. x. 23,
25). For it is but a very little while, and then
He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry
(ver. 37).
But John xx. 17 also shows that the second
coming of the Eisen One was expected in the im
mediate future. Mary Magdalene is not allowed here
to touch Jesus, because He has " not yet " ascended
to His Father. This hope, therefore, is not to be
fulfilled to her instantaneously, but when He has
ascended. And He is just about to do this. If,
therefore, He is to be touched after His ascension,
this can only take place at His second coming.
Moreover, the First Epistle of John sees the
coming of the last hour in the appearance of the
Antichrist and the false prophets (ii. 18). For the
present world passeth away, and only he who doeth
the will of God abideth for ever, till the future
seon (1 John ii. 17).
The author of the Second Epistle of Peter first
shows his own and his fellow-Christians' disappoint
ment in this matter, by his endeavours to explain
to himself the time of the promise of the second
coming (2 Pet. iii. 8). With truly pious mind he
indeed traces back the continued existence of the
present world to the long-suffering of God, who
wills not man's destruction, but his repentance and
salvation. But, by pointing out that one day is
with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 165
years as one day, he at the same time endeavours
to prove that the non-appearance of the fulfilment
is not to be regarded as a delay (ver. 8 f.). But
what then can be called so ? The appearance of
the day of the second coming was expressly promised
in their day to the fathers who are asleep, as is
clear from the mockery of the unbelievers (ver. 4),
and it does not come.
At bottom, indeed, the author is specially anxious
to maintain that the promise will not fail. For he
fights against the conclusion that there is nothing
in it (ver. 4). He affirms, in opposition to that, that
"the day of the Lord" will come (ver. 10). And
indeed the very mockery of the unbelievers proves
that the last days predicted have arrived (ver. 3).
Hence the readers of the Epistle are to strive
zealously by a holy conversation and godliness to
look for the coming of this day of God (vers. 11, 12).
For it brings unexpected judgment to the godless
(ver. 7), but to believers it brings, according to
God's promise, a new heaven and a new earth,
wherein dwelleth righteousness. As in former days
the flood broke out suddenly and unexpectedly over
men and destroyed them (vers. 5, 6), so this day of
judgment, in which the heavens and the earth are
to be burned up, will come suddenly (»?fet) like
a thief, notwithstanding the contrary expectation of
the mockers (ver. 10).
Accordingly, the importance of the whole un
questionably is, that now, at this very time, the

166 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [us
day of the parousia is momentarily expected, and
the present generation is to line to see it, and to
hasten its appearance by their pious conversation-
*n»e explanation about the thousand years does not
perhaps mean that they may hare to wait so long,
but it justifies the delay that has hitkerio taken
place in the day of the second coming. It is also
possible that the author at the same time desired
to prevent offence lining taken at any future period
if tiie day should be delayed longer than he
expects. Further, we see from the Second Epistle of Peter
that, in accordance with the example of the prophets,
the form of the second coming is conceived as united
with a renewal of heaven and earth. The writer
of the Apocalypse views this creation of the New
Heaven and the New Earth in the same way as it
was commonly conceived by the Jews, who held
that the New Jerusalem, till then preserved in
Heaven, comes down from Heaven to earth as the
dwelling-place of God with men (xxi 2tl But
Paul also seems to share that view. For he like
wise knows that the glorified body, into which the
earthly frame is one day to be changed (1 Cor. xv.
52 1), is for the present in Heaven (2 Cor. v. Hi
He expects it, however, from the same power of Christ
in virtue of which He is able to subdue all things
to Himself (PhD. hi. 21 x. The context suggests at
leasi that this subjection will have to be understood
as a transformatin of the old earth into a new one

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 167
in the same way as the old body is transformed into
a glorified body.
Finally, the exact form in which the first Chris
tians expected the second coming of the Lord appears
most plainly outside the Synoptists (Acts i. 6, 7, 11).
The question addressed by the disciples to the Eisen
One, namely, whether He " at this time " would
restore " the kingdom unto Israel," has its root in
the above-mentioned view of the first communities,
that the setting up of the kingdom was the final
aim at least of His resurrection. The words " unto
Israel " show that they expected the kingdom to
be set up in the old theocratic form. When, in
answer to the disciples' question, Jesus replies that
it is not for them to know the precise date, the
author, at any rate, makes the Lord Himself pre
suppose the renewal of the theocratic kingdom as
a certain fact of the future. But when Jesus adds
that the Father makes this moment depend on His
own power alone, even Feine (Eine vorkanonische
Uberlieferung des Lukas, 1891, p. 163; cf. Weiffen
bach, p. 296) sees in that a free reproduction of
Mark xiii. 32. These words, therefore, are simply
an echo of that passage in which Jesus admits His
ignorance of the exact time of the second coming.
Hence, in this passage also, we see that Jesus'
second coming to set up the kingdom is expected
by the disciples " at this time," that is, very soon,
although the exact moment remains undetermined.
Finally, in verse 11, the angels announce to

168 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [104-105
those watching the ascension of their Lord, that
He will come again in like manner as they have
seen Him go, namely, to set up the kingdom for
which they hoped. The form of the second coming
is therefore conceived as visible, that is, as essentially
sensuous (1 Thess. iv. 16 f.).
From these passages, which could be easily in
creased, we see the uniform characteristic nature of
the early Christian notion of the second coming.
The universal expectation, to which there was no
exception, was the coming of the personal Christ
(Heb. x. 37) from Heaven (1 Thess. iv. 16; Phil.
iii. 20; Acts iii. 20 f., i. 11). He comes down
visibly, clothed with God-bestowed majesty (Acts
i. 11; 1 Thess. iv. 16), in order to bring in the
time of perfection promised by the prophets (Acts
iii. 21). In keeping also with the predictions of
the prophets (Isa. lxv. 17), the old earth and the old
heavens pass away (2 Pet. iii. 10, 12 ; 1 Cor. vii. 31 ;
1 John ii. 17), and a new earth and new heavens
take their place (2 Pet. iii. 13 ; Eev. xxi. 1, 2).
Christ, however, begins His dominion (1 Cor. xv. 25)
by setting up, after the judgment, the kingdom of
perfection as a universal kingdom (Eom. xi. 25, 26),
though in a theocratic form 1 (unto Israel, Acts i. 6,
cf. iii. 25 f.).
The day of the second coming itself is always
1 The well-known contradiction between Paul's untheocratic
nussion to the Gentiles and this original Jewish Christian view
may be left out of account here.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 169
understood as a definite and single moment which
is near, and takes place only once. At the same
time, it almost everywhere appears plain that it is
assumed as taking place in the present generation
(1 Thess. iv. 15, 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51 f., vii. 29;
Jas. v. 8 ; 1 Pet. iv. 7 ; Eev. xxii. 20). It brings
the present state of things to an end, and commences
a new period (Eev. xxi. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 13, cf. Eom.
viii. 18-24, and elsewhere). The decision which it
brings is final and accomplished once for all. The
writer of the Apocalypse alone inserts a thousand
years' kingdom after this day of the second coming,
founding on Ezekiel's prophecy of Gog and Magog,
and makes the final judgment come in only after
that1 (Eev. xx.). The judgment (cf. Eom. ii. 5-10 ;
1 Pet. iv. 5 ; Jas. v. 3-9 ; 2 Pet. iii. 7, etc.), in
Paul's view, also belongs to God (Eom. ii. 16, xiv.
10—12), but is carried out by the returning Christ
(1 Cor. xv. 25, iv. 4f.; 2 Cor. v. 10, cf. Jas.
v. 8, 9).
If, then, according to all these New Testament
witnesses, the whole of early Christendom unanim
ously expected the personal Christ to return in
majesty from Heaven at a particular and nearly
approaching moment, in order to execute judgment
and set up the heavenly kingdom on earth, we may
at once assume that the notion of the second coming
1 I cannot, like Schmiedel, recognise an analogy to the thousand
years' kingdom even in 1 Cor. xv. 25 (Holtzmann, H. 0., on
the passage, p. 106 f. ; cf., on the other hand, Everling, I.e.
p. 44 f.).

170 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [105-106
in the synoptic Gospels will also be similar in these
main features.
Owing to the present state of the Johannine
question, I purposely leave the fourth Gospel out
of account. The agreement of the Synoptists' idea
of the second coming with the form hitherto shown,
will confirm its originality as against the prevailing
Johannine conception. Although, on the whole, this
Gospel makes Jesus' constant presence with His
people in spirit take the place of the early Christian
hope of the second coming, yet in divers passages
the earlier notion of a single definite moment
of meeting His people again makes itself manifest
(John xvi. 16-23, xiv. 3), in the hope of that day
(xvi. 23) on which the Lord will take His disciples
to Himself, that where He is there they may also
be (xiv. 3, xvii. 24).
2. JESUS' PREDICTION OF HIS SECOND COMING IN
THE SYNOPTISTS, AND ITS FULFILMENT
Having sought to expound the notion of Paul and
the apostles concerning Jesus' second coming, so far
as it can be shown in the New Testament, we shall
now not only learn this from the Synoptists, but
shall rather, in virtue of traditional sayings of the
Lord, see Jesus' own conception of His second com
ing. Here, of course, we must only take into
account what is recognised as genuine by every sober-
minded critic, and examine what is doubtful ex-

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 1 7 1
pressly on its own merits. Moreover, we must in
general consider the saying detached from its con
text, if we cannot expressly certify the originality
of this connection.1
Though our discussion aims at the complete
abandonment of every prejudice, however legitimate
it may appear, we must make the following premise.
If it should be found that Jesus had an idea of His
second coming entirely different from that of all
the disciples and early Christians, though their idea
stamped its peculiar character on the whole life of
the primitive Church, then such a universal mis
understanding of Jesus by all His adherents must
be regarded as quite monstrous, and almost a histor
ical absurdity. This consideration must at least pre
vent one from attempting an artificial explanation
of those passages in the Synoptists that are in
agreement with the rest of the New Testament
writings. Our best way of comparing Jesus' expectation of
His second coming in the Synoptists with the early
Christian idea, will be to fix in succession the fact
that Jesus proposed to come again, and then the
purpose of that coming. This we shall do by
quoting His own sayings. The form and the time
of that coming will essentially follow from this com
parison. The result will have to be finally examined
by the test of fulfilment, and from the moral and
1 Haupt, Die eschatologisehen Aussagen Jesu in den synopt. Evan-
gelien, Berlin 1895 ; cf. especially pp. 4-21.

172 Tne Prophecies of Jesus Christ [107
religious standpoint. To understand that fact, how
ever, we must briefly explain Jesus' conception of
the kingdom of God.

(a) Jesus' Conception of the Kingdom of God, and
His Position towards it
a. Jesus' Conception of the Kingdom of God
in General
It may now be regarded as settled, that in the
language of the New Testament, and in that of
Jesus in particular, kingdom of God nowhere means
men themselves, nor even the disciples or first
Christians, considered as an ethico-religious organisa
tion (cf . E. Haupt, " Eeich Gottes, Gemeinde, Kirche,"
in the Zeitschrift fur Theol. u. Kirche, 1892, part i.
p. 1 1 ; Kostlin, " Die Idee des Eeiches Gottes," in the
Studien und Kritiken, 1892, part iii. 1, where he
gives a summary of the ideas regarding the kingdom
of God in recent theology and philosophy ; J. Weiss,
Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, p. 14 f.). In con
formity with the historical development of Israel,
Jesus, in the first place, meant by the kingdom of
God the perfect dominion of God over His people,
and then the sphere of that dominion ; in a word, the
realised ideal of the national theocracy.1 This was
the very thing that the prophets had promised and
hoped that they themselves would live to see. The
1 Details under " Form of the kingdom of God."

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 173
contemporaries of Jesus, in particular, made this
kingdom the subject of their most fervent hopes and
longings.1 Baldensperger (Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu,
1883), and in particular E. Ehrhardt among more
recent critics (Gh*undcharakter der Ethik Jesu, 1895),
have tried to show the growing transcendence of the
conception of this kingdom in the Apocalypses. In
the case of the prophets, they say, the future is
developed from the present, though miraculously ;
but in the case of the Apocalypses it comes ex abrupto,
without being connected with the preceding develop
ment, because the present has lost all value (Ehrhardt,
p. 2 5 f .) That is essentially correct. However, the
extra-canonical apocalyptic element (directly arising
from the circumstances of the time) seems to me to
have exercised no great influence on the popular
view at the time of Jesus, but rather to have been
the favourite occupation of the special professional
scholar. Hence, even John the Baptist was not in
the position to popularise that learned movement
(Titius, Jesus Lehre vom Reiche Gottes, 1895, p. 5).
For the main elements of the new eschatology, resur
rection and judgment of the world, as they appear,
for example, in the Psalms of Solomon, existed in
the devout popular ideas before his day. They were
taken, probably as early as the time of the Maccabees,
from the current views of the scribes and Pharisees,
which found their special support in the canonical
Daniel. The whole conduct of the Baptist rather
1 Cf. Ps. of Solomon xvii. 4, 23, xviii. 6-10.

174 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [108
points to an immediate reawakening of the old
prophetism, though with the addition of popular
Pharisaic ideas. And, with unique power, Christ
renewed that reversion to the old prophetic ideas
without showing many traces of a specific Apocalyp
tic (contemporary) influence. If He had come to
fulfil, the law and the prophets, He could unquestion
ably have adopted from that Apocalyptic only what
He regarded as such fulfilment. His Old Testament
quotations, in general, prove that He ordered all
other theological material in accordance with that.
Of course He also, like the Baptist, accepted those
main elements of Pharisaic teaching which had
enriched the popular conceptions of the Messiah.
Yet it is instructive to notice how He Himself
based the idea of the resurrection, not on those con
temporary Apocalypses, and not even on Daniel, but
on Ex. iii. 6 (Mark xii. 24-27). Thus it was
precisely the element specifically referring to another
world in the Apocalypses written by Scripture experts
that as such was thoroughly accepted neither by the
Baptist nor by Jesus. At least the kingdom of God,
though irradiated with heavenly glory, remained as
before a kingdom of this world, which God's immedi
ate intervention bestowed on the faithful remnant of
His people (see chap. iv. 2c, for the fuller discus
sion and proof). No doubt the conquest of the
enemies of God or of His people, which the old
prophets had connected with the commencement of
the kingdom, had become more of a forensic act of

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 175
judgment since the time of Dan. vii., an act of
judgment which, at the same time, chiefly consisted
in fixing the eternal lot of these enemies or godless
ones. Now, the Baptist definitely predicted the imme
diate approach of this kingdom of which the pious
contemporaries of Jesus had a presentiment (Luke ii.
29 ff.). His proclamation, that there would come
One mightier than he after him, who should baptize
with the Spirit (Mark i. 7 f., and parall.), as well as
the aim of his baptism of repentance itself, which
was an evident preparation for the commencement of
the Messianic time, testifies unquestionably to that
prophetic consciousness. Hence the words ascribed
by Matthew to John and Jesus in the same form,
" Eepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand "
(Matt. iii. 2), prove in substance at least to be
historical, for they simply express the ostensible
purpose of John's mission. The approach of this
same kingdom is now preached by Jesus. Schneder
mann, therefore, is right in putting all emphasis
on the fact that it was not the subject but the pre
dicate of the theme that was specifically new in
Jesus' proclamation.1 New, indeed, not so much
when we look at the outer form as when we consider
the special meaning which the announcement must
have had on Jesus' lips, and which was to some
1 Jesu Verlcundigung und Lehre vom Seiche Gottes in Hirer
geschichtlichen Bedeutung, 1873 ; cf. paragraphs 2, 4, 5, especially
pp. 69 ff., 187 ff.

176 The Prophecies of Jesus Clirist [109-110
extent opposed to John's. This partly follows from
what we have represented as Jesus' fundamental
views, but is clear above all from His personal posi
tion to the kingdom of God.
We need not here repeat the assurance that Jesus
never thought of founding a purely pohtical kingdom,
and still less desired to set it up by revolutionary
means. Even W. Brandt admits this latter point
(Die Evangelische Geschichte, 1893, p. 449). Though
Jesus may have expected the outer form to remain
theocratic, yet it follows at once from His principles
of inwardness and spirituality that He must have
regarded the spiritual dominion of God as the real
kernel. From His religious ethicism it necessarily
follows that He could only have expected the crown
of the kingdom in its final form from God's own
hand, and from His universalism that the heathen
also, on condition of faith and repentance, should
have part in the kingdom in some form. Of this
even the Baptist had a presentiment (Luke xiii.
28 f . ; Matt. iii. 9). The essence of God's dominion
as the ideal of the theocracy must of course have
been regarded by the Son of God as consisting in an
unlimited realising of God's will (cf. Holtzmann, I.e.
p. 50). Hence, in His model prayer, the petitions,
" Thy kingdom come." " Thy will be done on earth as
it is in Heaven," are directly connected (Matt. vi. 10).
Even though the genuineness of the latter petition
(cf. Luke xi. 2, 3) in this passage should be open to
attack, that would make no difference, for Jesus'

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 177
personal prayer in Gethsemane proves that He
regarded the sovereign will of God, which He felt
Himself destined to carry out, as of absolute author
ity (Mark xiv. 36; Matt. vii. 21 ; Mark iii. 35;
Matt, xviii. 14; John iv. 34, vi. 38). He had re
solved, if needful, to sacrifice even His life to that
absolute authority in setting up the kingdom.
Now, the completion of God's sovereignty, as
the uncontrolled sway of the divine will, aims at
nothing else than the salvation of men. For God's
will is His purpose of salvation (cf. Haupt, I.e. p. 5).
This presents the kingdom of God under the aspect
of the highest good.1 Hence, in the parables of the
treasure and of the pearl (Matt. xiii. 44, 45), it
appears as the summary of the blessings which im
part complete enjoyment, and first guarantee the
true imperishable content of life (Matt. vi. 1 9 f. ;
Luke xii. 2 1 ; Mark viii. 3 6 f.). Hence " eternal
life " is represented as an equivalent idea (Mark ix.
45 ff, x. 17, 23). This, however, is " the individual
good, as the kingdom is the possession of the com
munity " (Lutgert, Das Reich Gottes nach den synop-
tischen Evangelien, 1895, p. 128; cf. Titius, Jesu Lehre
vom Reiche Gottes, 1895, p. 30). The standpoint of
the highest good so far predominates, that, as a rule,
the kingdom of God means the dominion of God
1 This is also universally recognised by theologians (Baldensperger,
Das Selbstbeumstsein Jesu, 1888, p. 112 f. ; Haupt, Seich Gottes, pp.
6, 7, 9 ff., who in his able discussion emphasises this side somewdiat
too exclusively ; Bousset, Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensaiz zum
Judenthum, 1892. p. 81 ; Kbstlin, I.e. pp. 429, 445).

178 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [m
directly viewed in its saving aspect. Hence its pro
clamation is correctly described by Mark as the
evayyeXiov, the "glad tidings" (Mark i. 1, cf. Matt.
xiii. 44; Luke ii. IO).1
Accordingly, the phrase " to come into the king
dom of God," and the like, describe not merely
entrance into the sphere of God's dominion, but also,
and above all, participation in its blessings. Con
versely, entrance " into the joy of the Lord " (Matt.
xxv. 21,23) signifies entrance into the final kingdom.
Though the outward extension, as such, of the
sphere of God's dominion is alone taken into account
in the parable of the mustard seed, yet, in the cor
related parable of the leaven, we must think of a
full and complete penetration of man's life both sub
jectively and objectively. That, however, at the same
time, involves the penetration of the heart by God's
saving purpose (Matt. xiii. 31 f., 33). As men's minds
become increasingly in harmony with the divine will,
there takes place an ever more complete participation
in salvation, and, in consequence of that, an ever
more perfect realisation of the will of God among
men ; they enter more and more completely into it.
But the kingdom of God is not really developed.
It is only the participation in the kingdom of God
that progresses intensively and extensively. Yet
the point of complete development approaches ever
1 Even though Jesus had not given His preaching this name, yet
He was conscious of being a preacher of joy, the bringer of a message
of salvation (Luke iv. 18 ; Matt. xi. 5).

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 179
nearer, and along with it the appearance of the king
dom in its eschatological form, when the decision of
humanity for or against it is arrived at, and becomes
final (Mark xiii. 28 f . ; Matt. xiii. 30). God's pro
vidence gradually creates the circumstances which
constitute the negative condition for that great new
creation. Thus, also, in the parable of the tares in the field,
the saving dominion of God, as such, has no real
(inner) development. Here we have good seed side by
side with the tares ; that is to say, alongside the
members of the kingdom are those who do not, or do
not yet, belong to it. It is not, however, the king
dom of Heaven that ripens, but the membership of
these is proved or disproved by their maturity. The
result is made manifest at the close, at the harvest
(Matt. xiii. 24-30).
In the parable of the sower this diverse develop
ment is traced back to its basis in dissimilar qualities
of heart (Mark iv. 1-8). In the parable of the
growing seed it is again delineated objectively and
subjectively as a development which follows purely
from laws of the inner life, and comes to an end
with the entrance of the decisive day of harvest
(Mark iv. 26-29).
/3. The Fact of Jesus' Claim to Messiahship
In order to penetrate more deeply into Jesus'
conception of the kingdom of God, we must get a

180 Tlie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [112-113
more exact idea of His personal position towards it.
It is only by psychological means, however, that this
can be fully determined. Eeserving this problem till
we have answered another question which has an im
portant bearing on this point, namely, what was Jesus'
view of the presence of the kingdom of God, we mean
while confine ourselves to that which can be adduced
in regard to it from purely historical considera
tions. For it is quite unnecessary to repeat here
the proof that Jesus regarded Himself as the Messiah
of the kingdom of God. Although W. Brandt not
only denies the historicity of the account of Jesus'
trial,1 but also questions His (symbolical) entrance
into Jerusalem as a King (I.e. pp. 63, 475), yet
even he admits that the Lord in His deepest humilia
tion recognised Himself at least with full conviction
as the Anointed of God, or owned to the procurator
that He had to do with bringing about the Messianic
future (p. 488). To an unprejudiced mind the confes
sion of Peter (Mark viii. 29, and parall.), the question
of Jesus to the elders about the origin of John's
baptism (Matt. xxi. 23-27), His words to the scribes
regarding the Davidic sonship of the Messiah (Mark
xii. 35-37, parall.), His self-designation, " Son of
Man," in accordance with Dan. vii., etc., are sufficient
proof of His claim to be Messiah. The only ques
tion can be whether He looked upon Himself as the
expected claimant of the throne, who has only to
1 By referring to legal enactments in the Talmud whose applica
tion to the time of Jesus would have to be shown in detail.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 181
prepare the way for the coming of God's kingdom,1
or as the actual King of the kingdom which, in a
certain sense, was already present. At any rate, He
was conscious of being the personal bearer of the
kingdom, as God's Vicegerent. Now, in these pages,
where we are trying above all to establish the pur
pose of the Lord's second coming, it is not in itself
necessary to consider in detail whether Jesus viewed
the kingdom of God as present, though this question
is so keenly canvassed in the present day. There
can be no doubt that His idea of the kingdom of God
was eschatological, in so far as He expected its final
form, at any rate, only in the future eeon. If, there
fore, He ever expected to return, it could only have
been to take possession of the dominion of God in
its final form. Since, however, the fact that Jesus
believed the kingdom of God already present would
not only throw a clearer light on His personal
position to the idea of the kingdom, but would also
affect the time of His second coming, which we mean
to discuss farther on, we shall briefly premise our
position on this point.
7. Jesus' Conception of the Kingdom of God as present
In the above discussion we have already, on
repeated occasions, touched on the notion of the
1 M. Vernes, Histoirc des idees Messianiques, pp. 187 f., 192 ff., 198,
221, 232; Schmoller, Die Lehre vom Seiche Gottes, 1891, pp. 97, 192 ;
J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Seiche Gottes, 1892, pp. 24, 54 f.,
59 f.).

182 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [114
kingdom of God as already present. The parables
referred to above point the way to the solution of
the question. When the parable of the mustard
seed presents the kingdom of God as constantly
extending, and the parable of the leaven describes
it as more and more thoroughly penetrating all
outer and inner relations, so that participation in
it advances intensively and extensively, it is mani
festly conceived as present. For the notion of a
growing participation in something which is entirely
future is an unnatural one. It is the same with the
parable of the tares among the wheat, where the
children of the kingdom side by side with the
children of the Evil One ripen on the field of the
world for the day of judgment, which is to separate
and decide their lot. In other passages, also, a
similar view of Jesus is at least very probable. The
scribe, e.g. (Mark xii. 34), can only be " far in space "
from the kingdom of God — for that is the real
meaning of " fiaicpav" — so far as that kingdom is
present in time. Here, indeed, the outer distance is
metaphorically used for the inner. But the funda
mental relation remains the same. The Greek word
in question, having no temporal significance whatever,
cannot be used, even in the figurative sense, reo-ardino-
anything not yet existing but only future.
And to break into something which as yet has
no existence (Matt. xi. 12 ; Luke xiii. 24), to enter
and not enter, or to make one enter into a house
which is only to be built later (Mark x. 23-27 ;

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 183
Luke xiii. 25 ; cf. J. Weiss in Meyer's Commentary,
p. 507), or even to shut the door of a future
house in one's face (Matt, xxiii. 13; cf. Grimm's
Lexicon to the New Testament, p. 145, e/Mirpoadev. and
Kostlin, I.e. p. 442), are ideas that are far from
clear. The difficulties exhibited by other passages, on the
assumption that the kingdom of God is only in the
future, have been frequently emphasised, and with
special thoroughness, by Wendt (" The Teaching of
Jesus," and the corresponding essays in the Christ-
liche Welt, 1893, nos. 15—19). Hence they need
no further discussion here. We need only quote
Bousset's excellent remarks in reference to the fact
that Jesus calls the least in the kingdom of heaven
greater than the Baptist (Mark xi. 11): "The words
cannot possibly be used here proleptically of the
future kingdom of God. Jesus, who represents the
future kingdom as a sitting at table with the
patriarchs, cannot have assigned to the greatest of
the old covenant the least place in the kingdom of
Heaven, or scarcely any place at. all. The words
here must refer to the present temper and dis
position, and to those who in some way are already
in the kingdom of God'' (Jesu Predigt in ihrem
Gegensatz zum Judenthum, 1892, p. 92). Many
words which speak of entering into the kingdom of
God and the like (Mark x. 1 4 f.), might in themselves
be referred to its future perfect form. But when
we put them alongside of such characteristic sayings

184 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [us
as those just referred to, we see the awkwardness of
the exposition.
Another series of passages in which Jesus regards
the Messianic time of perfection as unquestionably
existent, and Himself as the bringer of it, proves
even more convincingly that He knew the kingdom
of God to be already present in a certain sense.
Let us first consider that celebrated text of Jesus'
sermon at Nazareth, which Luke presents (iv. 1 8 f.)
in a free rendering of Isa. lxi. 1, 2.1 In the syna
gogue of His native town Jesus now tells His hearers
that that saying of the prophet is " this day fulfilled
in their ears" (Luke iv. 21). But this fulfilment
can only consist in the fact that " the voice of the
herald predicted by the prophet has fallen on their
ears."2 For the prophet does not predict any
preacher of a message of salvation, being himself the
messenger,3 but rather the commencement of the
time of salvation. Accordingly, Jesus must regard the
present (" this clay ") fulfilment as depending on the
time alone. But the prophecy is fulfilled " in their
ears," inasmuch as the very person that brings this

1 There is no reason for critical doubt. It rests rather on a firm
Jewish Christian tradition (Feine, Eine vorkanonische tfberlieferung
des Lukas, 1891, pp. 42-44). "A special tradition of Luke is here
connected with reminiscences of Matt. vi. 1-6 " (John "Weiss, Comm.
zu Lukas, 1892, p. 363).
2 Contrary to the opinion of John Weiss, Lukas Comm., p. 365.
3 Cf. Bredenkamp, Der Prophet lesaia, p. 339 f. ; Knobel-Diestel,
Der Prophet lesaia, 4th ed. , p. 486 f. , as well as his excellent treatise
on the Servant of Jehovah, pp. 427-437, contrary to the opinion of
Delitzsch.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 185
era stands before them in Him who now proclaims
to them its commencement. Moreover, Jesus' text
resembles in meaning His reply to the Baptist's
question as to His Messiaship (Matt. xi. 4-6). Here
also the tokens by which the Baptist is to recognise
the present fulfilment of the Messianic time are
essentially the same marks as those emphasised by
Jesus at Nazareth. But if He there sees the time
of perfection in the present, the similar words of
His sermon at Nazareth can have no other meaning.
This is also confirmed by another utterance in
Luke. The disciples who are sent out on a mis
sionary journey inform Jesus with joy and pride
that even the devils are subject to them in His
name (Luke x. 17). Jesus sees in that a guarantee
for the victory over Satan and evil spirits, and an
assurance to the disciples of their possession of
eternal life, and of their membership in the kingdom
of Heaven (vv. 18-20). Hence He praises His
Almighty Father for the divine revelation imparted
to those babes (ver. 21), from which they have derived
that power. And this could only have been com
municated to them through Jesus. For He alone
has been called to reveal the Father whom the Son
only knows (ver. 22). When, on this occasion, He
turns to the disciples with the words, " Blessed are the
eyes which see the things which ye see " — a blessed
ness which many kings and prophets failed to attain
— His exultation is again, no doubt, due to signs that
the time of salvation, of which His disciples are even

186 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [110-117
now permitted to have personal experience, is already
beginning to dawn.1 A comparison of the passages
just discussed (Matt. xi. 3-5, with Luke iv. 18-21,
and x. 23 f.) makes it quite clear that Jesus knows
the time of salvation has begun with His coming.
But, according to the view of all the prophets and of
Judaism, this time appears to be brought about by
the dominion of God.
And now it cannot be said again, that the bringer
of salvation had indeed come, but the salvation which
He was to bring was still in the future. On the
contrary, Jesus teaches that the commencement of
the time of salvation may be seen in the presence of
the blessings of salvation (Matt. xi. 4 f . ; Luke iv.
18 f., x. 23 f.).2
The objection might now be raised that the strict
conception of the beginning of the state of perfection
presupposed, indeed, the presence of the kingdom of
God and its founding, but that Jesus need not neces
sarily have bound Himself to that conception in His
utterances. A blessing of no ordinary kind, namely,
the assurance, and in a certain sense the first-fruits,
of that state of perfection is already found in the
fact that He is present as the preparer and future

1 The connection of ver. 23 with the preceding seems to be his
torical, since Jesus can only have said the like on this, or on a
similar occasion.
2 Jesus undoubtedly shows, though only indirectly, that He
Himself is the bringer (Luke iv. 21 ; Matt. xi. 3 ff. ; Luke x. 18).
In Matthew, also, we find on this occasion only a slight indication of
His Messiahship (Matt. xi. 3ff.).

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 187
King of the kingdom of God. Hence, He might quite
well consider that state of salvation as beginning with
His own appearance, without necessarily knowing
that the kingdom of God was already present.
This possibility in itself cannot be absolutely
denied. Yet such a separation of the conceptions
of the time of perfection and of the kingdom of God
would be surprising, considering that Jesus in such
matters was so manifestly dependent on the ideas of
His time and of the prophets in particular.
But the following considerations deprive that
view of all biblical support. The very wording
of His text, " The (definite) time (Kaiposi) is ful
filled (ireirXijpwrai), and the kingdom of God is at
hand" (Mark i. 15), means that the time up to the
last particle is full and therefore expired, the
moment of actual " being at hand " is then fully
come (observe the " and " is at hand, etc.). Thus,
in this passage, the immediate context undoubtedly
requires that " tfyyitcev " be rendered " the kingdom
of God has come " (cf. Matt. xxvi. 45).1
And yet I see no reason to assume that the
shorter wording of the parallel passage in Matthew
is the more original. On the contrary, both in this
and other cases, the first Evangelist seems to be
dependent on the second as regards the specially
1 No doubt the words "is at hand" (tfyyiKev) need not of them
selves be implicitly taken as a perfect absolute, that is, in the sense
that it has already completed its approach and has come. For,
Rom. xiii. 12, Jas. v. 8, e.g., undoubtedly mean "it is near"
(iyylfei.). Cf., in particular, J. Weiss, D. Predigt Jesu, p. 12 f.

188 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [ns
historical paragraphs. Moreover, he evidently
follows the thread of the second Evangehst (cf.
Mark i. 15, 16, with Matt. iv. 17, 18). Only
between Mark i. 14, 15, he inserts a historical
notice for which no sufficient reason can be assigned
(Matt. iv. 13), and a dogmatic addition (iv. 14-16)
of his own (Simons, Hat der dritte Evangelist den
kanonischen Matthaus benutzt? 1880, pp. 27—29).
B. Weiss is convinced that the formulation of the
message is the work of Mark. Yet he sees in the
wording of Matthew the " writer who reflects upon
the text of Mark " (Das Markusevangelium, p. 5 3 f .).
Consequently, he recognises in this passage also the
essential dependence of Matthew on Mark. Now,
though Mark may have formulated the details of the
theme in other respects (Weiss, I.e.), yet the saying
" the time is fulfilled," in substance at least, rests on
a genuine tradition. For if, as already shown,
Jesus lays such emphasis on the fact that with His
appearance the time is fulfilled, that saying seems
almost an integral part of the essential contents of
Jesus' preaching. Matthew may have omitted the
introductory words of Mark as well as the expression
" believe the glad tidings " (cf. Weiss, I.e. p. 54). They
may have appeared to him pleonastic, especially
when he understood the phrase immediately follow
ing, namely, " the kingdom of God is at hand," as the
actual existence of that kingdom.
Now, if we consider these reasons for Jesus view
ing the kingdom of God as present, and then come

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 189
upon a saying such as that which He addresses to
the Pharisees, " But if I by the Spirit of God cast
out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon
you with surprise,"1 so plain a declaration cannot
fail to be of decisive importance (Matt. xii. 28, cf.
Luke x. 9). The genuineness of this saying of the
Lord (Matt. xii. 28) inserted in Mark's account
(between iii. 26 and 27), in virtue of the Logia, is
specially confirmed by internal grounds. In the case
of Mark the context presupposes that Jesus casts
out devils by His Spirit. For this Evangelist
closes the corresponding paragraph with the
threatening warning that all other sins and
blasphemies could be forgiven to the children of
men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
would never be forgiven (Mark iii. 2 8 f ., cf, iii.
22-30).2 If, therefore, the scribes, in taunting Jesus with
casting out devils by Beelzebub (Mark iii. 32), were
blaspheming the Holy Spirit, Mark also must look
upon that exorcism as due to the power of the
Spirit. But if the people acknowledged none as
endowed with the Divine Spirit except its leaders,
and especially the great prophets of an earlier
period, that Spirit having withdrawn from Israel
since the days of Malachi (Kohelet rabba, 84a ;
1 fQBacrev = sooner than you think. This is also the view of Grass,
Das von Jesu geforderte Verhalten zum Seiche Gottes, 1895, p. 72.
2 The correct position of this saying in Mark as opposed to Luke,
who inserts it in a context having no reference to blasphemy (Luke
xii. 9-10), is also confirmed by Matthew (xii. 31).

190 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [no
Weber, p. 187), and if the Baptist ascribed the
renewed possession of this Spirit to the Messiah
alone, we not only understand the grandeur of
Jesus' self -consciousness, but also comprehend that
when He cast out demons by the power of this
Spirit, the Messianic time and the kingdom of God
must have come.
After such a declaration, we need not be sur
prised when in that other passage Jesus says
plainly to the same opponents, " Behold, the kingdom
of God is in your midst" (Luke xvii. 21).1 The
thought in the latter statement is the same as that
in the former. The victories over the kingdom of
evil which Jesus is at present achieving in their
midst by virtue of the Divine Spirit, should prove,
even to the Pharisees, that " the dominion of God has
already begun" (John Weiss, Lukas Comm., p. 556).
He Himself, as " anointed with the Spirit " (Luke
iv. 18), as "He who should come" (Matt. xi. 3 f.),
as "the Holy One of God" (Mark i. 24 ; John vi.
69, x. 36), now brings it. As it was proved to be
at hand by the abundance of His mighty deeds
(Matt. xi. 4 ff.), and by His revelation of salvation,
as well as the conquest of demons on the part of the
disciples (Luke x. 17—24), so here again it was
evinced by the conquest of demons (Matt. xii. 28,
and parall.) and its necessary presupposition, namely,
Jesus' victory over the " strong " ruler of the evil
spirits, Satan himself (vv. 29, 24, 26), which He
1 Colani also points out thtse two main passages.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 191
had already gained in the wilderness before His
entrance on His ministry (cf. B. Weiss on the
passage, as well as J. Weiss, D. Predigt Jesu, pp.
23, 39). Hence, on this side, the guarantee for the
existence of the kingdom of God lies finally in the
victorious conflict waged by the Saviour against the
sin of humanity (Luke xix. 10). The deliverance
from demons was only an incidental result of that
conflict, though certainly a strong witness to it
(cf. Holtzmann, H. C, pp. 174 and 128).
This ought to be a sufficient guarantee of Jesus'
consciousness that the kingdom of God was present.
When J. Weiss makes Jesus speak of a present
kingdom of God (only) at the zenith of His con
sciousness, and indeed in " moments of prophetic
inspiration," as conqueror of the devil (Comm. zu
Lukas, xi. 20, xvii. 20 f . ; Predigt Jesu, p. 21), he
is viewing the matter in a too disproportionate
way. Yet I see no reason why he should deny the
inference that Jesus regarded the kingdom of God as
existent in its incipient form at least. For if " the
dominion of God is really beginning to take the
place of the dominion of Satan" (Lk. Comm., p. 472 ;
Predigt Jesu, p. 22) through the casting out of demons
by the Lord, these events are not merely " super-
historical," but beginnings of God's dominion on the
earth. The same holds good of Schmoller's Prolepsis
of the parousia (I.e. p. 41 f.). E. Ehrhardt, also, who
on this point partly depends on J. Weiss, conceives

192 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [120-121
the kingdom of God in a purely eschatological sense
(I.e. p. 48 f.), and sees it to be present in a kind of
way only in " heralding symptoms " (p. 5 0 ff.) which
make Jesus appear the herald of the time of salva
tion, and this period " in certain moments as a time
already present " (p. 90). Although the metaphysical
other world, developed into a religious power, exists
in Jesus' soul not only as a future but as a present,
and indeed as a "truly higher other world" (p. 77),
and this world secures for Him the possession of the
real religious side of the Messianic salvation as
something present (p. 90), yet this coexistence of the
two worlds, or, in other words, the presence of the
kingdom of God, exists only " for His religious feel
ing," but not for " His theoretic thinking" (p. 77).
Schnedermann also makes Jesus regard the period
of the " ea^ara " as beginning with His time (p. 187),
but, in respect to His proclamation, " the kingdom of
God is at hand " (pp. 71, 192), views the presence of
that kingdom as a question of no great importance,
and one that cannot be answered with certainty.
But, as he also recognises Jesus' nearness to God as
the kernel of the kingdom, so that it "was in
principle given in Him " (p. 1 9 3), he deems it possible
that Jesus possessed in Himself the certainty of its
being present.
0. Holtzmann recognises in the divine life of Jesus,
and especially in His "new" intercourse with sinners,
the presence of the will, and consequently, of the
kingdom of God as His sovereignty (pp. 48, 50, 53),

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 193
though he also fails to harmonise sufficiently the pre
sent with the future kingdom of God (pp. 53-55), in
which case also sufficient account is not taken of the
Israelitish " husk." This, however, touches on the
psychical origin of Jesus' view, which we shall imme
diately proceed to discuss.1
Moreover, Jesus' conception of the present exist
ence of the kingdom of God cannot have been
developed at a late stage of His ministry. On the
contrary, He must have had it at an early period.
To begin with, those utterances that express Jesus'
consciousness of His position towards the time of
perfection belong to the earlier period of His ministry.
The answer to the Baptist's question regarding His
Messiahship must belong to the early days of His
public life, since John was not yet put to death.
His sermon at Nazareth must likewise be placed
before the climax of His work in Galilee (Holtzmann,
H. C, p. 10). So also the return of the disciples
from their " first missionary journey," which took
place somewhat later, and the results of which were so
joyfully hailed by Jesus. We must remember, how
ever, that the answer to John, as well as the sermon
at Nazareth, are simply variations of the well-known
main theme of His gospel, that the kingdom of Heaven
is at hand (Mark i. 15). Since, as will be shown
more plainly, His Messianic self-consciousness was
1 The views of Liitgert, Grass, and Titius about the presence of
tho kingdom of God should, for this reason, be compared in the
psychological paragraph "d," which treats of this point.

194 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [122
formed on the basis of His divine Sonship, it is highly
improbable that the development of the former was
not in everything essential finished with His entrance
on His ministry. But then it follows from the
theme of His preaching, that from the beginning of
His ministry Jesus had the consciousness that the
kingdom of God was present.
Notwithstanding all this, the full idea of the king
dom of God as viewed by Jesus could only, of course,
be realised by its perfect form. And so far it could
only have been after His exaltation that the Lord
regarded Himself as Messiah in the full effective
sense. Hence it will be no contradiction to Jesus'
conception, when, according to Acts ii. 36, God makes
the Crucified, Messiah, though, as we have already
seen, He repeatedly made this claim during His
lifetime. He did so, no doubt, only as claimant
to the throne in its fully established form (Weiss,
Jesu Predigt, p. 59), but as founder and ruler of the
dominion of God in its present initial stage.

8. The Origin of the Idea of the Presence of the King
dom of God in the Consciousness of Jesus, and
the Essence of His (present) Messiahship
Having sufficiently established the reality of Jesus'
conception of the final kingdom as of one already
present, let us now fix our attention on the psycho
logical origin of such an idea of the kingdom in the

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 195
peculiar character of Jesus' self-consciousness. Thus
only shall we fully understand the significance which
Jesus' Messiahship had for Himself.
Surrounded by sinful contemporaries, whose moral
corruption He knew, and whose resistance to the
truth which He proclaimed, and which alone could
bring deliverance, made Him look for the fate of a
prophet (Matt. xi. 16-25, xii. 30-45, xxiii. 13-37
(cf. especially ver. 37); Mark ix. 12 f., 19; Luke
xvii. 25, xiii. 33, xix. 42, xxiii. 28-31 ; Mark viii.
31, ix. 31, x. 32 ff), He yet dared to regard and to
describe the perfect kingdom as already begun. It
follows necessarily from this, that, in virtue of an
indisputable experience which nullified the signifi
cance of all those apparent hindrances, He could still
guarantee that the kingdom of God had come. And
when Jesus certifies such things (Matt. xii. 28), that
assurance cannot be the expression of a momentary
and half-unguarded ebullition of feeling, or of a pre
sentiment that surprises Himself, to say nothing of
an unconsidered enthusiasm. It must rather be
thought of only as a knowledge received with sobriety
of mind, and truthfully proclaimed. That alone is
in keeping with the discipline which He at all times
exercised over all His thoughts and feelings (Mark
i. 11 f. ; Luke vi. 12 f. ; John vi. 141; Mark xiv.
32, 38).
That experience which enabled Jesus to certify
that the kingdom had come, cannot, however, have
had its seat outside. Where, then, should it have had

196 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [123
its seat ? The place of its existence must have been
His own sphere of action, and even in the end His
own soul.
No doubt Jesus' testimony that the kingdom of
God had come, and that the time of salvation had
commenced (Matt. xii. 28, cf. Luke x. 17ff. ; Matt.
xi. 3 ff. ; Luke iv. 18-21), was in the first instance
occasioned by the abundance of His miraculous heal
ings and divine deeds, as well as, in particular, by
the evidence of His personal power over the demons,
in which He saw His victory over evil made manifest.
But yet He generally points to these as outer signs
for Himself and others, as marks by which it might
be seen that the kingdom of God had come. Above
all, this presence of the kingdom confronted Him in
the one perfect revelation of God, which, concealed
from the eyes of the world, He was able to communi
cate to His people, and which was based on His
unique relation of Sonship. This already points to
the very heart of His self- consciousness. It was
only by the inner experience of Jesus Himself that
His call to be the present bringer of that kingdom
could be ultimately tested. For it was rooted in
the moral and religious natuie of His personality.
And still more. This call itself could only, in the
first instance, have had an existence in His person.
If Jesus really meant to testify that the kingdom of
God had come in any form (Luke xvii. 20), He musb
not merely have felt that He was " the coming One "
(Matt. xi. 3), through whom, as His organ, God was

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 197
even now about to bring the kingdom, that is to say,
directly preparing its advent. For in that case it
was not yet in existence. He must rather have
experienced in Himself the existence of the kingdom
of God.1 This shows us, then, that Jesus' view of
the present existence of the kingdom of God, which
has been proved exegetically, is logically and psycho
logically necessary. For, in keeping with the manner
in which the consciousness of His Messianic calling
originated on the basis of His divine Sonship, the
Fatherhood of God remained for Him the kernel of
the dominion of God which He sought to bring.2
His calling as Mediator first dawned on Him as the
vocation to lead men into the same communion
1 Cf. Baldensperger, I.e. p. 109.
3 With regard to the divine Sonship of Jesus, cf. B. Weiss, Bib
lical Theology, § 17. This is not the place to enter in detail into the
relation of the theocratic to the religious position of sons of God.
Yet I must hold to the priority of the latter, in opposition to Bal
densperger (p. 160 f.). Nothing but a conviction on the part of the
Sinless One that His own nature already gave Him personal posses
sion of salvation in His unlimited communion with God as His
Father, could have been to Him, son of a carpenter as He was, the
presupposition, the cause, the mainspring of the sublime perception
that He was called to be Messiah, the Mediator of salvation for His
people, the Judge of the world (J. Weiss also deduces Jesus' Mes
sianic consciousness from His unique consciousness of Sonship). On
the other hand, to one who had always felt Himself to be a Son of
God, the Messianic call cannot have first come "suddenly and sur
prisingly at the baptism" (Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, i. 67).
The truth rather is that His Messianic consciousness seems here to
have come to decided practical awakening, in virtue of the divine
enlightenment that the time was ripe for His actual appearance.
There is, of course, no doubt of this in the temptation in the wilder
ness (Wendt, p. 69) ; these doubts rather referred to the difficulty of
carrying out the Messianic task.

198 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [124-125
with God as that which He enjoyed, that is, to make
them also children of God. This first made Him
conscious that He was Messiah, and that His task
was to found the kingdom of God. Hence the new
personal relation which Jesus must have regarded as
constituting the essence and foundation of the king
dom of God necessarily remained the divine Sonship
of His fellow-members.
God's own share in realising this ideal could only
have consisted in His guaranteeing, like a true Father,
His fellowship of salvation to men as a whole and
individually. This is effected by determining their
wills according to His perfect loving will, and impart
ing to them all the blessings contained and involved
in fellowship with Him. And again, on the part
of man, that dominion consists in receiving those
blessings of salvation with grateful joy in childlike
obedience to the divine saving will.
In this sense of the full Fatherhood of God, the
dominion of God was really in existence already ; it
was really present, though it first began to create a
sphere for itself from the centre. For Jesus found
the divine Sonship even then perfectly realised in
Himself. Hence He could not but perceive that in
Him and through Him the kingdom of God had
already come to earth. He was conscious of sub
mitting in perfect obedience to His Father's saving
will, so that His life and being were given up to the
task of fulfilling it towards men (Matt. v. 1 7 ; John
iv. 34). On the other hand, however, He felt the

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 199
entire favour of His Father resting on Him, and
lived in the constant enjoyment of the inner blessings
of His fellowship. And, finally, the mighty kingly
action of God, which was one day to fill the whole
world, was already made manifest in His deeds of
power and in His victorious conflict with the prince
of this world.
Further, as the aim of His life was to increase
the number of God's children, He must have been
conscious that God's kingdom was even now about
to embrace and admit others through His instru
mentality. He must therefore have known that
the kingdom of God existed at least in principle
and incipiently, not only in Himself, but also in
the circle of His disciples. And this was in point
of fact the case. For He unhesitatingly reckoned
them with Himself among the sons of the great
King (Matt. xvii. 25 f., v. 35). He Himself had
in principle and fundamentally established this
dominion of God among them, by revealing to
them the divine purpose of salvation (Luke x. 21 ;
Matt. xvi. 17), and by placing them under the
influence of His redeeming word, which begets
children of the kingdom (Mark iv. 3, 26; Matt.
xiii. 24; cf. Kostlin, p. 431 ff.). And they had
believingly accepted the will of God revealed to
them, and yielded themselves to it in childlike,
obedience. They had left all to follow Him, and
following their Master's example, had devoted them
selves to His divine work of proclaiming the kingdom,

200 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [125-126
persisting in the service of God and of their Master
in spite of all temptation to the contrary (Mark x.
28 f., vi. 12f., viii. 35 ff. ; Luke xxii. 28). Nay,
they also, by their own deeds of power in the
service of God's dominion, had contributed their
share to the conquering of Satan, and had them
selves thereby become witnesses to the existence of
the kingdom of God, or rather had helped to bring
it (Luke x. 17-19, cf. xi. 20). Thus they really
showed in their whole practice that they were
the children of their Father in Heaven (Matt.
v. 48).
Again, Jesus put them in possession of the most
essential blessings that are involved in the divine
Sonship. They had not only received the true
revelation of God, but already enjoyed the most
essential blessings of the time of salvation which
that revelation brought about (Luke x. 23 f.), for
giveness of sins, rest and peace in their souls, the
consciousness of their Heavenly Father's favour and
the assurance of His care for their eternal and
temporal welfare, and the possession of the Divine
Spirit (Matt. xi. 29, x. 13; Luke x. 20 ; Matt. x.
19 f., 28-31, vi. 8, 11, 25-34, especially vv. 26,
30, 32 f.). Besides this, there was the special
dignity which they had in the eyes of God as
preachers of the gospel, a dignity that was equal
to that of Jesus and of God Himself, in whose
name and by whose authority their proclamation
was made (Matt. x. 40-42, xxv. 35-40, 45). They

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 201
could also give practical proof of their fellowship
with God in constant filial prayer and in asking for
everything they needed (Matt. vi. 9-13).
Jesus therefore, in virtue of their present attitude
towards God and His will, and of the divine attitude
towards them, assures them of their membership in
the kingdom of God (Luke x. 20, 22, 29 f . ; Mark
x. 28-30; Luke xii. 32). Of course, in the pas
sages referred to, what He directly promises them is
only the future kingdom of perfection. We cannot
therefore, on purely exegetical grounds, absolutely
infer from this that He regards them as already
members of the present kingdom. But, in accord
ance with what has been already said, we may be
allowed to conjecture that Jesus here simply pre
supposed their possession of that membership also.
For, as we have seen, the filial obedience of the
disciples towards their Heavenly Father, their imme
diate childlike intercourse with Him, and their enjoy
ment of the essential blessings of that fellowship,
were regarded by Jesus as constituting the kernel
of God's dominion. Though this kingdom was not
yet perfectly realised in the disciples, as it was in
Himself, the Father's position towards them was
similar to that of the Father towards Him. Hence
He could only regard their select circle as the
primitive sphere of the dominion of God.1 On
these grounds Jesus was entitled to assure the
Pharisees that it was already in existence, in their
1 Cf. Schmoller, I.e. p. 128.

202 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [127
midst (Luke xvii. 21), although it had not yet
appeared on earth in its perfect heavenly form.
If, indeed, the real kernel of the kingdom of God
were not the inward, and if Jesus Himself had not
necessarily regarded it as such, then He could only
have viewed it as a future kingdom. But if, con
versely, He could not but conceive it as an inward
kingdom, it is hardly conceivable that He could fail
to see that it was already in existence.
As it follows, from the manner in which Jesus'
consciousness of being Saviour arose, that the con
cept has a spiritual content, so also this spirituality
is essential to the abstract notion of the ideal
dominion. This can only be a perfect dominion
when the will of another is obeyed voluntarily and
immediately. Hence the only true dominion is
that over the heart. For it alone requires neither
outward constraint nor outward mediation, but is
immediately effected by the obedient heart. And
dominion has its real place of existence only in
the relation of two wills to one another. Accord
ingly, as the ideal of God's dominion demands that
the will of God be entirely identified with our own,
so here it is shown that the essence of the kingdom
of God necessarily lies in its inwardness.
Finally, it is manifest, from what has been already
said, that the true and most essential divine gifts,
which constitute the other side of the kingdom of
God, can only, in Jesus' view, be the eternal, im
perishable, and therefore inward blessings (Matt. vi.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 203
19—21, 33 ; Luke xii. 21). This alone is in keep
ing with His fundamental conception. For we have
seen that to Him the inward, the spiritual, and the
purely moral and religious elements are the necessary
marks of all that is connected with God, that is to
say, of everything possessing religious significance
and religious value. That which does not possess
these marks, as for example the mere outer form
in which the kingdom of God appears, cannot there
fore be regarded by Jesus as belonging to the real
essence of the matter, which in this case is the
kingdom of God.
Jesus' specific Messianic activity, even in His
lifetime, consists therefore in the (absolutely) suc
cessful furtherance of the divine will, whereby He
brings salvation. Yet the two aspects of His
ministry, preaching and healing the sick, must not,
under this point of view, be held rigorously apart.
For if, through the latter, and especially through
the victories over Satanic powers, He proves the
might of God's will, He does so also in behoof of
the ethical purpose of the kingdom that is to bring
(inner) salvation to men. Hence the proclamation of
the word of God, which, outwardly considered, seems
to be merely prophetic, is just the most perfect
mode of Jesus' Messianic activity. For here He
is directly founding the kingdom, inasmuch as He
is creating members for it by bringing men within
the sphere of the authority, the power, and the
salvation of the divine dominion, now essentially

2 04 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [128
existent, though in an incipient form. Thus He
imparts to them in a true Messianic way the
blessing which the prophets only promise.
If, from this point, we take a brief survey of
the most recent conceptions of the content of Jesus'
Messianic self-consciousness, we find J. Weiss em
phasising as the chief blessing of the future kingdom
of God, the deliverance of the people from their
enemies as well as from all bodily and mental
suffering ; in a word, from the entire dominion of
Satan (pp. 39, 40). This definition is neither
positive nor comprehensive enough for me (see
besides the later conception of Grass, in which the
fundamental thought is in part re-echoed). It is
consistent with the purely eschatological definition
of J. Weiss, when, on the other hand, he denies the
Messianic activity of Jesus, and ascribes to Him only
the preparatory and prophetic. This view rests on a
denial that Jesus looked upon the kingdom of God
as essentially present. Even the " non-Messianic
activity " cannot at once be inferred from the ex
ternal similarity of theme in the preaching of Jesus
and of the Baptist (Die Predigt Jesu, p. 24).
In opposition to that, E. Ehrhardt (Grundcharakter
der Ethik Jesu, 1895) holds that Jesus, even in His
lifetime, was conscious of being Messiah, because He
knew that He was the bringer of salvation to God's
people ; but he, too, thinks that in Jesus' own view
the revelation of this salvation, taken in a religious
sense, was not properly a Messianic but a prophetic

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 205
work. The theocratic development of Jesus' con
sciousness of Sonship is rather regarded by Ehrhardt
as starting from His social activity, and as referring
to the moral salvation of His own people in this
world (pp. 106 f., 100). As a present Messiah, He
gives expression, as far as possible, to the will of
God (p. 107) by doing good, healing the sick, and
a masterful reassertion of the law, by an organising
activity, and especially by the creation of a moral
organism in the circle of disciples (pp. 99 f., 106 f.).
This standpoint, according to the above, is materially
correct, but not exhaustive. And this is because it
is just the specific Messianic founding of the
kingdom of God by the word that Ehrhardt fails
to perceive.
On the other hand, Lutgert (Das Reich Gottes in
den synoptischen Evangelien, 1895), in essential
agreement with me, recognises the presence of God's
dominion, and therewith of the Messianic activity
of Jesus in the redeeming and renewing power and
goodness of that presence. For the sovereignty
and acts of God, whose Spirit works in Jesus as
its instrument (pp. 71, 82, 153), are existent in these
(pp. 64 ff, 96, 99, 107, 119, 121), so that Jesus Him
self bears the kingdom of God within His own soul
(pp. 112, 120 f.). Thus he recognises in particular
that God's working is present in the word (p. 101),
in which word, therefore, the kingdom of God comes
to the hearers. In hke manner he rightly em
phasises the identity of this kingdom with that

206 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [129-1.30
which existed in the old theocracy. But in the
law and the prophets Israel possessed it only as
a kingdom of the other world (p. 122), while in
Christ, its Bearer and Mediator, it exists as present,
permanent, final, and in its whole inner fulness
(pp. 122, 125). To me, however, Liitgert's opposition
to those who conceive the kingdom of God in a
purely eschatological sense, appears rather over
strained, inasmuch as he sometimes seems to con
sider nothing wanting to the final kingdom but the
making manifest of what exists in secret. But the
transformation of the world cannot be comprehended
in that. For this involves not only the existing
moral and religious content, but a new metaphysical
form (pp. 161, 163 L).
Grass, in his essay on Das von Jesu geforderte
Verhalten zum Reiche Gottes (in the Mitteilungen und
Beriehte fur die ev. Kirche Russlands, vol. 51, Feb.
and March 1895), considers God's sovereignty as
a redeeming, victorious, and triumphant conflict —
primarily in favour of the Jews — with the ungodly
powers that enslave men physically and ethically,
namely, the devil, the world, and sin (pp. 67 f., 71 f.).
Christ establishes this sway by the miracles He
performs in the exercise of His ministry, and,
what is still more important, by facihtating God's
inner sovereignty both through preaching and the
remission of sins (pp. 70, 72, 74, 77, cf. pp. 81, 142).
So far as God, through the historical Christ, is
beginning to overcome those powers, Jesus and His

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 207
disciples are already hastening on the dominion of
God as one that is initially present (pp. 52, 67 f., 71,
76; Matt. xi. 12).
I cannot in the first instance recognise God's
enemies as the object of His dominion, but only, as
in the old theocracy, the people whose King He
is. The victory over the former, with which Grass
partly confuses the real dominion, can only be
regarded as something involved in founding the
kingdom, or as an initial judicial function of its
Euler (cf. p. 105); all the more that the enemies
are at once given over to destruction at the be
ginning of the final kingdom. The Messiah rules
not only " for the advantage " of His people, but
rather over them (p. 105). The definition of the
idea, therefore, really hits upon the essential thing,
but is conceived too negatively.
Finally, Titius, in his treatise (Jesu Lehre vom
Reiche Gottes, 1895), sees the divine sovereignty in
God's " exclusive sway, and the obtaining of their
rights by His saints " (p. 37), and, like Lutgert, Grass,
and myself, defines it as a carrying out by God of
His gracious purpose of salvation towards Israel
in face of the hostile powers of the world, and an
equal fulfilment of His sovereign will both on earth
and in Heaven (p. 37). Again, he describes the
kingdom of God correctly as the kingdom of un
restrained love and fellowship with God (p. 57), and
sees the kernel of God's idea in His fatherly love and
communion (pp. 115, 192 f.). He sees also in that

208 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [130-131
kingdom the " complex of all God's manifestations
of grace," and its highest good in divine Sonship
(p. 138). So far as these have a pneumatic, and, for
the time being, transcendental existence in the
person of Jesus, but are found spiritually in the
blessings presented in the gospel (p. 193), the king
dom of God is already present with the Lord (pp.
137 f., 193). Since, on the one hand, the fatherly
love of God, as well as the powers of the world
to come, which are one day to transform Heaven
and earth, are already at Jesus' disposal as veiled
manifestations of the divine glory (pp. 49, 51, 121);
and since, on the other hand, His forgiveness of
sin, communication of the knowledge of God, and
exhortation to righteousness, are already an anticipa
tion of the future divine judgment, fellowship with
God and perfection (p. 125) ; He must have been con
scious of "having already entered on the dominion
which belongs to the Messiah " (p. 47), and of already
imparting the most essential blessings of God's
kingdom, though in an inadequate manner, by means
of that dominion (pp. 128, 137 f.).
We have noted how Jesus, in keeping with the
peculiarity of His Messianic consciousness, must have
regarded, and did regard, the dominion of God as
the realising of the divine purpose of salvation,
beginning with Israel. We have seen, moreover,
how He recognised Himself as directly commissioned
and qualified by God to inaugurate that dominion,
to further it even now by word and work, to enlist

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 209
its members, and communicate to them its heavenly
blessings. We cannot therefore be surprised if He
was unable to select for the kingdom of God which
is from Heaven (cf. Mark xi. 30), any more fitting
name than the " kingdom of Heaven " (cf. E. Haupt,
" Eeich Gottes, Gemeinde, Kirche," in Zeitschrift fur
Theologie und Kirche, ii. 1, 1892, p. 9), especially as
He conceived it in express opposition to the outward
political expectations of His people, and according
to the model of the dominion of the divine will
already realised in Heaven (Matt. vi. 10). Accord
ingly, this kingdom is called the " kingdom of
Heaven," because it is from Heaven, is founded and
ruled by God, and brings heavenly blessings ; and
because it is of a heavenly nature,1 inasmuch as it
is destined to a heavenly and heaven-determined
perfection2 (cf. Keim, Geschichte Jesu, 1871, ii. 43 f. ;
Baldensperger, I.e. p. 113; Schmoller, Die Lehre
vom Reiche Gottes, pp. 154, 158). This title is
manifestly in perfect agreement with Jesus' self-
designation as the " Son of Man," and is undoubtedly
taken from the same picture of the founding of the
kingdom contained in Dan. vii., a picture which was
better fitted than any other to illustrate the heavenly
origin and character of Christ's divine kingdom.
1 E. Haupt, I.e.; Kbstlin, "Die Idee des Eeiches Gottes," in
Studien und Kritiken, 1892, part iii. p. 447 ; more recently Titius,
pp. 26-28.
2 On the other hand, I cannot agree with J. Weiss (Beich Gottes,
p. 10) that the notion of the kingdom of Heaven is completely
supramundane. *4

210 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [132
Hence, when Matthew makes Jesus almost always
use this name for the kingdom whose nearness was
the theme of His preaching, he is probably here
retaining the mode of expression in his Logia source.
However, as the name is of no importance when the
idea is established, there is no need for our enter
ing more fully here on the question as to what name
Jesus originally or mostly used.1
1 We can easily understand how the title " kingdom of Heaven "
might have been changed into the usual one of "kingdom of God"
by those who were not immediate witnesses to Jesus' preaching. We
may thus explain why Mark and Luke give only the name ' ' king
dom of God." They wrote specially for Gentiles, "who were not
familiar with the religious application of the phrase kingdom of
Heaven" (E. Haupt, I.e.).
On the other hand, it would be difficult to understand how the
title "kingdom of Heaven " could have found its way into the Logia
source unless Jesus had used it, or even how the first Evangelist
should have expunged the name "kingdom of God" in almost
every passage. Many, indeed, think that the metonymic use of
the word Heaven for God, as was usual among the scribes of that
period, was then very common among the people, and had its
influence on the Evangelist Matthew. But no traces can be shown
which indicate that any of the adherents of Jesus were wont to
interchange the word "God" with the word "Heaven." The two
ideas are by no means regarded as equivalent, even in Mark xi. 30
and Luke xv. 18. If we take into consideration the Psalms of
Solomon, which give expression to the popular view immediately
before Christ, we find the relation of Israel to her God to be there
so personal, that the colourless category of Heaven in no way takes
its place. Accordingly, it is just the eternal dominion of God
over His people which was hoped for in the future that is expressly
described as " r) fiainXeia rod deSv thiuv " (Ps. xvii. 4). Just as little
does the first Evangelist show himself affected by the Jewish fear
of using the name of God (E. Haupt, p. 7). 0. Schmoller (Die
Lehre vom Seiche Gottes, p. 49 ff. ) rightly regards the uniformity
here as of later date than the twofold expression, and points to
some passages in which Mark and Luke seem to have changed
kingdom of Heaven into kingdom of God. On the other hand,

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 211
(b) Jesus Conception of the Purpose of His Second
Coming 1
Now, though Jesus was conscious that the king
dom of God, in its essential inner content, had in
Himself already become a present kingdom on earth,
and that He Himself, as its Messiah, was already
disposing of its heavenly blessings and powers, and
creating children of the kingdom, it could not for a
Kostlin points out that the way in which Jesus speaks of God and
Heaven alongside of each other, " especially in the Lord's prayer,"
directly excludes their identification (Stud. u. Krit., 1892, p. 497 ;
cf. E. Haupt, I.e. p. 9). At any rate, He can hardly have used the
phrase "kingdom of Heaven" metonymically (even Luke xv. 18
presents no real metonymy, and is a popular expression), as He
never veiled the name of God, but always used it openly. It
would be quite inconceivable that He should do so, considering
His relationship of Son (see Kremer's view as opposed to that of
Schiirer in Schmoller, I.e. p. 158). But of course this does not
make it impossible that, besides the name "kingdom of Heaven,"
He may also have occasionally used the other expression "kingdom
of God. " This would rather be quite in keeping with the way in
which the name is used in Matthew. We must not, indeed, assume
that the Baptist, in whose mouth the first Evangelist puts the
name "kingdom of Heaven" (iii. 2), substituted that for the usual
name " kingdom of God."
1 The idea as to the purpose, form, and time of the second coming,
which are thoroughly marked out and established in what follows,
were in a certain indirect way suggested by the sketch ih Keim's
Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, ii. 566-576. That sketch also, to
some extent, has had a similar influence on J. Weiss (Jesu Predigt
vom Reiche Gottes ; cf., e.g., pp. 41 f., 62 f.), on Titius, whose book
has just appeared (Jesu Lehre vom Seiche Gottes), and others'. How
ever, my own kindred views on these points, as well as those of
Weiss and Titius, have been developed independently. This is the
reason of our essential agreement in several respects. J. Weiss, I.e.,
gives suggestive reasons for the theocratic form of the future
kingdom.

212 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [133-134
moment have been concealed from Him that it did
not yet possess its (metaphysical) perfect form. This
form, as He was convinced, was to be imparted to it
by God's powerful interposition, quite independently
of His own co-operation (Mark xiii. 32 ; Acts i. 7).
It must therefore have been from the future that
He expected its appearance in this form.
No doubt, as already shown, He had once hoped
to live to see this mighty change which signified for
Himself the viceroyalty of God's dominion in its per
fection. There is, however, no strict exegetical proof
that, even before He looked for death, He desired to
go to the Father in order to be qualified for entering
on that dominion (cf. p. 29). Nor does the psycho
logical necessity of this idea follow when we recog
nise that He Himself must be glorified before taking
possession of the glorified final kingdom. For Jesus
was the direct Mediator of the new condition of life
only in the religious, but not in the metaphysical
sense. In this sense He rather expected and en
treated God to bring it about (Matt. vi. 10). But,
in virtue of His original revelation, the Saviour of
the world, as we have seen, at the same time recog
nised Himself as its Judge.1 Hence He knew that
He was authorised to receive into the kingdom,
which was one day to be introduced by God in its
perfect form, those whom He brought into inner
fellowship with God (cf. Acts iii. 1 9 f.).
But this also belongs to His religious function.
1 This will be more fully dealt with later.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 213
Accordingly, we do not find in the case of the
Synoptists that Jesus personally is to bring about
the perfect condition metaphysically also (Haupt,
pp. 108-112, takes a different view). Moreover, a
previous passing into the heavenly world was not
necessary for the purpose of assuming His dominion.
Christ, indeed, in virtue of His Sonship, must have
expected to be raised as a first-fruit into that rank
of life which God was to create, in order, as religious
Mediator, to make His people share in it. But it
by no means follows from this that He must have
thought of going to the Father in behoof of His own
personal glorification, even before He had any ex
pectation of His death. He more probably hoped
that His own transfiguration into the Messiah of the
final kingdom, either through or without death (by
change), would be effected by God in close con
nection with the glorification of the whole world
(Matt. xix. 28 ; Mark xii. 24-27 ; Luke xx. 35 f.).1
But there can be no doubt that the anticipation
of death could not have made Him give up His
allotted function of becoming the Euler of the final
kingdom. It follows necessarily, therefore, that the
only thing He could now expect was to come again
from Heaven to set up His dominion.2
And this is just what we find plainly expressed in
Mark xiv. 62. Asked by the High Priest whether
He is the Messiah, Jesus answers, " I am : and ye
1 We shall deal with this point more exactly later.
2 Cf. Titius, pp. 18, 140.

214 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [135
shall see the Son of' Man sitting at the right hand
of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
This confession is assuredly genuine in the main.
For " such a characteristic saying, which led to the
outbreak of a great horror in the Sanhedrim and to
a final sentence of death, must have been in every
mouth" (Weiffenbach, p. 206). And it would pro
bably be the more deeply stamped upon the minds of
the members of the early Church, that it cost their
Master His hfe. The omission of the phrase " com
ing in the clouds of heaven " from the later Gospel
of Luke, which is manifestly dependent here on its
forerunners, Mark and Matthew, does not affect the
question. The " sitting at the right hand of power," which
is borrowed from the 110th Psalm, denotes the
receiving of the Messianic dominion in God's stead.
Moreover, since the Son of Man, Dan. vii. 13,
appears in the clouds of heaven before God to
receive from Him dominion over His kingdom, Jesus
can apply this to Himself here only in the sense in
which He must have thought of coming from Heaven
to receive that office of Euler and Judge. As in
the Acts of the Apostles, the heavens first receive
Jesus till the times of refreshing, when God will
again send Him as the Messiah (Acts iii. 19-21) to
set up the kingdom, so here the enemies of Jesus
are to see the proof of His sitting at the right hand
of God (His Messianic dignity) by His coming from
Heaven to set up His kingdom. At any rate, as

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 215
will be shown more exactly in what follows, the
Lord does not mean His appearance to set up the
kingdom in a figurative, but in a real and personal
sense. It is to be a single definite act — and there
fore occurring in time — with which the old ceases
and the final kingdom begins.
But there are other sayings of the Lord which
make the object of this coming clear. In Mark ix. 1 ,
the Lord solemnly declares : " Verily I say unto
you, There are some standing here who shall in no
wise taste of death till they see the kingdom of
God come with power." The weighty formula of
introduction, as well as the repeated assurance
(ov firj), shows that the Lord means to say something
extraordinary. This consists in the fact that the
kingdom of God, whose nearness Jesus proclaimed
(Mark i. 15), is really to come very soon. The
perfect absolute (iXrfKvOvlav) shows that they who
will experience it will then have before them a
completed fact. In like manner, eta? av with the
subjunctive refers to a single point of time in their
lives, on the arrival of which it will take place.
At that moment some of those who are standing
round Jesus in this very place (taking <SSe as em
phatic) will still be alive.
Here it does not yet matter about the definite
time as such. But it is clear from the whole manner
of expression that this coming of the kingdom of
God with power can in no case be thought of as the
climax of a development gradually increasing in

216 The Prophecies of Jesus Clirist [i36
strength. Even those who do not live till that
particular moment would have a certain share in its
course. They could not, therefore, have been ex
cluded in this way from those favoured ones who
are to live to see it. Moreover, that would require
the expression " they will see it come" but not
" having come " (epxopevrjv but not iXrfKvOvlav).
However correct, then, it is to say that Jesus knew
that the kingdom of God had come spiritually in
Himself even in His lifetime, the question here is
not about a time after His death when it comes
more mightily, but about a single moment in which
the kingdom of perfection shall have appeared in
power. This is opposed to the opinion of Haupt,
Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu, p. 1 44 f.
Now, as the personal Messiah is necessarily the
Mediator of that perfection, and the fia<n\eia can
not come without the ftaaiXevs,1 the first Evangelist
is substantially correct in replacing " the coming of
the kingdom of God " by " the coming of the Son of
Man in His kingdom." For Mark also must regard
the coming of that kingdom as brought about by the
coming of the Son of Man.
Finally, this agrees with that other saying of the
Lord which belongs to the great discourse on the
second coming, " Then will they see the Son of
Man coming in the clouds with great power and
glory" (Mark xiii. 26). As Jesus here undoubtedly
1 Meyer's Oommentar on Matt. xvi. 28, which is also the view of
Weiffenbach.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 217
refers to the very same event, this phrase too can
only mean His personal coming from Heaven for the
purpose of setting up the kingdom. This is con
firmed by the next verse (27), which speaks of His
gathering His elect from one end of the earth to the
other.

(c) Jesus' Conception of the Form of His Coming again
to set up the Kingdom
a. Form of the Kingdom to be erected and of the
Dominion of Messiah
What, then, is the form in which Jesus contem
plated His coming again to set up the kingdom ?
That will necessarily depend on how He conceived
the kingdom itself which He wished to found. We
have already seen from His fundamental view that
He could not have thought here of a merely out
ward, and therefore political, kingdom of the world,
such as was essentially anticipated by the prophets.
It follows, especially from His pneumatic and ethical
principles, that to Him, as already shown, the kernel
of the dominion was and remained spiritual and
moral from the outset. But that determines
nothing as to the more exact nature of the form
of the kingdom itself in its future perfection. On
the contrary, it is in keeping with Jesus' method
and His notion of inspiration to adopt freely from
His people's religious views and traditions everything
that was morally and religiously indifferent, especially

218 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [137-138
if the form of the notion, more particularly when
taken from the prophets, was in itself worthy of its
content. Now, the Old Testament contained the
idea that at the appearance of the final kingdom,
the old Heaven and the old earth were to be trans
formed into a new Heaven and a new earth (Isa.
lxv. 17, lxvi. 22). The central idea was the
transformation of the nature of the Jewish land
and its inhabitants (vv. 17-25). Above all, Jeru
salem is transformed into the centre of the new
earth (ver. 1 8). Even' the abrogation of death takes
place in Zion (Isa. xxv. 7, 8). This new creation
is therefore the result and expression of the com
pleted rule of God, the " theocratic renewal of the
world,"1 the anthropological side of which is pre
sented in the abolition of death.
One cannot see why Jesus should not have taken
over ideas of that kind which rest on noble prophetic
grounds, and do not in the least injure the religious
content. If He taught that the bodies of those who
rose from the dead would become like the angels
(Matt. xii. 25, cf. p. 81 f.), He probably assumed a
corresponding transformation of nature as a whole.
But we have the less reason for doubting the
authenticity of this view of Jesus when it is
expressly transmitted to us by the Synoptists. Now,
in Matthew and in Luke, we find an utterance,
manifestly derived from the original discourses,
where Jesus promises the Twelve that in the king-
1 This is opposed to Weiffenbach, p. 265 f.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 219
dom they shall sit on thrones judging the twelve
tribes of Israel (Luke xxii. 30; Matt. xix. 28).
And this is promised them, according to the context
of both Gospels, as a reward for their faithful
following (Luke xxii. 28 ; Matt. xix. 28). Luke
adds that He appoints to His disciples a kingdom,
as His Father had appointed unto Him, and that in
this character they are to eat and drink at His
table (xxii. 30). Matthew says that the disciples
would receive that dominion over the twelve tribes
, " in the regeneration " (iv rfj iraXfyyevea-ta), when
the Son of Man Himself will sit on the throne of
His glory (xix. 28).
Here, then, we find in Jesus' mouth that promise
of the renewal of the world such as we must have
expected from Him, and such as He could not help
associating with the final kingdom. For the notion
was morally and religiously indifferent, and yet
inoffensive and worthy.
But the theocratic form adheres to this kingdom
just as in the Old Testament.1 For what is spoken
of is a rule of Jesus, with His disciples, over Israel.
And that to many is suspicious. The offence would
be well founded if Jesus had conceived it in a purely
outward, political sense. But I have already stated
that that is not to be thought of. It cannot, how
ever, be shown that the notion of a glorified
1 This has also been lately pointed out by Titius, who strikingly
illustrates the genesis of the idea of the kingdom of God, by the
scheme of the idea of a kingdom of the world (I.e. p. 19 ff.).

220 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [i3n
theocracy was unworthy of Jesus or in contradiction
to His spirituality and His moral and religious cha
racter. On the contrary, we cannot imagine how
He was to give up the theocracy, especially in such
a glorified form, inasmuch as He could have had no
moral and religious motive for so doing.
It is, in fact, only this attitude of Jesus that
agrees with the apostolic conception as we meet
it plainly in Acts i. 6. After the Eisen One (ver. 3)
has spoken with His disciples of the kingdom of God
for forty days, they ask Him on His last appearance
(vv. 4-6) whether He at this time will restore the
kingdom unto Israel. In His answer Jesus simply
says that the appointed time depends on God's
exclusive authority, but He does not by any means
reject their theocratic view of God's kingdom.
In keeping with this destination of the kingdom
for the chosen people, a twelfth apostle (Acts
i. 15-26) is chosen in place of Judas the traitor.
And yet the only valid reason for preserving this
number was the desire to keep intact the mission of
the Twelve as viewed by the leaders of the first
community. But the Lord in His lifetime had limited this
mission so exclusively to Israel, that" He had for
bidden them to go not only to the heathen but even
to the Samaritans (Matt. x. 5). For He Himself
considered that He was sent only (ouk el pr)) to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. xv. 24).
It is arbitrary to limit the meaning of this un-

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 221
qualified saying of Jesus. Nay, in Matt. x. 23,
Jesus bases His directions to those He is sending
forth, " If they persecute you in one city, flee into
another," on the consoling promise, " for verily I say
unto you, Ye shall not have gone through (ov p.r]) the
cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." And
yet this verse is guaranteed as a genuine saying of
the Lord by its originality, which might even be
offensive.1 Now, as we must undoubtedly seek in the preach
ing of the apostles for the reason of that persecution
which the Lord presupposes, and as they are there
fore to be still labouring in their mission to Israel
at the commencement of the second coming, two
things clearly follow. The first is that Jesus viewed
the mission to the Jews as a task to be continued by
the disciples after His death and up to His second
coming. That, indeed, is in perfect keeping with His
meaning. If, in the first instance, He chose them
to support His own mission during His lifetime, this
task must have been changed into a continuation of
His ministry as soon as He could no longer hope to
complete it in His own person.2 But, on the other
hand, the theocratic limitations which the kingdom
retained even in the eyes of Jesus are at the same
time obviously displayed here.
No doubt this fact contradicts the assumption
] The fact that it is not mentioned in His instructions to the
Twelve does not affect the case.
- J. Weiss, I.e. p. 26, expresses a somewhat different opinion.

222 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [no
that Jesus contemplated a mission to the Gentiles
in the proper sense of the word. We must other
wise make Him presuppose a simultaneous missionary
activity among the Gentiles on the part of other
apostles than the Twelve, and perhaps divine the
Apostle Paul's mission to the Gentiles. But even
though the glorified Christ expressly charged him
with such a mission, and on the supposition that the
baptismal command (Matt, xxviii. 1 9 f .) and similar
words of the Eisen One (cf. Luke xxiv. 47 ; Acts
i. 8 ; Mark xvi. 1 5) are quite authentic, yet it is
unbiblical to ascribe that idea to Christ before His
death. Since He expressly limits His own task and
that of His disciples who represent Him to the work
of proclaiming and ushering in to the chosen people
the approach of the kingdom that was promised to
them alone, and since the disciples are to be
engaged in that mission till the second coming
(Matt. x. 23), we cannot speak of a universal
mission as commanded by Jesus in His lifetime.
It follows from this that the words in Mark
xiii. 10, which state that the gospel is to be
preached to all nations before the second coming,
are not only interpolated here, as is almost
universally admitted, but are altogether spurious.
They are wanting in the parallel passage in Matt, x.,
between vv. 18 and 19.1 The interpolation is easily
understood from the universalism of Jesus on the
Cf. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, vol. i. p. 139;
Weiffenbach, pp. 136 ff., 134.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 223
one hand, and, on the other, from the involuntary
tendency to mitigate the offence caused by the
delay of the end of the world, which was looked for
as at hand.1
I myself have deduced that universalism from
Jesus' consciousness of being the Saviour of the world
(cf. p. 15). From the passages that prove this uni
versalism we are, however, too ready to infer an express
purpose and commission to evangelise the Gentiles.
To begin with, we should not at once conclude from
the words of Jesus, which are supposed to mean or
really do mean the rejection of Israel, that the king
dom of God was transferred to another people.
The unexplained contrast with the Jewish nation
need not necessarily have been formed by the Gen
tiles, but might, in thorough harmony with the
prophets, have been formed by an election from
Israel (cf. Eom. xi. 28, and elsewhere), or by non-
Jewish proselytes, who, however, were incorporated
with the theocracy. Besides, even Jesus supposed
that the hardening of Israel as a whole would only
be for a time, namely, to the second coming (Matt.
xxiii. 39, cf. Eom. xi. 25 ff).
This is the standpoint from which to judge those
passages usually brought forward in favour of that
assumption. In the parable of the fig tree in the
vineyard, the rejection does not probably refer to the
whole of Israel at all, but to eminent leaders and
heads of the people. For, according to an old
1 Cf. Pfleiderer, Urchristenthum, p. 145 ff.

224 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [141-142
tradition, the vineyard itself usually represents the
people of Israel (cf. Isa. v. 7, and Jesus' parable of
the vineyard; see also Holtzmann, H. C. 233). The
parables of the labourers in the vineyard, of the
obedient and disobedient sons (Matt. xxi. 28—32), of
the prodigal son, of the invitation to the supper, and
of the wicked husbandmen, in the original form at
least, have nothing whatever to do with the Gentiles,
but with the contrast between the despised publicans
and sinners and the proud hierarchy, from whom is
to be taken their privileged position as leaders in the
theocracy. The only possible hint as to the Gentiles
sharing in the kingdom of God is found in Luke
xiv. 23. But that passage does not imply an un-
theocratic form of the kingdom. And in the parable
of the wicked husbandmen, even Matt. xxi. 45,
notwithstanding its arbitrary application to the
transference of the kingdom to another nation (ver.
43), proves that Mark gives the original form (Mark
xii. 9 f.). Further, Mark xiv. 9, which speaks of the
gospel being preached to the whole world, may pos
sibly have no wider reference than to the Jews who
are scattered over the whole earth. At any rate,
even though we admit the preaching of the gospel in
the hearing of the Gentiles, yet it does not at once
follow that this preaching must have been carried on
by an organised mission with the express purpose of
converting the Gentiles. The context suggests that
Jesus might have been thinking of the world as
already subject to the dominion of God. Again, the

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 225
parable of the mustard seed means nothing more
than the multitude who would share in the final
kingdom. If, in spite of all this, we consider Jesus' funda
mental universalism of salvation which followed
from His pure ethicism, we shall at least infer that
universalism even in those passages which do not
necessarily in themselves contain it. But yet all
that fails to show that the historical Jesus con
templated a real mission to the Gentiles, which Matt.
x. 23 already proves to be impossible.
And the attitude of the early Church renders this
unquestionable. Notwithstanding that alleged com
mand of the Eisen One Himself in Matt, xxviii. 1 9 f.,
the Twelve did not even think of a mission to the
Gentiles for many years. The first preliminary to
that would have been their associating with these
unclean ones. But even the permission for this
intercourse had to be revealed to the chief apostle
by a special vision long after Jesus had ascended
to Heaven. And even after the exceptional baptism
of the centurion Cornelius and his house, the
early Church still insisted that none could become
Christians unless regularly incorporated with the
people of God, who are the only bearers of salvation.
It was only after a long resistance on the part of
the first community that the apostolic convention
admitted Paul's untheocratic mission to the Gentiles
as an accomplished fact. This was by no means
because the disciples had at length remembered a
J5

226 The Prophecies of Jesus Clirist [142-143
command of the Eisen Lord to preach to the heathen.
It was entirely due to the overpowering impression
of the blessing bestowed by God on the mission of
the Apostle to the Gentiles, and especially because
the latter, even without first becoming Jews, showed
themselves possessors of the same Spirit which was
given to the Jewish Christians (Gal. ii. 3—9, 11—18;
Acts x. 45 — 47, xv.). Accordingly, Jesus must
have presented His universalism of salvation in a
theocratic form.
Here, however, so far as we can trace the matter
historically, He found no occasion to consider the
order and development of the outer forms under
which the Gentiles were to enter into the kingdom
of God. These things in themselves had no specific
religious significance. But He was essentially iden
tified with the rehgious needs of the present, in which
He had to work. Moreover, He had no revelation
as to those things, and therefore no absolutely
authoritative judgment.
For the same reason, He did not consider it His
duty to make any change in the traditional pro
phetic view or in the former customs. No prophet
made the conversion of the Gentiles precede the
Messianic day which was brought about by God
alone. But, no doubt, after the deliverance of Israel,
the servant of God was also to become a light to the
nations, and the temple a house of prayer for all
people (Isa. xlix. 6 f., 23, lvi. 1-8). If, in the view
pf the old prophets, these were to be converted and

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 227
subjected to Jehovah in consequence of the great
redemption of Israel which they themselves experi
enced, or because the news of it reached them (cf.
Isa. Ix. 12, Ixvi. 19; Ps. ii. 10-12; Isa. xix. 18-25),
it was natural for Jesus to believe in similar fashion
that this result would be directly or indirectly
brought about by His second coming in divine glory.
For this event could not but display to the Gentiles
the greatness of God's power. On that day, there
fore, they might come from the east and from the
west to participate in the kingdom of the glorified
people of God on the glorified earth (Luke xiii. 29).
That Jesus, on the other hand, supposed the Gen
tiles would share in the kingdom of God before His
return, as the result of regular mission work on the
part of His apostles, is the more improbable, that He
looked with displeasure and scorn on the Pharisees
who, in opposition to Himself and His disciples,
hunted after proselytes (Matt, xxiii. 15). Yet here
probably He made no fundamental innovation as to
the particular manner of receiving the Gentiles into
the membership of the kingdom of God, even in the
period before His second coming. Nor did He ex
pressly abrogate the prescribed form of proselytising,
but only blamed its distortion.1
No doubt, then, it followed from His universalism
that, in the end, there must be one flock and one
Shepherd (John x. 16), but it did not by any means
1 Titius also indicates that, in all likelihood, Jesus did not ex
pressly contemplate the mission to the Gentiles.

228 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [144
follow that this should take place in an untheocratic
form. It cannot be shown that Jesus outwardly
gave up the theocratic limits which He deprived of
inward significance ; He did not do so just because
such questions had no religious significance.
All this shows that Jesus regarded the kingdom,
for the setting up of which He meant to come again,
not as a national Jewish but rather as a universal
one. He expected it, however, in the theocratic
form hallowed by sacred history, though no doubt
spiritualised. It is precisely the historical people of
God who are to absorb all other pious people, even
those from among the Gentiles.
This theocratic form of the universal kingdom of
God proves that Jesus also, in accordance with the
teachings of the prophets, regarded the earth, though
in a form transfigured with heavenly glory, as the
seat of the final empire. Considering that the place
is a matter of rehgious indifference, we can see no
reason why He should have deviated from that view.
Nay, when He taught His disciples to pray that
God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, He
can only have expected the prayer to be fulfilled in
the earthly perfect kingdom. For as this stage must
arrive before God's will can be carried out on earth
as it is in heaven, the petition has no meaning save
on that supposition. It is therefore equivalent to
the immediately preceding petition for the coming of
the kingdom.1 1 Grass thinks differently, p. 78 f.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 229
The purpose of the Eeturning One, therefore, is
to take possession of the real dominion as God's
Vicegerent, and to make His apostles share in it.
The thrones on which He will sit with His disciples
are the emblematic expression of that. It is self-
evident that they are not to be understood in a crass,
sensuous way (Matt. xix. 2 8 ; Luke xxii. 30; cf. also
xix. 17, 19). Yet neither, on the other hand, should
the sovereignty be taken in a purely spiritual sense.1
For a long time, indeed, there had been no such
thing as twelve tribes in the proper sense. This
then means, in conformity with what has been
already shown, the whole of Israel viewed as the
sphere of a theocratic dominion. But, in this sense,
the saying about the thrones cannot be pronounced
spurious, as is done by Weiffenbach (pp. 265-276).
The similarity, especially of Luke's version to
Enoch lxii. 14, and to various passages in Eevela-
tion, is not nearly sufficient for that. On the con
trary, as Jesus was wont to take the form of His
Messianic self-estimate as Euler and Judge from the
well-known passage in Daniel about the Son of Man,
His idea as to the rule of the disciples may also, in
point of form, have been suggested to Him by the
" saints of the Most High," who are there to possess
the kingdom (Dan. vii. 22).
The answer of Jesus to the sons of Zebedee that
it is not His prerogative (but that of the Father
only) to confer the privilege of sitting on His right
1 J. Weiss, I.e. p. 41 f., expresses a similar opinion.

230 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [145
hand and on His left in the kingdom (Mark
x. 40) cannot be urged against the fact that He
promised (Luke xxii. 29 f. ; Matt. xix. 28) to all
the apostles a share of authority in the kingdom
assigned Him by the Father. This was already
realised, in its deepest sense at least, among the
disciples (Luke xvii. 21). In consequence of that,
they already occupy the position of children of the
King with Jesus, and through His mediation (Matt.
xvii. 26). And just as Christ Himself ttakes the
place of God, as Bearer and Mediator of the will
which has sole authority in the kingdom of God, so
at His departure He bequeathes to His disciples the
continuation of this rule of God in His place, as a
gift and as a task. Through their gospel preaching
they have to further the divine will, in which at the
same time there is salvation, and in virtue of this
they have their rank and authoritative influence
(Matt. x. 40). The necessary result, however, is
that their prominent position as co-founders of the
final kingdom remains for ever valid in the new dis
pensation also.
Moreover, Jesus' statement that whoever of His
disciples will be great (yeve<70ai) must follow His
example, in opposition to the rulers of the world,
and be the servant of all, does not contradict this
leading position designed for them in the kingdom
(Mark x. 43-45). It is precisely by their present
service that they are to make themselves worthy of
the future greatness. The greatness of the service

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 231
performed here determines the greatness of their
future position.
On the other hand, the relative rank of the
apostles in the future kingdom of God can only be
determined by the authority of the Omniscient
(Matt. x. 40). This destroys Keim's doubtful
assumption of a dualism in the view of Jesus
(Keim, iii. 46), as well as Weiffenbach's assertion
that certain verses in the collection of sayings
are spurious, though they have a double support
(Weiffenbach, p. 227 ff).
Now, if Jesus' rule in the last dispensation
literally means that the will of God revealed in and
through Him is to be the sole authority there, this,
of course, does not apply to the detailed description
of the new life represented as it is in definite human
forms of a purely earthly kind. Accordingly, when
the Saviour says to His disciples that they are to sit
with Him on thrones in His kingdom and eat and
drink at His table (Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30),
or when at the institution of the Supper He assures
them that He will no more drink of the fruit of the
vine till that day when He shall drink it new
(icaivov) in the kingdom of God (Mark xiv. 25), He
must have been conscious that such expressions
could not possibly quite cover their content. If the
wine which He shall then drink is to be a " new "
wine, then the notion of a higher enjoyment than
the present underlies the saying. By this, therefore,
Jesus presupposes a joyful life of a more perfect

232 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [146-147
kind in the kingdom of God in fellowship with His
people ("with you," Matt. xxvi. 29). This is based
upon the " regeneration '' (Matt. xix. 28), whereby the
whole creation is transformed into a higher mode
of existence. To Jesus, therefore, this partaking of
the new wine is the concrete expression for such
joys as correspond to the transformation of the
world.1 The world and humanity will then indeed
remain the world and humanity. They are not
annihilated as such, but receive a new heavenly
nature. But for that very reason they are no longer
purely earthly, but form an earthly heaven.
And He has therewith once more touched the
kernel of the matter. For, as we have seen, a
certain spiritual corporeity necessarily follows from
the finite nature of human spirituality (cf. p. 83 f.).
This, however, must imply needs, not of a pure
spirit, but of a spiritual body. And full satisfaction
is rendered possible by the fact that the corre
sponding perfect world is thoroughly fitted to meet
these wants.
But, of course, Jesus too must have been perfectly
conscious, especially in the absence of any revelation
on the matter, that the more exact manner in which
the glorified people of God will live on the glorified
earth was unknown even to Himself. All particular
forms which He uses to embody such presentiments,
and which He cannot but take from the condition of
1 The conception of Titius that there is in the kingdom of God
even "something similar to the earthly feast" is too materialistic.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 233
the present world, are therefore in this sense to be
taken metaphorically. But they are not meant as
emblems of purely spiritual and heavenly realities,
but of spiritual bodies and a heavenly earth.
Accordingly, He neither knows, nor reflects about,
nor has any interest in the question as to how all
the details of that will be constituted. He neither
knew, nor wished to know, or say, for example,
whether we shall really drink wine in the kingdom
of the Father.1
Yet the more exalted Jesus' idea of the trans
formation into the heavenly, the less reason we can
see for supposing, when we consider the religious
indifference of the matter, that He assumed His
divine dominion would not have its seat on earth
even in a glorified form. Hence, though such
sayings of Jesus as the meek shall inherit the earth
(Matt. v. 5), might in themselves signify the posses
sion of the highest good, there is no proof of such an
abstract idea here.2 We must rather find in it a
confirmation of the view already unfolded. Though
He knew no details, yet He must have been certain
of exercising His dominion in a form corresponding
to the glorified circumstances and capable of causmg
God's will to be done on earth as in heaven (Matt.
vi. 1 0). For " a Messiahship merely in heaven "
remains a Jewish absurdity (Keim, ii. 568).
1 This is essentially the view of J. Weiss, p. 41 f. ; Titius, p. 31 f. ;
cf. Keim, ii. 572, 575 f.
2 Cf. J. Weiss, p. 41.

234 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [147-148
With this agrees also the fact that Jesus recog
nised the resurrection of the dead as the final
kingdom. For since these, as we have seen, were
already in heaven before the resurrection, they had
no need for their resurrection body in order to be
there. Their glorified earthly body is more in
keeping with life on the glorified earth, for abode
on which it is intended.
When Haupt makes Jesus, even in the eschato
logical sphere, infuse His spirit and ideas into the
forms handed down to Him (I.e. p. 161), I take that
spirit to be the absolute religious genius from whose
original revelation, as we saw (pp. 9-13), springs all
that had religious value in the content of His ideas
of salvation. From this peculiarity, again, I deduce
the details of those aspects which must permeate the
traditional material, namely, His individualism, His
subjectivism, His pneumatism, His ethicism, and His
universalism (p. 1 4 ff). On the other hand, however,
it is clear that these ideas, based as they were on
His original revelation, may indeed be able to renew,
to deepen and spiritualise in a moral and religious
sense, those notions of His people as regards their
content, but cannot immediately change the forms
that are morally and religiously indifferent. Hence
it is not manifest how Jesus, without such a reason
and inducement, should have been led, in a case of
this kind, to conceive the outward form in any other
than the traditional way.
Hence, as we have seen, complete dependence on

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 235
the divine saving purpose, in virtue of His original
and perfect experience of God, formed the kernel of
His conception of the final kingdom. But that did
not involve any moral and religious interest in the
form which this saving dominion of God must take.
It was therefore not at all inconsistent with Jesus'
ideas that this accomplishment should take place
through a transformation, such as was expected by
the prophets, and should, accordingly, have the
renewed earth for its theatre. Now, if we find
this very view frequently assigned to Jesus in the
Synoptics, it seems arbitrary to deprive Him of it,
especially when we consider His position to the Old
Testament : although the Apocalypses were certainly
disposed to leave the earth out of account.
The remark of Tholuck, which has recently been
maintained again by Haupt, that the forms of many
religious notions were regarded by Jesus merely as
" pictures," is correct.1 But that does not so much
apply to the forms themselves as to the way in
which they are used (Haupt, pp. 49, 57, 159).
Thus there can be no doubt that He understood
in its proper sense the essential content of the
traditional view of God's dominion. He recognised
the Messiah as the bearer of this dominion, and
found that Messiah in Himself. He even hoped, as
will be shown, for the consummation of the kingdom
of God in the near future, and made His disciples
1 Titius also thinks Haupt exaggerates the figurative nature of
Jesus' eschatological sayings (p. 141 f.).

236 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [149
pray for it in this sense. He by no means meant
the demons metaphorically, but held them to be
personal evil spirits, and represented His actual
divine power for the destruction of evil in the form
of a conflict with the kingdom of these spirits and
their prince.
If Haupt does not deny that " in things of this
present life which have no religious interest," Jesus
was dependent on contemporary notions, among
which He reckons such forms of rehgious thought
as the locality of Hades, " beneath" (p. 53), we may
suppose that the locality of the final kingdom has
just as little immediate religious interest, and that
the manner and time of Jesus' coming to set up the
kingdom, and of the future life on its metaphysical
side, are of no immediate moral and religious
significance. Baldensperger, therefore, is wrong in denying (1st
ed., p. 144) that He meant to return to earth for the
purpose of setting up His final kingdom.
This brings us to the special form of His Messianic
dominion, which has been represented from of old as
its introductory act. Jesus by no means rejected
the prophetic idea of the Messiah's function as final
Judge. He must have perceived in that the truth
which I have deduced from His primitive revelation
(p. 1 1 f.), namely, that in virtue of His position as
Saviour He is the one Mediator for deciding the
eternal lot of men fixed by God. The dead saints
rise from their graves for this judgment, while it is

Jesus' Prediction of His Second- Coming 237
the evil or unbelieving who are still alive that we
must think of as being rejected. The judgment
consists in the rigorous separation which the parousia
of the Son of Man l makes among men, with a view
to their reception or non-reception into the final
kingdom. That separation with a view to reception
or rejection forms,- for example, the contents of Luke
xvii. 34 f., xii. 42-46; Matt. xiii. 30, 48 f., cf.
Matt. iii. 12. It is the same with those other
parables in which the kingdom of God is the reward
for obedience to the invitation, or for a faithful
waiting for the day of the second coming, but the
disobedient and unfaithful are punished by rejection
(Matt. xxv. 1-13, 21, 23; Luke xii. 37 f., 39 f., 43 f.,
xiv. 24, cf. Matt. xxii. 11—14; Luke xiii. 25, xiv.
24; Mark xiii. 36 ; Luke xxi. 36, etc.). The story
of the penitent thief also presupposes that the Lord
personally receives men into the kingdom at His
second coming (Luke xxiii. 39-43). So far as
Matt. vii. 2 2 f . contains this genuine notion of Jesus,
though the form of the passage may be somewhat
modified, the saying may be classed with Luke xiii.
25 and similar examples.
Finally, the parable of the tares among the wheat

1 As the question here is about the recognised function of the
"Son of Man" as the final Judge, I may at present leave out of
account the various interpretations of this self-designation of the
Lord. Moreover, even the possibly ultimate derivation of the title
from the Babylonian Chaos myth is of no consequence for its inter
pretation as used by Jesus (cf. Gunkel, Schopfung und Ghaos in
Urzeit mid Endzcit, 1895).

238 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [150-151
describes other preliminary conditions of that recep
tion (Matt. xiii. 24-30). It makes the final separa
tion between the evil and the good take place only
after they are fully ripe, when the latter are received
into the kingdom of God, and the former are cast
out by the final judgment. The explanation of the
parable, as given by Matthew (vv. 37—43), cannot
indeed be certified as authentic. However, the more
essential contents, the judgment of the Son of Man,
in so far as it is expressed in the casting out of
His enemies and the presupposed reception of the
righteous, is in keeping with the view of Jesus.
The only feature that we may perhaps recognise
as an apocalyptic addition, is the sending out of
the angels, especially as such, who belong to the
Son of Man.
As regards Jesus' position as Judge, we must,
in opposition to Weiffenbach, conclude from such
passages as Luke xiii. 27—30, Matt. xxv. 10—13,
vii. 21-23, xix. 28, Mark xiv. 62, that He knew
Himself to be not only the absolute fixer but also
the executive instrument of the final judgment. Of
course He also regards God alone as the ultimate
author and disposer of that judgment.
Yet in the parable, Matt. xxv. 31-46, which
clearly describes the actual act of separation, I
find no reason for denying it to be a genuine idea
of Jesus that He was to carry out the same in God's
place. Here also, then, as in other passages, the
judgment throne may belong to Him (cf. p. 229 f.).

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 239
Moreover, His making the kindness shown to His
oppressed and persecuted followers the basis of His
judicial decisions, probably also belongs to the genuine
parts of the parable ; at any rate, it agrees with Jesus'
view. On the other hand, we shall perhaps be
forced to give up the company of angels that escort
Him. Yet, from what has been said, it was in all
likelihood only at a later period that this picture of
the judgment grew out of His original theocratic
point of view. Certain accessory features of the
parable also, such as the expression "King" ({3aaiXev<;,
vv. 34, 40), may belong to a later account (Weiffen
bach). Finally, it follows from Jesus' original
revelation that the judgment will have indirectly
extended to the Gentiles (see above). The final
Judge thereby becomes the Judge of the world.
On account of the finality of the separation, Jesus
naturally viewed the day of His second coming as
coincident with the end of this present world (Matt.
xix. 28; Mark xiv. 25; Matt. xxiv. 3).1 Though
the last verse of Matthew's Gospel cannot, in its
present form, be regarded as a saying of Jesus, yet
this also is based on the view common to the Lord
and the majority of His pious Jewish contemporaries.
Now, though this office of Judge, assuredly in His
own opinion, belongs to Jesus, yet it seems to me, if
our previous exposition is correct, that Baldensperger
goes too far in seeking to resolve the " King " entirely
into the " Judge," and in limiting Jesus' idea of the
1 About the time of that coming, see chap. iv.

240 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [151-152
parousia to the apocalyptic scene of judgment (I.e.
p. 203). Though contemporary apocalypses place
this event entirely in the other world, this view is in
no way shown by the New Testament to have been
that of the people. For this very reason, therefore,
it was probably not held by the Pharisees as such,
who really ruled the faith of the people, but was
rather the particular theory of certain smaller circles.
At any rate, it is not shown to be that of Jesus
(though Baldensperger, 2nd ed., p. 200, is of a
different opinion).
We have no right to minimise this fact which
meets us in the Synoptists, by attributing the earthly
features, without sufficient reason, to the conception
of the disciples (Baldensperger, I.e. p. 207).
Even 2 Cor. v. 8 does not prove that Paul viewed
this matter at least as purely supernatural. For if,
in that case, he desires to be present with the Lord,
the desire can only be realised when he goes to
Heaven where the Lord is. He is still, however,
looking for the second coming. But this as a coming
down to earth is quite compatible with his wish.
Phil. iii. 20 is more in favour of this idea than
against it. And Phil. i. 23, where Paul likewise
thinks of departing before the second coming, is just
as far from contradicting it. Luke xvii. 30, 1 Cor.
i. 7, 2 Thess. i. 7, and similar passages, also prove
the revelation of Jesus at the last day, but do not
necessarily abrogate His coming down from Heaven
to set up the kingdom. And if those who are raised

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 241
ascend to meet the Lord in the air when He comes
down from Heaven, then neither of the two parties
remains where they meet each other. It remains
here undecided where they will go, whether with
Jesus to Heaven, or He more likely with them to
earth (1 Thess. iv. 17).

/S. The Manner of Jesus' Coming
The Coming from Heaven in a Spiritual Body to
the Glorified Earth
With regard to the more exact manner in which
Jesus conceived His coming to judge the world and
set up the kingdom, it is probable that the great
Master of parables and figures understood the clouds
of heaven in which He will come in the same
figurative sense as the prophet Daniel did — namely,
as an emblem of divine majesty.
He cannot, however, have regarded the coming
itself as a completely transcendent event, but only
as one of a material though spiritualised nature, in
keeping with His glorified corporeity, and with its
aim, the glorified earth ; in short, with His mode of
viewing things. When the most cultured man of
the period makes Jesus float down from Heaven in
a spiritual body (1 Thess. iv. 15ff. ; 2 Cor. xii. 4,
cf. Phil. iii. 20 ; Acts i. 11), we cannot see why
Jesus Himself should have had a different view of
the matter (cf. Luke xvi. 22, 23, 43). If, in accord-
16

242 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [153
ance with the vulgar notion, He regarded Heaven as
" above," over the earth (Haupt, p. 5 3), He could only
" come down " thence to the earth. He was, indeed,
no more able than others to have a clear view of
this matter.
Following Old Testament examples, Jesus, in
Matt. xxiv. 29 (Mark xiii. 24, 25), describes the
end of the present seon with the words, " the sun
and moon will be darkened, the stars will fall from
Heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be
shaken." Haupt interprets this as a " crashing
together " of the whole natural world, and from it
deduces that a local coming thither is no longer
possible, since it is no longer in existence (p. 1 1 7).
But Matt, xxiv., as well as Mark xiii., of which
the former is manifestly an amplified copy, proves
the contrary. For not only (according to Matt.
xxiv. 30) do all tribes of the earth mourn as they
see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven,
but in Mark xiii. 27 the Coming One sends forth
His angels to gather His elect from the four winds,
from the utmost part of the earth to the utmost part
of Heaven. The context, as well as the Old Testa
ment analogy, here requires both of these events to
be conceived as following that shaking of the world ;
even though the earth may be in process of trans
formation (cf. 2 Pet. iii. 10-13). Now, if Jesus had
seen the complete destruction of everything earthly
immediately before this, He could not possibly have
assumed the earth as still existent, since all would

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 243
have been over with it in every sense. Otherwise
He would incur at least the reproach of meaningless
phraseology, if not of defective truthfulness of ex
pression, and He is raised above this.1 Hence this
objection cannot seriously affect the view that Jesus
will come in a spiritual body to enter on possession
of His heavenly dominion of earth, a view which, as
we have seen, is supported by a variety of passages.
The Spiritual and so-called Historical Coming
of Jesus
On the other hand, it is self-evident that what is
sometimes meant by Jesus coming is His historical
appearance generally (Mark ii. 17). But that does
not do away with the fact that Jesus, like Paul and
all the apostles, frequently uses it in the special
sense of His future coming from Heaven on one
single occasion to complete tJie kingdom. Nor does
anyone venture to question this in its full extent.
But because the Lord did not return at the time He
was expected, attempts have been made to give a
different interpretation to some passages which the
unprejudiced would take in the same sense. They
distinguish between a final coming, which Jesus
looked forward to at the last day, and a provisional
coming which He meant in another sense, but which
1 Titius, p. 143 f., of whose views my own are here and in every
other case completely independent, shares my opinion as to Haupt's
spiritualising conception of Jesus' coming and the reason he gives
for it on the basis of Matt. xxiv. f.

244 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Clirist [154-155
the disciples here and there had confused with that.
And the question is, how are we to understand this
so-called spiritual and historical coming of the Lord
as distinguished from the eschatological ? 1
In John's Gospel the idea frequently appears that
Jesus, after His death, will come to His people and
make His abode with them (xiv. 23, and elsewhere).
This idea alternates with the other, that it is just
by going to the Father that their interests will be
specially furthered, because the Spirit, as His Eepre-
sentative and their Helper, will thereby come to
them and abide with them (xvi. 7, 13, xiv. 16, 17).
Similarly, in Matt, xviii. 20, Christ assures them
that wherever two or three are gathered together in
His name, there He is in the midst of them. We
must not, indeed, as Haupt has clearly proved, build
absolutely on the connection in which such a state
ment is found, and this saying itself does not clearly
show whether we must refer it to the help that is to
be imparted to them in His lifetime, or only after
His glorification. But in any case it must be under
stood in a purely spiritual sense.
The matter is quite clearly put in Matt, xxviii. 20.
Here the Eisen One promises to His disciples, " Lo,
I am with you always, even to the end of the
(present, cf. Matt. xxiv. 3) age." He therewith
gives them the consolation that they shall not lack
His assistance till He comes again to bring about
1 Titius also, in opposition to Haupt, clings to the thought of the
second coming of Christ as a single act (p. 144 f. ).

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 245
the end of the present seon. The idea therefore
coincides essentially with that of John, that the
Spirit of God as the Spirit of Christ will be the
Paraclete (cf. also Eom. viii. 9—11 with Gal. ii. 20).
Though this presence of the heavenly Christ must
be recognised as personal, yet it is here conceived in
unquestionable opposition to His parousia, which does
not occur till the end of the ason (Matt. xxiv. 3), and
is meant as a provisional equivalent of the second
coming. At any rate, we must not suppose that
Jesus could have meant this eschatological return of
His in a similar spiritual sense, and that the disciples
had then mistakenly understood it as a single act
of His entire personality.
Hardly anyone, moreover, will maintain this
to-day. Even Tholuck censures that rationalistic
spiritualising. On the other hand, besides the
eschatological he recognises a historical, or, as he
is wont to say, a " dynamical " parousia of Jesus.
Holtzmann also assumes such a parousia in the sense
of a " series of manifest historical deeds of power, by
which He seeks to show Himself to be the exalted
Messiah" (H. C, p. 285) ; and Beyschlag and others
take essentially the same view.1 Hence they are
wont to think of a series of epoch-making, periodically
returning, temporary realisations of His coming, which
incipiently, as it were, prepare and prefigure His final
1 Cf. Tholuck's Osterprogramm der Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, 1871,
Die Konsequenz der Aussagen Jesu iiber seine Wiederkunft und sein
Gerkht, especially p. 17.

246 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [im-im
return. That is an ingenious, but, as it seems to me,
a modern idea. Above all, however, it contradicts
the view of the day of the Lord altogether, and has
nothing whatever in the Bible to support it.
In the first place, it certainly cannot be based on
Luke xvii. 22. Here Jesus says to His disciples,
" The days will come (fjfiepat) in which ye shall
desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and
ye shall not see it." Elsewhere in the New Testa
ment we have only the singular form, " the day of
the Lord." It is only in ver. 26 that we find a
repetition of the expression in the sense of the time
(likewise connected with this; cf. ver. 22) when the
day of the Son of Man must appear (ver. 3 0). Here
the plural expression is caused by the parallelism
with the days of Noah (ver. 26), when the flood took
place (ver. 27). Now, if in the first passage we do not
refer the longed-for days of the Son of Man (ver. 22)
to Jesus' historical presence among His disciples (cf.
Mark ii. 19 f. ; Luke x. 23), then, in accordance with
the whole analogy of Scripture, we can only interpret
them to mean the final period ushered in by the day
of the second coming. That is, from the unbroken
series of those glorious days to come men shall long
for even a single one similar to that series. This is
therefore the precise opposite of the view that several
epoch-making days are here represented which stand
out in a series of non-Messianic days as dissimilar to
the rest.
But even Matt. xxvi. 64 (cf. Mark xiv. 62) cannot

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 247
prove that Jesus meant a continual, to say nothing
of a periodic, coming foreign to the whole of Scripture
(cf. Holtzmann, H. C, p. 285; Tholuck, I.e. p. i7 ;
Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, i. 198 ff).
When, according to Matthew's wording of our Lord's
saying already discussed, He threatens His enemies,
" Hereafter (air' dpri) ye shall see the Son of Man
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in
the clouds of heaven," there is no grammatical neces
sity for supplying the whole phrase, " henceforth ye
shall see," before " coming." One need not under
stand more than the words, " ye shall see." And
this is the only natural way, as a continuous " coming
in the clouds of heaven " gives no clear meaning.
But even though we grant such a notion to be in
itself logically admissible, there is at least no similar
expression in the whole of Scripture. And it would
even be a continuous coming of Jesus to judgment
that one would have to think of here. For it is just
in connection with His threat against His enemies
that the specific function of the Son of Man as Judge
of the world could hardly be left out of account.
Nor is there any warrant in the Bible for the some
what arbitrary supposition of a periodic instead of a
continuous coming.
But that whole difficulty may be disposed of at
once. For the " henceforth " does not belong to the
original text, which is rather given by Mark. For
we can see no reason why that Evangelist, who is
otherwise recognised as more original in these his-

248 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [157
torical accounts, should be less authentic here, or
even have left out an air' apri contained in the source.
Matthew may have made the addition in order by
this time qualification to give the phrase " ye shall
see" a still more confident ring, as it would now
mean that the enemies of Jesus, by their sentence of
condemnation, will even now bring about the demon
stration that the Lord is exalted to heavenly Messianic
power, and would see this proof themselves.
Again, Haupt's idea that the coming of the
kingdom of God with power (Matt. ix. 1), though
not indeed to be understood as a periodic coming
of Jesus, is yet to be conceived as a mighty " growth
of the Christian community," has certainly, as we
saw, an affinity with others which the Lord held
(p. 208 f.).1 However, Jesus in no way represents
such a growth of the community as a coming with
power, but the very opposite. It comes, according
to His view, quite gradually and even unnoticed.
We have only to think of the parables of the
mustard seed and the leaven, and especially of the
seed growing of itself (a>? ovk olSev avros, Mark iv.
27). And it is the same in the parable of the
tares among the wheat. The patience of the
disciples is there tested by the growing up of good
and evil side by side in a way that forbids all
separation (Matt. xiii. 24-30).
1 Liitgert also (pp. 127, 98) controverts the exegetic conception
of the coming of the kingdom of God as meaning with Jesus an
" extension of the community."

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 249
I shall further leave entirely out of account the
fact tfiat the Evangelist, in his explanation, is think
ing of the parousia of the Son of Man which takes
place at the end of the aeon. This is not so much
in the case of the growth as that of the harvest,
which is put in contrast with that growth as a
single decisive moment (Matt. xiii. 40 ff). But the
parable itself reveals this view, which was similar to
that of the Jews (Matt. xiii. 30, cf. iii. 10-12;
Mark xiii. 26).
The special feature of our passage, Mark ix. 1,
however, is that, as already insisted on, it refers not
to a period of coming with power, but to a future
moment in which this coming has taken place. The
solemn assurance with which Jesus introduces His
statement suggests how unexpected this arrival is to
appear to man. The style here is quite in keeping
with those other passages in which Jesus fore-
announces His confessedly eschatological return as
a single act which suddenly takes place (Luke xvii.
24, xii. 39, 46, xxi. 3 5, etc.).
If we take the " arrival " of the kingdom of
God with power — an event which (only) some are
to live to see— to mean an increasing growth, or a
heightened development of power in the Church,
then a further idea follows which in divers aspects
has no proper meaning. I have already stated that
a " coming " (seeing it come) would suit that far
better than a "being come" (p. 216). For, as we
saw, this latter expression naturally suggests that

250 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [iss
the reference must have been to a point in such
development that was epoch-making, and vin a
certain sense final. And yet the kingdom of God
has not, up to this moment, completed its growth.
For the vague conception that it is to become very
vigorous during a single generation will not do
justice to the sonorous phrase, that there be some
standing here who shall not taste of death till they
see the kingdom of God come with power. Does
it mean, perhaps, that Jesus may have supposed
that within a generation the gospel would have
been preached by Paul throughout the whole of
Europe ? He could not have had any presentiment
of Paul's mission to the Gentiles, for He was no
soothsayer. And even granting that He had, such
an epoch-making point as we must expect here
could hardly be shown to exist in this case. At
that very time the frightful persecution of the
Christians commenced and was carried on for
centuries, and this was little fitted to show any
particular arrival of the kingdom of God with
power. Christ, however, never thought of a mission to
the Gentiles, but rather, as we saw, makes the day
of His return take place at a time when the disciples
are suffering a frightful persecution, and before they
have even ended their mission to Israel (Matt. x. 23).
If we would fix on any point when there was a
pre-eminent development of power, we would most
readily see it, like Beyschlag, in the founding of the

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 251
Church at Pentecost. But this would be still less
in harmony with the statement that "only some"
of those surrounding the Saviour were to live to see
it. Hence we must put aside the idea that Jesus
had in view the growth of His Church, and not
rather His eschatological return.
There still remains the assumption that He
viewed the destruction of Jerusalem as a historical
parousia. He might have found in this by itself an
emblem and a provisional fulfilment of the last
judgment, but not of His return. Every analogy
of the New Testament is against that. The parable
of the wicked husbandmen does not refer to the
destruction of Jerusalem, but to the overthrow of
the unfaithful hierarchy (Matt. xii. 9). If, on the
other hand, we would apply the parable of the fig
tree to the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke xiii. 6—9),
then there is no question here about the parousia
of Jesus ; for God Himself is the Lord of the vine
yard. But the passage, Matt, xxiii. 39 (Luke
xiii. 35), is also wrongly taken by Keim as referring
to a " historical " parousia (Jesu von Nazara, hi. 1 9 0).
It is rather to be understood eschatologically, and
comes under the point of view which presupposes
no doubt the destruction of Jerusalem, but signifies
the precise opposite of the judgment of God. For
in the whole history of salvation this judgment
must be thought of as a consequence of God having
withdrawn His presence from His people. But here
the house of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is to be

252 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [159-160
left desolate until they welcome Jesus as Messiah.
The appearance, therefore, of the Eeturning One
puts an end to their abandonment by God.
Moreover, if the Messianic call which Jesus
expects from the inhabitants of Jerusalem were to
be referred to the moment of its destruction, then
it would not have been fulfilled either in a literal
or figurative sense. At any rate, this would not
disprove that Jesus was mistaken in His expect
ations, a difficulty which above all is sought to be
set aside by taking the destruction of Jerusalem as
the epoch of the return.
It cannot then be proved that Jesus even once
identified the predicted destruction of Jerusalem
with His parousia, not even in the great address on
the second coming in Mark xiii. It might indeed
appear as though He did ; for the disciples at the
beginning of that address ask the Lord about the
signs and the time of Jerusalem's destruction
(xiii. 4). And yet in the course of the address the
Lord comes to speak of the beginnings of sorrows
(ver. 9), the great tribulation (vv. 19, 24), which
is to precede the end, and finally of the end itself
(vv. 7, 13, 24), when the Son of Man and the
final kingdom appear (w. 24-27). Finally, in
declaring His ignorance of the day and hour He
assuredly refers to His final coming, and it is just
it for which He exhorts His disciples to watch
(vv. 32-37).
But Colani (Jesus Christ et les Croyances Messianiques

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 253
de son temps, 2nd ed., 1864, p. 201 f.), Weiffenbach
(Der Wiederkunftsgedanke, pp. 90—192), Weizsacker
(Untersuchungen uber die evangelische Geschichte, 1864,
p. 121 f .), Pfleiderer (" Uber die Komposition der
eschatolog. Eede, Matt, xxiv.," in the Jahrb. f. cl.
Theolog. xiii. 1868, pp. 134-149), Wendt, Balden
sperger, J. Weiss, etc., have seen that those parts
of chap. xiii. which refer to Jesus' prediction of the
destruction of Jerusalem and to the exhortations to
the disciples, are not originally connected with the
others which have to do with the second coming.
Haupt,1 indeed, has proved that the view of those
investigators who deduce those parts from a little
Jewish Christian Apocalypse is not sufficiently
established. But he himself resolves the address
into individual sayings of the Lord, so that even the
connection of the parts of those two main divisions
proves to be mostly non-authentic, and still less can
it be proved that Jesus originally subordinated that
catastrophe of Jerusalem to the idea of His second
coming. Moreover, it is the less necessary to our purpose
to enter into a detailed investigation of the dis
course in Mark, as the Evangelist, notwithstanding
that prefixed question about the destruction of the
temple, does not mention it in the discourse itself,
and even presupposes its continuance in ver. 1 4, while,
on the other hand, the OXtyis, by which we would
have to understand that destruction, does not so
1 Cf. Die eschatolog ische n Aussagen Jesu, 1895, p. 21 ff.

254 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [160-161
much coincide with the parousia as precede it
(ver. 24). The incidental references require no
special consideration, as Mark's account is recognised
as the most original.
Hence we find sayings of the Lord about the second
coming and the destruction of Jerusalem, besides
perhaps Mark xiii. 30 and 32 — to which we will
return — which originally were never even outwardly
united with each other. In Matt, xxiii. 35— 38, also,
the threat of God's judgment was not originally con
nected with the prediction of the second coming that
follows it. For in ver. 37, as Luke xiii. 34 shows, a
new connection begins (cf. Haupt, I.e., on the passage).
On the other hand, Jesus frequently predicts His
parousia in connection with His death and resurrec
tion (cf. Matt. x. 23 ; Mark ix. 1, xiv. 62). Again,
He invariably predicts the destruction of Jerusalem
by itself (cf. Luke xxiii. 28 ff, xix. 41-44, xiii. 2-5).
Accordingly, there is no biblical proof for the
assumption that Jesus viewed the destruction of
Jerusalem as a kind of parousia. Nay, even those
who acknowledge a " historical " parousia cannot,
" without exaggeration, regard that catastrophe as
a coming of the kingdom of God with power"
(Haupt, p. 146).
People would hardly have entertained the thought
of finding a parousia of Jesus in the penal judgment
on the Jews, but for the hope of being able in
this way to explain away an incorrect expectation
which, to all appearance, the Lord must otherwise

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 255
have cherished. This brings us to the most difficult
and most important question, namely, whether the
confident assumption entertained by the whole of
early Christendom, that Jesus would return in their
own generation, is based on the Lord's own view.

(d) The Time of the Second Coming in Jesus'
Prediction
a. His return within His own generation, as based on
Mark ix. 1 ; Matt. x. 23 ; Mark xiv. 62, xiii. 30
The position which is taken up by different parties
towards this particular question is surprising. We
can, indeed, easily conceive how those who regard
Christ as a mere man admit — too readily, perhaps —
that He expected to come again within that genera
tion. Nor can we wonder that attempts have been
made on the positive side to deny this very assump
tion at any price, so long as it was supposed that
we must cling to the old standpoint of inspiration.
But nowadays, when even leading representatives
of the theological right, such as Kahler, Kostlin,
Kohler, etc., have openly given up that standpoint,
to set aside unquestionable words of the Lord by
a forced exegesis, and cling to the idea that Christ
did not assume that time for His second coming,
can only be accounted for by a want of clearness,
springing from a wrong notion of piety, and by an
inability to fix aright the demarcation of the divine

256 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [162
and human in Christ's person. But the matter
may also have an objective reason, namely, that
the passages in question, which irrefutably settle
the facts, still require to be thoroughly examined
from the exegetic as well as from the psychological
standpoint. I would fain hope, therefore, that this attempt,
made in a " positive " sense, may in some measure
attain its purpose of effecting that much-needed
demarcation in one of the most difficult points of
theology which I have had before me for more than
four years. When Grass despatches the problem in
question in a note (I.e. p. 97), and adds, this fact
" in view of Mark ix. 1 and Luke ix. 2 7 should no
longer be denied in favour of an unnecessary apolo
getic," this is as yet a pious wish, which at the same
time raises the suspicion that Grass has not appre
ciated the difficulties of the subject, especially in its
psychological and Christological aspect. J. Weiss
also, by some excellent suggestions, proves the pro
bability of Jesus meaning to come again in His
own generation (I.e. p. 32). Haupt's able treatise,
recently published, Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu
in den synoptischen Evangelien (1895), which endea
vours with great acuteness to prove the opposite of
Grass's assumption,1 shows that a thorough discussion
of the question is not superfluous. On the contrary,
this is a question which only our own age, by its
1 The conception of B. Weiss will be dealt with separately under
(d) I.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 257
increasing historical culture, has been fitted to solve,
and one which urgently demands this solution on
account of its extraordinary importance for our
estimate of the person of Christ.
When I had entirely finished this work and
was about to send it to the press, I received Titius'
recent book, Jesu Lehre vom Reiche Gottes, 1895,
which discusses the kingdom of God in a har
monious, clear, and comprehensive way. His stand
point being essentially similar to my own, he agrees
with my conclusions even in many details. In
opposition to Grass, he recognises the " objective
difficulty " which lies above all in the fact that
" Jesus' view shows itself here to be limited by
the ideas of His age and so far untenable," but the
end he has in view does not require him to deal
with it (p. 146). On the other hand, he makes
many pertinent remarks regarding the exegetic and
psychological aspects of our question (pp. 140—147).
While welcoming his discussion as a confirmation of
the essential correctness of my own view, I feel all
the more called upon to enter on the more detailed
examination of the problem, as Titius, from the
difference of his aim, could only touch it in passing.
Let us therefore examine first of all the exegetic
foundation. When Jesus assures His disciples in
Mark ix. 1 that some (nves) of those around Him
are not to taste of death until they have seen the
kingdom of God come with power, there is no other
exposition possible than the eschatological, which
i7

258 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [163-164
agrees with the conception of the whole of early
Christendom (p. 248 f.). That is a very important
fact. For this single passage, accordingly, proves
that Jesus expected and promised to return at the
end of His generation. Only " some," indeed, but
still " some " of those around Him are to live to
see it. He intends, therefore, to return before, but
not much before, His contemporaries have all passed
away. Here it is self-evident that He does not
wish to predicate anything of this or that individual
present. That would be divination, which is in con
tradiction with His genuine prophecy. Those who
surround Him represent rather His contemporary
Jewish companions. In particular, however, He
probably imagines here, as in Matt. x. 23, that
His disciples will not all have died before He
returns. As for this passage already touched upon, I do
not see why Haupt, who likewise recognises it as
eschatological, should leave it out of account (p. 143)
in determining the moment of Jesus' return. If it
contains no " direct statement of time," it does
clearly contain an indirect one. For when Jesus
clearly foreannounces to His disciples who are
present that He intends to come again while they
are still engaged in their ministry to Israel, that
undoubtedly implies that some of them at least
must be alive when He returns.1 Hence this state
ment corroborates the time suggested in Mark ix. 1,
1 Cf. besides Jolm xxi. 22 f.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 259
nay, it is just it that seems to prove this time beyond
all question.
It is similar with Mark xiv. 62. Haupt claims
this passage also as favouring Jesus' " historical "
return, but he is wrong. It refers, as expressly as
Matt. x. 23, and even more plainly than Mark
ix. 1 , to the eschatological return (cf . above, p. 1 5 6 f.).
Jesus, conscious of being the Judge of His judges,
hurls in the face of the Sanhedrim the bold threat
that He, raised to heavenly Messiahship, will prove
this dignity by His coming from Heaven. And
they themselves are to see it (otyeade). As this
" seeing " can only mean a personal experience,
Christ here, as in the former passages, proclaims
to His enemies the coming of the Son of Man in
their own lifetime, that is, at least before the con
temporary generation has died out. This very ex
pression in that connection not only points to the
final kingdom in general as the aim of His return,
but gives us in particular a glimpse of the penal
judgment on His enemies. And the expectation
that the generation of the murderers of Messiah
is itself to be overtaken by the curse of its deed,
is quite in harmony with the usual manner of
prophecy (cf. Matt, xxiii. 36).
Finally, Jesus says expressly in Mark xiii. 30,
" Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall
certainly (ov firf) not pass away till all these things
be accomplished." There is no need, according to
Keim and Weiffenbach, to prove that Jesus cannot

260 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [165
have meant by " this generation " the nation of
Israel, or even Christendom, or humanity, especially
here where He means to fix a time. Unless par
ticular collocations, such as '' generations of genera
tions," '" generation and generations," etc., require an
extended meaning, yeved is wont to retain its proper
significance as describing the generation, that is, the
totality of those born in a definite age, especially of
a particular nation, and then secondarily the age in
which these men live. And of course a synonymous
Aramaic word must lie at the basis of that. Now,
as the addition " this " appears here before genera
tion, nothing else can be thought of than the
present contemporaries of the Speaker (cf. especially
Luke vii. 3 1 and xi. 3 1 f .).1 Even though we had
not the parallel expression in Mark ix. 1, where the
promise is made that some of those who stand around
Jesus will live to see the second coming, " this
generation " can refer only to that of Jesus.
Indeed, the very drawing of this parallel pre
supposes that Mark xiii. 30 also refers to Jesus'
second coming. And that must now be proved.
Many apply it to the destruction of the temple,
which, according to Jesus' statement, should be
witnessed by that generation. Now, in chap. xiii.
ver. 4, Mark does indeed make the disciples ask about
the time and the signs of this destruction (ver. 2).
And the. Lord in His answer speaks first of false
prophets, abnormal phenomena of nature, wars and
1 So also Gras's, I.e. p. 97.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 261
internal strife, as well as of persecution of the
disciples, desecration of the temple, and Judea's
extreme distress. All that manifestly comes under
the point of view of the signs (vv. 5—23). But
then, amid the most terrible shaking of heaven and
earth, appears the Son of Man Himself, and gathers
together His elect (vv. 24-27). As no answer is
given here to the second question as to the time,
Mark must intend to give that answer in vv.
29, 30, which are introduced by a parable (ver. 28).
In order, then, to get a better understanding of these
three verses, I place them here in connection. They
run, " Now learn a parable of the fig tree, when (orav)
her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves
(or, and the leaves sprout forth, eK(pvj}), ye know that
the summer is nigh (ver. 28). Even so also when
ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that He
("it"?) is nigh, even at the door (ver. 29). Verily
I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away
until all these things be accomplished" (ver. 30).
The wording of Matthew is essentially the same.
Luke says somewhat differently, that as the disciples
see of themselves from the " shooting forth '' of the
trees that summer is nigh, so likewise, when they
have seen these things come to pass, they are to
know " that the kingdom of heaven is at hand "
(Luke xxi. 30, 31).
Consequently, when we reflect on the disciples*
question, we expect in Mark, vv. 29, 30, first of all
an answer as to the time of the destruction of the

262 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ \m
temple, since the words " all these things " (ravra
irdvTa) in ver. 30 point back to the very same
phrase of that question in ver. 4. But, on the
other hand, we must remember that the paragraph
in which the Evangelist gives the answer to the
question about the signs, contains different parts,
which can only refer to the end of the ason, or
seem more applicable to it than to that catastrophe.
And further, we must remember that the Evangelist
uses technical expressions peculiar to eschatology,
and in particular to the Apocalypses (ap^al, mZivmv,
OXiyjns, reXo'i), and that vv. 24—27, directly pre
ceding our context, expressly describe the parousia,
while, on the other hand, there is no express
mention of the destruction of the temple, which in
ver. 14 is rather represented as still existing. At
the most it might have been tacitly included in the
great tribulation.
When Mark, therefore, makes the fixing of the
time follow immediately on the description of the
signs and the end, he must refer the signs to the
parousia, and the time specification must likewise,
if not exclusively, hold good of the latter. In this
sense Luke is justified in directly applying the signs
to the nearness of the kingdom of God, without
taking any notice of the destruction of the temple.
Yet, as there is no absolute guarantee that the
Evangelists place Jesus' utterance about the time in
its original connection, we shall make no sure pro
gress on this path.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 263
Even a parallel does not really carry us farther.
We have a second saying of the Lord, in which He
alludes to a fearful judgment of God on the mur
derers of prophets almost in the same words as here
(Matt, xxiii. 31), namely, "all these things are to
come upon this generation (yeved, Matt, xxiii. 36).
If we were at liberty to take into account
the content of the saying, then the judgment of
the last day, which is immediately preceded by a
bloody requital (ver. 35), would, on account of ver.
33 (Kpiais tj}? yeivvrj<;), more readily suggest itself
than the destruction of Jerusalem taken only by
itself. But it is the same here as above, since the
connection cannot be proved with certainty to be the
original one.
Let us therefore, with regard to what Mark
xiii. 29 says about the time, consider nothing but
the proper meaning of the passage itself. In the
Greek prose of the New Testament, it can hardly
without more ado be said of a catastrophe such as
the destruction of the temple, that " it is nigh even
at the door," while the expression in a sensuous and
especially in a personal significance is very well
suited to the Judge, for example (cf. Acts iii. 20 ;
Jas. v. 9 ; Acts v. 9). This would seem to indicate
that the phrase "is at the door," in ver. 29, must
refer originally to the Son of Man, who appears to
bring about the final kingdom (cf. Mark xiii. 26).
Then, as regards the saying which is immediately
added in all three Synoptists, that this generation

264 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [167-ios
shall not pass away till all these things be accom
plished (ver. 30), it is a fact that the Lord nowhere
else, except perhaps in Mark xiii. 15—18, takes
unmistakable notice of the moment of Jerusalem's
destruction. And the reason is probably as follows.
No doubt the disciples, even though they were Gali
leans, had at any rate a kind of personal interest as
Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem, and certainly
they had a great religious interest in it as a penal
judgment on their obdurate nation. But neither
the one interest nor the other holds good of the
time of that destruction.1 Hence Jesus seems to
have had httle cause for alluding particularly to that
time, even if He could have done so in other than
ordinary prophetic phrases.
On the other hand, not only does He speak in
definite words, directly (Mark ix. 1) or indirectly
(Mark xiv. 62 ; Matt. x. 23), of a time of His return,
but in innumerable passages He refers, in more general
expressions at least, to the possibility of its being
very near, and builds thereupon the exhortation to
constant watchfulness.2 And this is easily under
stood from the great interest which His people
could not but have in being united to Him again,
and that for ever.
But, above all, it was a matter of the greatest
importance in a moral and religious sense, both as
1 At the worst they could have fled, which they were advised to
do in Mark xiii. 14.
2 We shall give more particulars of this anon.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 265
regards themselves personally, and indirectly as
regards the gospel also, whether the goal of His
whole mission, around which the disciples' vocation
in prayer (Matt. vi. 10), labour, and suffering
revolved, was perhaps at hand, and how they were
to conduct themselves towards it.1 Hence for this
reason it is more than probable that that statement
in Mark xiii. 30, about the space of one generation,
applies originally to Jesus' second coming in the
same sense as Mark ix. 1, especially as it is in
thorough keeping with this passage.
Yet Haupt prefers to apply both dates in vv.
29, 30, to the destruction of the temple, and
endeavours to prove this by their connection
with ver. 28. But, according to Haupt's own
most characteristically subtle view, the agreement
of these verses, as already remarked (p. 166), can
decide nothing, as it can only prove that they may
have been conected, but not that they actually
were (cf. Haupt, p. 37). Still, I regard them as
agreeing, only I understand vv. 29 and 30 as
referring to the parousia.
If, at the outset, the objection should be raised
that Jesus could not have asserted that the parousia
would take place within that very generation so
strongly as is done in ver. 31, tlie objection would
have force only after it was proved that this verse
itself had kept its original connection. It appears
1 Even this did not immediately affect the content of salvation
itself.

266 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [ifi9
to me, however, to be a gloss (similar to the glosses
that can be proved in Luke ix. 54, 55, 56, or Mark
ix. 44, 46, or 1 John v. 7, etc.). It was just
assurances of that kind that were natural enough at
a time when people began to be in doubt as to
Christ's promise to return within that generation.
For it was the firm belief of all Christians, as it was
the belief of the Lord Himself, that Heaven and
earth would pass away sooner than a single promise
made by Him should fail to be fulfilled (cf. 2 Pet.
iii. 1-9). How easy, then, was it for a Christian
reader to give expression to this belief with the
view of strengthening the Church ! This might
surely have been done with as little guile at least
as the interpolation of the Church doctrine of the
Trinity in 1 John v. 7. The form, however, followed
of itself from the almost similar assurance of Jesus
in Matt. v. 18, so that the author of the interpola
tion might feel convinced that he was reproducing in
his own words the mind of Christ.1
Jesus, indeed, could not have staked Heaven and
earth on such a prediction as that this generation
would live to see His second coming. That is self-
evident to every one who, hke myself, fully believes
in His sinlessness. But there does not seem to have
been any sufficient reason why He should have used
such strong expressions even with regard to His pre
diction of the destruction of the temple ; especially
1 Cf. Weiffenbach, pp. 153-156, and his quotation of similar assur
ances from the Revelation of John and other apocalyptic literature.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 267
when we consider its religious indifference, which has
just been emphasised.
The specially important point here was to show
that we cannot in any way, by means of this formula
of assurance attached to the fixing of the time, make
it probable that Jesus meant that assurance to apply
to the destruction of the temple and not rather to
the parousia.
Haupt objects to the interpretation of the parable
of the fig tree which applies it to the woes that
precede the parousia ; he thinks that could not be
the sense in which Jesus originally meant it. For
the shooting forth of the fig tree has not the same
relation to the nearness of summer that the fearful
catastrophe of the last days has to the consummation
of the kingdom of God. " In the former we see a
movement of the very forces of summer, which
makes us infer the nearness of their full develop
ment ; in the latter, however, we see the utmost
increase of the powers that are opposed to the
kingdom of God" (p. 36). If an allegorical deepen
ing of the parable were of any importance, the
spring storms adduced by Haupt as an example
would doubtless illustrate the stormy times before
the commencement of the kingdom, better than is
done by the shooting forth of the fig tree. Such
greater poetic beauty, however, in Jesus' parabolic
sayings can at most only be a matter of secondary
importance. The " inner relationship between image
and reality" (p. 36), which Haupt here misses, can

268 The Prophecies of Jesus Clirist [170
by no means be shown in all of the undoubtedly
genuine parables of Jesus. How little inner affinity
is there, for example, between the conduct of the
unjust judge, who is moved, by fear of being troubled,
to grant the desire of the oppressed widow, and the
action of God, who is influenced by the persevering
prayers of His people (Luke xviii. 1-7) ! Yet the
parable admirably fulfils its aim of certifying that
persevering prayer will be heard and answered.
Further, how could Jesus have represented the
conduct of the unjust steward, who shrewdly cheated
his master, as a model for His disciples, if He desired
to give prominence to more than this one side of
the prudent employment of earthly goods, though
in a contrary sense, of course (Luke xvi. 1-9) ?
Hence the point of the parable depends upon the
particular aspect which Jesus wishes to set off by a
comparison, though the image should be little in
keeping with another aspect of the same thing, or
even contradict it.
Now, if Haupt seeks to prove that such a (cur
tailed) parable as that of the fig tree is not in
keeping with the period of distress immediately
before the second coming, I shall first of all have
to refute the invalidity of this objection, and then
attempt to show the objectionable character of the
application which Haupt makes. No doubt the
connection in which Mark has placed our parable
cannot be proved to be authentic in all its details.
But that cannot be of any consequence here. For

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 269
the question in this case, as we have said, is only the
refutation of the assumption that the parable is
entirely out of harmony with the period of affliction
before the parousia. The parable, however, shows
itself rather as a powerful antidote for the prevalent
mood which, according to Mark, will characterise the
disciples, for their impatience and faintheartedness
in presence of the fearful tribulation, so that we
must acknowledge at least the inner truth of the
reason assigned for this utterance.
The supreme need of such times of affliction is
a strong consolation. And Jesus, with the view of
imparting that, promises to His disciples that the
commencement (the birth, as it were) of the final
kingdom shall follow those " travailings " (mSivtov)
with the same natural necessity as the summer
follows the budding of the tree. The point of com
parison, therefore, does not lie in the equality of the
powers which bring forth spring and summer ; nor
even in the mere outer nearness, the budding of the
tree and summer on the one hand, the " travailings "
and the entrance of the kingdom on the other
(Haupt, p. 36). It consists rather in the absolute
certainty with which the disciples are to see from the
shooting forth of the tree the nearness of summer, and
from the tribulations the nearness of the final king
dom for which they long. It is therefore unfair to
demand of the comparison more than the excellent
service which it performs for the disciples, namely,
assuring them by a palpable example drawn from

270 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [171
nature of the nearness of their deliverance just when
the affliction is greatest (cf . Luke xxi. 2 8 ; John xvi.
21, cf. Isa. x. 32 ff).
There is therefore no reason for rejecting the
interpretation indicated with special clearness in
Luke, that the afflictions guarantee the nearness of
the consummation of the kingdom, the iyyit,etv of
the icaipos (Luke xxi. 8).
On the other hand, we need not discuss whether
Haupt's exposition, which makes " the appearance of
the new kingdom of God " " with the coming of
Jesus " or " the establishment of the New Testament
community " a ground for inferring the speedy " full
realisation '' of the former, — which is, moreover, not
quite the same, — and deduces that the old temple
must cease because the new one is built (p. 38 f.), is
abstractly more suitable. From His own appearance
and the founding of His Church, Jesus very likely
inferred the full realisation of the kingdom of God,
together with the speedy decay of the old mode of
worship. But this is twofold. And, in the first
case, our view would rather be confirmed. For that
full realisation of the kingdom of God can only be
brought about by the parousia, but not by the
destruction of the temple. But if that be so, where
then is the required agreement between image and
reality ? And in this case the agreement is inade
quate even if we infer the decay of the old worship
from the budding forth of the new dispensation.
And yet the destruction of the temple does not

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 271
follow with absolute necessity even from the decay
of the old worship of God, but is at most an indirect
consequence of it.
But the interpretation seems to me above all to
be scarcely possible from an exegetic standpoint. A
parable seeks to illustrate certain relations of the
subject compared by a clear sensuous picture from
another region, and so to bring it nearer to the
understanding. Now, since these relations must as
a matter of course remain obscure and ambiguous,
unless that which is really sought to be compared is
specified, this subject is always designated in an
unmistakable way. Otherwise we would have a
riddle instead of a parable. In the parables of our
Lord, especially, there is no single instance in which
He does not expressly designate that subject. Thus
they often begin with " the kingdom of heaven is
like," etc. Now, if Haupt were right in his inter
pretation of the parable of the fig tree, then so far
would that parable have been from fulfilling its
illustrative purpose, that it would rather have re
mained, up to this last solution, an unsolved riddle
misunderstood by everybody.
But still more. The essential comparison is this :
as the budding of the tree foreannounces the summer,
so ye when ye shall see " these things " come to pass
know that " it " is nigh even at the doors. We have
hitherto been wont, in accordance with the context,
to understand by " these things " the predicted woes.
Now, even though we regard this as a false exposi-

272 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [172-173
tion on the part of the first Christians and the
Evangelists, logic requires us to understand by " these
things," since the phrase signifies the subject com
pared, something different from that with which it is
compared. This forms rather the logical subject of
the parable. And yet Haupt interprets the words
" these things " in the sentence " when ye shall see
these things come to pass " from the preceding
parable by explaining : " When ye see these things,
namely, what I have just been saying about the fig
tree in the natural sphere, and been using as a com
parison with the spiritual and historical sphere, being
accomplished in the latter, then know that here also
summer is nigh." Accordingly, Haupt seems to
supply from the foregoing the summer itself as the
subject which is "nigh even at the doors." The
tautological form of the paraphrase makes us suspect
that the distinction between comparison and thing
compared has not been carried out. For here the
subject compared, which is somehow indicated in
every other case, or is at any rate distinguished from
that with which it is compared, would require to be
taken or guessed from the parable itself — being thus
used as its own metaphor. We see, then, how far
such a construction is from furnishing the explana
tion which the comparison as such has in view.
Nothing therefore remains but to acknowledge that
the parable seeks to illustrate the sure arrival of the
parousia after the predicted tribulations.
Now, though Luke xvi. 31 clearly gives, the ex-

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 273
planation, and though it seems to be understood in
Mark and Matthew (Mark xiii. 29 f . ; Matt. xxiv.
3 3 f.), yet, on the other hand, it is quite comprehen
sible how they can here assign to the parousia essen
tially the same signs and the same time as to the
destruction of the temple or of Jerusalem. For,
according to prophetic analogy, a penal judgment on
the enemies of God outside and within Israel is wont
to precede the appearance of the final kingdom
which the prophet, as a rule, places in his own age.
Now, if the first Christians were certain that Jesus
meant to set up the final kingdom in His own day
they knew, on the other hand, as is clear from
the prophecy already referred to in Mark xiii. 2,
that He also predicted the destruction of the temple
and of Jerusalem (cf. Mark xiv. 58 ; Luke xiii. 3-5 ;
Matt, xxiii. 28-38; Luke xix. 41-44, xxi. 20, 24).
Hence it was quite in the line of prophecy to repre
sent the final judgment as taking place not long
before the appearance of the final kingdom. In like
manner, the Baptist also presupposes that the first
duty of the Messiah, when He appeared, would be to
judge the seed of Abraham (Matt. iii. 10—12).
And in Jesus' statement, Matt, xxiii. 38, 39, the
destruction of Jerusalem, which is. elsewhere pre
dicted, is no doubt to commence before the conver
sion of Israel at His return, and after the threatened
withdrawal of the divine presence, of which with
drawal it is an actual proof.

274 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [174
13. What Sort of Return of Jesus follows from the
Way in which He conceives the Relation of His
Disciples to it and prepares them for it
Let us return to Jesus' placing of the time of His
return in His own generation. Even apart from the
proof of this fact derived from the passages just dis
cussed (Mark ix. 1, xiv. 62; Matt. x. 23 ; Mark
xiii. 30), the whole way in which the Lord treats the
relation of His hearers to that event presupposes
that they, not so much in their individual capacity,
as in the sense of representing the current generation,
are to live to see the parousia. Haupt himself
admits that Jesus here always speaks in such wise,
and never expressly contemplates a longer interval
(p. 140). He further acknowledges that "everything
said about the parousia, and the events preceding it,
always appears in the second person plural, so that
the presupposition is that those addressed will live
to see it, and there is not a single passage where
account is taken of the possibility of their all being
dead before it" (p. 138). I need only call attention
to the words of the Lord already discussed in order
to confirm this judgment. Accordingly, he concludes,
it would " seem, therefore, to be possible that Jesus.
by the second person, meant His disciples, without
reflecting on the individual persons then present "
(p. 140).
After what has been said, I can only find in this
fact, which Haupt also recognises, a strong confirm-

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 275
ation of the idea that Jesus meant His eschatological
coming to take place within His own generation.
Haupt, however, to one's surprise, draws the further
inference, that He " may have thought quite gener
ally of believers" (p. 140). But why should that
which is said in reference to His present twelve
disciples be at once suited to believers of all times ?
That would require to be specially established.
Haupt supposes that it did not occur to the Lord to
reflect " whether those present would live to see the
parousia," even as representatives of their generation,
because the question of time " has no existence " for
Him (p. 141). If that really were so, then Jesus
could not have said in Mark ix. 1 that (only) some
of those around Him would live to see the coming of
the kingdom of God. Haupt himself correctly ob
serves that a "longer period" is presupposed here
(p. 145), and that the question is as to those excep
tional persons who are to live to see it (p. 140).
Accordingly, the "question of time" is undeniably
an " element in Jesus' thought," whether we think
the event means a " coming of the kingdom of God
with greater power," as Haupt does (p. 144 f.), or
the beginning of that kingdom in its final form (cf.
Haupt, p. 145), as I do.
It would indeed be a soothsaying, in contradiction
to Jesus' usual style, if He had thought of definite
individuals who were still to be alive at His coming.
Here, on the contrary, the important thing for Him
is the " expression of the triumphant assurance

276 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [175
of faith" that His own generation, humanly con
ceived, therefore, including the disciples, is not yet to
be extinct, " that men then living will get a sight of
the coming of the Son of Man" (cf. pp. 145, 138).
This, therefore, is a prediction quite on the lines
of prophecy. But precisely as such it involves an
element of time just as well, nay, quite the same ele
ment as the predictions of almost all prophets who
refer to the consummation of the kingdom. For,
as is well known, these, with specially conditioned
exceptions, likewise see its beginning on the horizon
of their own day (chap, i., second prophetic principle).
My honoured opponent must likewise acknowledge
that the question of time was an element in Jesus'
thought when He applies His prediction, " this
generation shall not pass away till all these things
be accomplished," to the destruction of Jerusalem,
which was to take place within His own generation.
Accordingly, if the Lord always speaks as if those
present would live to see His coming at the last day
(p. 140), I do not see what right Haupt has for
making Him have in view, though only unconsciously
and involuntarily, " His future Church " (p. 141), and
not rather consciously think of the present generation.
Just as little do I understand why the same investi
gator, when in one place he thinks that the question
of time was " not an element in Jesus' thought,"
should nevertheless make exceptions, nor why he
limits these only to Matt. xvi. 28, xxvi. 64 (p. 141).
Moreover, the way in which Jesus seeks to pro-

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 277
pare the disciples inwardly for the coming of the
day of His return, is of itself a sufficient proof that
He looks upon its coining in His own generation not
only as possible but as probable. Otherwise He
could not, in all those maxims and parables, have so
urgently exhorted His followers to watchfulness, lest
the day of the Lord should come upon them by
surprise. In that case the disciples did not need to
" prepare themselves for living to see it " (Haupt,
p. 141).
The exhortation to unwearied " watching " runs
through the parable of the servants and the porter
who await the return of their master, appearing four
times in five verses. And this very " watching " is
certainly a genuine idea of the parable (Mark xiii.
34-37). Jesus inculcates on His followers the same
conscientious readiness to receive their Lord in that
cognate parable of the servants who, with loins girt
and lamps burning, wait for their lord returning
from the wedding (Luke xii. 35-38).
While the wedding is only an incidental feature
of this parable, it is an essential element of the idea
pervading the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. xxv.
1—12). For here the taking part in the marriage —
that is, the joys of the Messianic kingdom — depends
upon the being prepared for the coming of the Bride
groom. That establishes its independence of the
former. That continuous readiness, however, is necessary
because the arrival of the Bridegroom may be expected

278 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [176-177
at any time, though the exact moment is unknown.
Consequently, though the closing exhortation to watch
(ver. 13) may have been added, as it does not accord
with the parable in sensuous significance, it fits at
any rate in the sense of self-discipline.
Luke xxi. 36 contains a similar exhortation to
constant watchfulness. The express reason assigned
for it here is the suddenness with which the day of
the Lord appears (ver. 34) ; the illustration of this
suddenness by the picture of a snare attesting itself
as genuine by its originality (ver. 35; cf. Weiffenbach,
pp. 288-290 ; Holtzmann, H. C, p. 270). Watch
fulness is also urged in Mark xiii. 36, that they may
not be taken unawares by His sudden arrival. And
though the context shows that the comparison of the
appearance of the Son of Man in His day with the
lightning (Luke xvii. 24) primarily denotes His being
universally seen, yet the element of suddenness can
scarcely be separated from this view.1 So, in Luke
xii. 40, the Lord likewise bases His exhortation to
constant readiness on the unexpectedness of His
appearing, which He illustrates by the comparison of
a thief breaking into the house (ver. 39, and Matt.
xxiv. 43). This is an image which recurs more than
once in the New Testament writings, and thereby
points to a genuine reminiscence (1 Thess. v. 2 f. ;
Eev. ih. 3, xvi. 15 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10). The comparison
of its arrival with the flood and the destruction of
Sodom, which surprised the thoughtless, has a similar
1 J. Weiss is of a somewhat different opinion, I.e. p. 32.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 279
meaning (Luke xvu. 26-30). For the final kingdom
does not come in a way that could have been
reckoned on beforehand (fiera irapaT-qprjaewi, John
Weiss, p. 30). Thus, in Matt. xxiv. 50, the Lord
also surprises the unfaithful servant by coming in a
day when he is not looking for Him, and in an hour
that he is not aware of. Men's ignorance of the hour
is confirmed immediately before in the parable of the
thief (Matt. xxiv. 43). And as Mark xiii. 33 assigns
ignorance of that moment as a reason for the necessity
of watching, so the preceding verse, to which we shall
immediately return, denies even to the " Son " the
knowledge of " that day or hour."
7. Jesus' Knowledge of the Day and Hour
It follows from what has already been said, that
according to Jesus' view the present generation are
to see His second coming, but yet the " day and
hour" are concealed from every one, and even from
Himself. " But of that day and hour," to give the
Lord's own words in the verse just quoted (Mark xiii.
32), "knoweth no man, no, not the angels which
are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father
only." Now, from this particular verse some have sought
to infer Jesus' consciousness of His absolute ignorance
on this point. It would then follow that that other
saying, two verses before (xiii. 30), namely, "this
generation shall yet see it," is wrongly referred to

280 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Chyist [i78
His second coming. Our whole discussion up to this
seems to make this conception impossible ; and even
this passage of itself, in my opinion, plainly points
to merely relative ignorance on the part of Jesus.
The designation of the moment which is absolutely
unknown as "day and hour," in Matt. xxiv. 50,
might perhaps (?) be directly explained by the image
of the master returning home (cf. ver. 44). But what
other meaning can this expression have in Mark xiii.
32, especially in the form "of that day or hour
knoweth no man," than that Jesus seeks to deny the
knowledge of the exact moment ? This, of course,
naturally assumes a knowledge of the general time as
tacitly contrasted with the particular. When anyone
says that he does not know the day and hour of his
death, he presupposes that he has a general knowledge
of the length of a human life. When he says he
knows not the day nor the hour of death, the declara
tion of ignorance relates to a shorter period than the
general length of life. We have, then, the idea of a
climax : I cannot tell the day or even the hour of
my death. That can only be said with the view of
disclaiming the imputation of a more exact but not
of a general knowledge, far less of absolute ignorance.
Again, if one should say, " I cannot tell the day and
hour," or even, " I cannot tell the day or hour," in
which France will perish, or, " in which the earth
will become a mass of ice," he would make himself
ridiculous. The only reason for this would be that
by using such a precise nomenclature one would

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 281
necessarily disclaim, not the possession of a general
knowledge, but the knowledge of the precise date.
Here, then, Jesus' words, that He knows not the
day nor the hour, cannot signify entire ignorance of
the date, — that would indeed be ridiculous (Haupt,
p. 39), — but ignorance of the exact moment, which
tacitly assumes a knowledge of the general time.
This assurance, therefore (rejecting the spurious
ver. 31), fits in admirably after ver. 30 to limit Jesus'
assumption that this generation will see His second
coming, so far as concerns a still more exact know
ledge of the moment.1
When Jesus further urgently enjoins His disciples
to watch for His second coming, and illustrates this
by the images of the servants who wait for the coming
of their master, the porter who watches, the virgins
who go out to meet the coming bridegroom, all this
is intelligible only if the uncertainty about the
moment of the coming is not absolute, but limited
to a presupposed definite period. The proverb,
" Hoping and waiting make fools of many," must
no doubt hold good of those who all their life expect
the arrival of an event, which may just as well fail
to come, in such wise that they are convinced of its
coming in their lifetime, and never even once suspect
that it may not come.
'Some weight should be laid on the "or" in the phrase time
"or" hour, because "and" is much more natural, and therefore an
intentional emendation of "and" seems almost impossible, and for
the same reason even a slip in writing. On the other hand, the con
verse change in D is quite natural.

282 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [179^180
But it is not merely in a general way that those
parables and sayings of the Lord show that only a
relative ignorance of the time is indicated. The
peculiarity of some of them plainly confirms this in
a special fashion. Luke xii. 38 leaves it doubtful
whether the Lord who is expected will come in the
second or third watch of the night. And in Mark
xiii. 35 He exhorts the disciples themselves to watch
fulness, on the ground that they know not whether
the Master of the house will come at even, or at
midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning. It
does not seem to me quite impossible that the two
time-designations belonged to separate parables. But
whichever of the two is dependent on the other,
there is no ground for doubting that the mode of
defining the time is original. Now, if the lack of
information as to the arrival is referred to the space
included in the (four) night watches, the night again
appears as a definite period within which alone the
time of coming can reasonably be expected.
Thus the genuine parables and sayings of the Lord
that have anything to do with the moment of His
second coming confirm the result we have reached.
It is indeed to take place within the generation then
living, but no more exact date can be fixed. For
that very reason the disciples must be always on
their guard lest they be surprised by its unexpected
appearance. When the first Christians — all of whom, as I have
shown, really expected that return in their own

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 283
generation — were at length undeceived, they were
compelled by the firmness of their belief in Jesus'
prediction to suppose that the Lord Himself con
templated the possibility of a delay. Alongside of
the prevailing supposition that the second coming
within the period named would take place sooner
than was expected, we now find also some hints to
the effect that it may be delayed longer than one
thinks or hopes. It would therefore be natural to
question the originality of such views, and to deduce
the expression of them in the Gospels from the
above - mentioned disappointment of the early
Christian communities. Words such as the remark
in Matt. xxv. 19, that the Lord would return "after
a long time," might in themselves perhaps favour
that idea as the parallel parable, in Luke xix., knows
nothing of it in the corresponding passage, although
it also does speak (ver. 12) of the nobleman travelling
into " a far country."
However, we must remember that in Jesus' pre
diction the day of His return is preceded by fearful
miseries, especially for His disciples (Mark xiii. 9-13 ;
Matt. x. 17-22, cf. v. 11 f.). In such times, there
fore, they must have longed for the end of the
tribulation that the coming of their Lord was to
bring (Luke xvii. 22 f.). But then they naturally
felt that it was too long in coming. Hence the
Lord had every reason, in view of such times, to
exhort His followers to persevering patience, lest
they should forfeit the salvation of their souls (Luke

284 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [isi
xxi. 19 ; Mark xiii. 20). This easily explains Jesus'
allusions to the fear of the disciples that He may
delay His coming, e.g., in the parable of the ten
virgins (Matt. xxv. 5), as well as in Matt. xxiv. 48
and Luke xviii. 7. It was also in accordance with
His standpoint, in presence of such despair, to point
out that the expected event would soon (iv Ta'^et)
occur; even though the corresponding saying in
Luke xviii. 8 should prove an interpolation in the
present context, and should be not quite original in
form.

8. The Possibility of the Prediction of the Second
Coming from the Standpoint of Psychology
Having exegetically established the fact that
Jesus meant to come again in His own generation,
we must now give a deeper psychological proof, as
the objections to its possibility are usually made
from this very side. Haupt, in reference to Mark
ix. 1, cannot explain how Jesus "could have fixed
a time so definitely as to be certain that some,
and only some, would live to see the parousia "
(p. 145). Here, as we have already seen, there can
be no thought of reckoning individual persons. The
content of this saying is rather the same as the
corresponding one in Mark xiii. 30, that the present
generation is not to be extinct before Jesus comes.
But He might, at least, just as well have expected
this as that the destruction of Jerusalem should take

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 285
place in that generation. And yet Haupt himself
thinks that He reckoned on that. But though the
Jews' hatred of their oppressors might have pointed
to a rising against Eome, and therefore to a complete
break-up of the nation and destruction of its capital
in that generation, there was also a possibility of its
turning out different. Here also there was no sign of
the time which gave Jesus an absolute assurance that
the issue must necessarily be just this. He could only
in the last instance have drawn the proper prophetic
conviction from moral and religious grounds. To
Him, in judging of Jerusalem's fate, the determining
factor must have been the necessity of a divine
requital because of the final rejection of the religious
mission by the Jewish nation. Because it rejected
its Messiah it must itself be rejected.
But we must remember here that ignorance of
the time of such events is a characteristic limitation
of all prophecy. And this holds good of more than
the destruction of Jerusalem, the time of which was
predicted by Micah, e.g., 120 years too early, that
is, altogether incorrectly. This defect is still more
prominent as regards the time of the consummation
of the kingdom. The expectation that it will begin
at least at the end of one's own age is such a
regular error of the prophets, that it would have
been surprising if it had not been found in Jesus
likewise. And indeed, as I have repeatedly em
phasised, just because, however important the thing
might be in itself, the time of its appearance had

286 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [is2
no immediate moral and religious significance, and
therefore no bearing on Jesus' proper calling as
Saviour. Because He concentrated all His interests
on His calling, He could at bottom only have had a
receptive relation to other domains of thought, and
therefore frankly accepted the sacred tradition re
garding points like these which did not lie within
His own special sphere.1
This could not by any means, as Haupt supposes
(p. 139), have led Him to think only of "what His
calling required." For there were many thoughts
which lay indeed outside the circle of His immediate
religious ideas, but yet bordered on it, and to which,
therefore, the conditions, circumstances, and current
notions must necessarily have led Him. And then
He could all the less have had an independent and
authoritative judgment in those other spheres, the
farther from and the more foreign to His interest
the things in question were. The result of this
could not have been, as Haupt will have it, a freedom
from error, but a naive dependence on the ideas of
others, especially on sacred subjects, and a series of
artless errors. He could only in the end have been
preserved from incorrect notions in virtue of His
most peculiar and perfect communion with God, and
therefore also only with regard to moral and
religious things.
Though the Lord, therefore, was conscious of being
unable to state the exact time, — a sign of the
1 Unless He had special grounds foT not doing so.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 287
thorough conscientiousness of His thinking, — He
could hardly help, especially from His view of in
spiration, assuming that the final kingdom would
appear in the lifetime of His own generation, just
as the prophets had always done. But, just because
He only dwelt upon an idea when the circumstances
and data led directly to it (cf. Haupt, p. 139), He had
no occasion to reflect whether the period would not
perhaps extend beyond a single generation (Haupt,
p. 138). On the other hand, there is no reason why He
should not have uttered what He really thought
when answering the disciples' question, though
indeed not so categorically as seems to be the case
in the interpolated verse, Mark xiii. 31. Had He
staked Heaven and earth upon the certainty that
His return, or even the destruction of Jerusalem,
would take place in that generation, it would have
displayed an undue self-confidence in His knowledge
which could not but have tarnished His moral
purity. He might indeed have pledged Heaven and
earth for the victory of His cause ; but He must
have felt that He lacked the moral and religious
guarantee for the time, which had nothing to do, or
only indirectly, with that victory in itself. Such a
view would contain a misjudgment of the character
of Jesus. But there were general and special reasons for
His not becoming conscious of that error regarding
the time which He shared with the prophets.

288 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ \m
Who would like even now to estimate with cer
tainty the length of time required to mature man's
earthly development, according to the concrete
arrangement of circumstances as guided by divine
providence ? We must confess that even yet our
survey of the plan of the world is but very partial.
How easy is it to leave out of account a factor
which overthrows our whole reckoning !
If we consider how little the men of that day
were capable of understanding the various circum
stances that influence the development of events
and the limits of their geographical and historical
horizon, then Jesus, as a child of His time, could
not possibly have known any better than His con
temporaries the conditions on which great outward
occurrences depend.
If the more cultured Paul was perfectly confident
that he would live to see the day of Jesus' second
coming, Jesus' view of this subject, the correct estima
tion of which is so much dependent on historical
erudition and ripeness of pragmatic judgment, was
probably still less influenced by the different conditions
of the case. And if Paul expected beforehand the
evangelising of the whole earth, that is, within his
generation (Eom. xi. 25, cf. i. 8, xv. 16, 23 f.), much
more might Jesus have contemplated the final pro
clamation of the gospel to the people of Israel
within this period. For, as we have seen, a mission
to the Gentiles in the proper sense never entered
into His thought.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 289
But there are special reasons in Jesus' own
peculiar character which must have prevented His
judgment on this matter from going beyond that of
His time. He, in particular, had neither the duty nor
any occasion for reflecting upon the realisation of
human powers in general, both in the individual and
in the race, or on the development of all the forces
that can be set free in the present era. The only
question for Him, as a religious genius and practical
Shepherd of souls, was the religious tendency and the
goal of this movement.
Besides, He knew and prized the efficiency of the
divine word and spirit as one to which all things are
possible (Mark x. 27, cf. ix. 23).
It may be thought that a man like Jesus, who
took such large, broad, and deep views of things,
could not have believed that, seeing the preparation
for the coming of the final kingdom had required
thousands of years, it would now begin at latest a
generation after His appearance. But the very
length of the time of preparation, together with the
fact that His brief ministry must by God's decree
essentially suffice for the sowing, might naturally
have led Him to expect, especially towards the end
of His activity, that the harvest was not far off
(cf. John iv. 35 ff, xii. 23, 31).
Further, as the pious longing of the prophets
involuntarily shortened the time between them and
the consummation, so the longing of the Sinless
Saviour, who suffered unspeakably from the im-
J9

290 The Prophecies of Jesus Clirist [is4-i85
perfection of this seon and the sinfulness of men,
His expectation of a final conquest of moral and
physical evil, and the consequent attainment of the.
goal of His mission, must have made Him outrun
history. The very pious up to our own day have
often, for similar reasons, believed that the returning
Lord was at the doors.
But if the prophets, as practical pastors, were
wont to postpone the anticipated judgment of God
and time of salvation, or even the final kingdom
itself, to the end of their own age at most, — apart
from specially conditioned exceptions, — Jesus had a
sufficient reason for expecting the appearance of the
final kingdom at latest by the end of His own
generation. That reason lies in His personal position
towards this kingdom, and contains the whole truth
of the matter. For the Lord knew that the kingdom
of God was already present in His own appearance
(see 7, 1 8 1 ff). Even now God communicated to men,
inwardly at least, the greatest blessing of salvation,
full communion with Himself, through Jesus. The
future would only bring its perfect form. Thus far
only one thing was still needful in Jesus' view.
After He had passed to God's right hand as a
glorified Messiah, the disciples, as His successors,
must once more and finally offer salvation to the
nation of Israel which had rejected Him (Matt.
x. 23).
And in reality that crowning of the world's
history that was longed for and promised by the

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 291
prophets, and after which nothing essentially new
in this respect can any longer arise, had at bottom —
that is, morally and religiously — taken place with
His appearance.
Hence Jesus, who knew that all predictions were
fulfilled in Himself, and was convinced of the re
ligious finality of the new time ushered in by Him,
could scarcely conceive that this would not also be
final in a temporal sense, that is, would bring the
predicted end of the world. For His conviction
that the spiritual completion of the world had now
begun with Him, which was the expression of His
Messianic consciousness, could not fail to exert a
decisive influence as regards the closely allied con
ception of the end of the world.
We can easily understand, then, how far He must
have been from thinking that He could be mistaken
in fixing the time of His return within that gen
eration. That He should have had no such idea
cannot perhaps be regarded as absolutely unavoid
able. For man is not a sum in arithmetic. But
we understand how, as a matter of fact, His strong
faith in God's omnipotence and in His own mission,
along with His position as f ulfiller of the prophetic
prediction, regarded from His standpoint in respect
of revelation, combined with the general human and
prophetic limitations in hindering the rise of such
a thought. From all this, then, it is evident that we must
recognise the fact that Jesus was unquestionably

292 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [iso
deceived with regard to the time of His second
coming. Before estimating the importance of this
fact, however, we must examine two ways by which
some seek to avoid this deduction.

e. Weiffenbach 's Ldentification of the Prediction of the
Resurrection and that of the Second Coming
Weiffenbach assumes that by His return in that
generation Jesus meant His resurrection (pp. 373-
424). This hypothesis, however, notwithstanding
the acuteness with which it is argued, lacks suffi
cient biblical proof. If, in Mark viii. 27 -ix. 1,
Jesus' prediction of His personal coming stands in
continuous connection with that of His resurrec
tion (viii. 31), the originality of that connection
has at least become questionable, especially since
Erich Haupt (cf. Haupt, pp. 10-12). But even
apart from that, Weiffenbach cannot at once con
clude that they coincide because the Evangelist
does not here indicate that the two things are
to be thought apart (p. 393). This might even
have been omitted because the distinction between
them is self-evident. And so it is; for by the
" coming of the kingdom " (Mark ix. 1), or " coming
in His kingdom" (Matt.), Jesus cannot mean His
resurrection, because this of itself does not at all
involve His founding of the kingdom. And if
(only) some are to live to see this coming (ix. 1),
it follows undeniably that Jesus did not expect this

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 293
return in a few days, and therefore cannot possibly
have meant by it a resurrection after three days.
And yet this fixing of the time to the effect that
only some are to live to see it, is the less questionable
because it is almost verbally confirmed by Mark
xiii. 30.
On the other hand, when in Luke xvii. 24 the
Lord compares the return of the Son of Man to
the lightning which shines from one part of heaven
to the other, and then continues (ver. 25), "But first
must He suffer many things, and be rejected of
this generation," the meaning manifestly is, that
His sufferings and death must necessarily take place
before the consoling prospect of Jesus' second coming
can be realised (cf. ver. 22). Yet the word " before "
declares nothing about the interval which is to elapse
between death and second coming. Weiffenbach,
therefore, has no right to conclude that the occur
rence of the latter event immediately after His
death is here taken for granted, and therefore that
the resurrection, " as an intermediate term between
death and second coming, is excluded by the context
and wording" (p. 393 ff). On the contrary, the
second coming here cannot mean the resurrection.
This at once follows from the fact that a universal
visibility is ascribed to this coming by its comparison
with the lightning (ver. 24).
If Jesus' prediction of a second coming had re
ferred to His resurrection, then, with the prospect
of such a speedy return, He could not have warned

294 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [iw
His disciples repeatedly, with such emphasis and
minute discrimination of time, not to allow them
selves to be surprised by the day, especially as
He makes their eternal destiny to depend on the
degree of their watchfulness and preparation.1
Our discussion of the prediction of the resurrec
tion will have exposed another error of Weiffenbach,
on which he rests his view. He supposes that the
content of the prediction of the resurrection, so far
as it is critically established, does not go beyond
that of the second coming, as their common content
is " the victorious restitution of the Messianic cause
and person of Jesus." We found, however, no reason
why Jesus should merely have uttered the prediction
of the resurrection in a vaguer form than that which
is handed down. On the contrary, we saw that,
according to the standard of contemporary notions,
and in virtue of what was from a human standpoint
a very possible expectation, He must have conceived
it essentially as we find it in the New Testament.
On the other hand, He must not only have ex
pected the resurrection for Himself, but He must
have looked for its glorious perfection through His
risen personality on behoof of His kingdom. And
that is not contained in the resurrection of itself.
That primarily concerns His person only, and is
itself again only a means for that setting up of
the kingdom. Now, what could induce us to dis-
1 Observe especially the above time specification, "after three

Jesus' Prediction of His Second' Coming 295
pute the separate prediction of His second coming
for the purpose of setting up the kingdom, when we
see from the situation in which Jesus was placed
and the views of His contemporaries the necessity
of His expectation therein expressed ?
The main defect of Weiffenbach manifestly is,
that he detaches the second coming from its pur
pose and goal, which is plainly the setting up of
the kingdom. He can only identify it with the
prediction of the resurrection by means of this
detachment and by the ingenious, rejection of other
distinctions. Now, although there is no such identity, . yet
Weiffenbach comes near the truth in respect of
their being, as we saw, originally very closely con
nected as means and end. For Jesus meant to rise
from the dead for the very purpose of setting up
the kingdom. Hence also the disciples at first
supposed that the Eisen One would immedia.tely
proceed to set up the kingdom (Acts i. 6).
Though they were nevertheless speedily satisfied
with Jesus' words, which reserved to the Father the
more exact time of setting up the kingdom (Mark
xiii 32 ; Acts i. 7), they drew all the deeper assur
ance from that other saying of the Lord which
promised that the goal they longed for would be
reached in the lifetime of that generation.

296 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [188-189
t,. B. Weiss' Conception of the Non-Fulfilment of the
Time fixed by Jesus for His Return
Weiffenbach's identification of the prediction of
resurrection and return was meant to avert an
error of Jesus regarding the time of His return
(pp. 421—424). B. Weiss admits the fact that the
Lord expected and predicted His personal eschato
logical return in the hfetime of His own generation,1
but yet controverts the idea that this view of Jesus
involves an error. To the Lord, indeed, he says
the appearance of the final kingdom in that genera
tion was an expectation based on " well-established
assumptions." Nay, it is as certain to Him as
the " unchangeable decree of God " itself, so that, in
the view of Jesus, God can as little dispense with
the one as with the other (Life of Jesus, vol. hi.
p. 92 ff, cf . p. 266; Biblical Theology of the New
Testament, § 33). But yet the Lord Himself seems
to regard " all categorical certainty as to the period
within which His return must take place as defin
itely excluded." We cannot, therefore, speak of an
error. But is not that certainty of Jesus, established by
Weiss, that the consummation of salvation will
appear in His own generation, as categorical as pos
sible, according to his own showing? How can such
a firm conviction have left the " possibility " open
1 Cf. the striking proof which he gives, e.g., in Life of Jesus,
vol. iii. pp. 80-97.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 297
" that God's inscrutable decree may yet postpone
that consummation " ? (p. 308 f.).
This union of two such incompatible moods in the
self-consciousness of Jesus presupposes, however, a
unique apprehension of the relation of fulfilment to
prediction with which I am unable to agree. It
seems to me that Weiss overestimates the influence
that the freedom and present moral conduct of men
have in conditioning and modifying the divine de
crees, and at the same time leaves too much out of
account the past of the generations in question (cf.
Life of Jesus, vol. iii. p. 92 ff). The mutability of
God's predicted purposes is, however, by no means
an unqualified one. There are also predictions whose
fulfilment is not subject to any possibility of change.
In many passages the prophets declare the destruc
tion of Jerusalem as a fate that is quite inevitable.
Manifestly, therefore, Jesus' prediction that He
would return within that present generation — a pre
diction which He uttered before the Sanhedrim in
the most solemn moments and in prospect of death —
does not admit of the assumption that He limited
His prophetic foresight in this respect.1 The Syn
optics do not furnish the shghtest ground for the
assumption that He considered men's conduct as
capable of modifying the time, or even of postponing
it for thousands of years. Of course the fulfilment
of this prediction also is subject to moral conditions.
1 See p. 290 f. , where it is shown why Jesus was not aware of
this error.

298 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ ' [190
The condition lies in the rejection and putting to
death of the Saviour by the Jewish people, which
would necessitate His return. But this condition is
fully taken into account here, and cannot be viewed
by Jesus as standing in the way of the execution of
the " unchangeable " decrees of God.
Nay, He was convinced that the consummation
of salvation would commence in His generation,
although at that time it was not even possible. The
incorrectness of His notion, therefore, is pretty far-
reaching, though I do not believe the self-assur
ance of Jesus was so great as Weiss assumes (see
above, p. 188).
To put it more exactly : Jesus' certainty of the
matter was categorical in so far as He never even
suspected that it could come otherwise, but rather
assumed the time with perfect frankness. The rea
sons just adduced, however, show that a categorical
certainty that He could not be mistaken on this point
had no existence at all. Moreover, the incorrectness
of a notion determines the error; the degree of the
objective incorrectness its greatness, and the degree
of personal self-assurance its strength.
Let us, however, fix our attention once more on
the possibility of the thing itself. Who would
seriously carry his idea as to the possibility of men's
conduct modifying the divine plan of salvation so far,
as to believe that it was indeed the original plan of God
to make the return of Jesus take place within His own
generation, but its execution was prevented by special

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 299
hindrances of " historical development," which were
not dependent on God alone ? (Life of Jesus, vol. iii.
p. 93). Was it, then, objectively possible that Jesus'
return, and with it the consummation of the world,
should begin in the time of Jesus' generation ? that
is, at a moment when the greatest part of the earth
had no knowledge of the Saviour, and could not have
obtained it in such a short space of time ? when
the development of human history had certainly not
yet reached its maturity ? (cf. Mark iv. 29). But if,
again, we cannot admit the possibility of that, we
cannot deny that Jesus was mistaken on this point.
And so even this ingenious expedient of the celebrated
exegete fails.1
(e) The Significance of the Non-Fxdfilmcnt of Part
of the Prediction of the Second Coming
We have seen that Jesus, in accordance with the
meaning of His prediction of return and the general
belief of early Christendom, intended to come again
1 The "negatively ascetic" (p. 42) deductions which J. Weiss
(Predigt Jesu, pp. 42-50) draws from this eschatological position
of Jesus, have already had their importance estimated, and their
onesidedness corrected and completed, byE. Ehrhardt (I.e. p. 115 ff.),
and Titius (I.e. pp. 67-87), so that I can here leave them out of account.
The religious content of Jesus' primitive revelation, which was in keep
ing with the divinity of His person, was necessarily more important,
not only theoretically, but still more in respect to practical morality,
than the eschatological form. He who possesses the divine life can
also appreciate the eternal content of the earthly, the perishable, and
sinful life (specially opposed to p. 48 ; cf. also J. Weiss, D. Nachfolge
Christi, p. 24 f.).

300 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [wi
from Heaven within that generation in a spiritual
body and with divine majesty, in order to set up the
final kingdom on the glorified earth. Though the
spiritual body seems to correspond to the glorifica
tion of Jesus' humanity, yet His idea on this point
also cannot be absolutely authoritative, as the ques
tion has no immediate moral and religious value.
On the other hand, so far as I can judge, human
knowledge is too limited to be able to decide with
certainty whether the personal descent of Christ in
a spiritual body for the setting up of the final king
dom on the glorified earth will be fulfilled, j
But even though this assumption of the Lord
could be proved incorrect, it would not in any case
bring upon Him the reproach of presumption and
fanaticism. For the impropriety here does not apply
to the contents, but only to the form of the notion.
He really knew that He was the absolute Mediator
of salvation, through whose person, therefore, salva
tion must undoubtedly be brought to men (cf. Weif
fenbach, p. 399; Baldensperger, 2nd ed., p. 257).
The connection, therefore, of the " ideal state of
recompense " with His person, was a statement of the
truth (this is opposed to Strauss, Leben Jesu fur das
deutsche Volk, p. 242). He did not, therefore, over
estimate His personal significance in ascribing to
Himself that mighty superhuman position which God
Himself had assigned to Him and made His task.
There might perhaps be a limitation of His con
ception in the fact that He expected to come back

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 301
personally. But if the divine content of this idea is
free from all taint of self-conceit, so also is the worthy
though religiously indifferent form of its realisation.
And yet this very form seems to be inevitable, from
the fact that Jesus was subject to the psychological
conditions of His time. For no one knew of a
Messiah who would not personally set up His king
dom. Hence Jesus could hardly have held the
modern abstraction of an impersonal founding of the
kingdom of Heaven, even assuming it to be correct,
especially when we consider the actual importance of
His personality for that kingdom and its consum
mation. On the contrary, His idea of the divine
omnipotence, of the Messiah and His kingdom, of
prophecy and its inspiration, undoubtedly made it
self-evident to Him that He personally would found
the kingdom (cf. also Keim, I.e. iii. 219). Nor, indeed,
for that reason, does the fact that He considered it
necessary to return in person, as Keim supposes,
furnish a sign of special humility (I.e. p. 220).
If the Lord expected to come again in person, we
cannot set it down as presumption on His part that
this coming was to be in divine glory. The bestowal
of that for the divine purpose of founding the king
dom could alone correspond to the majesty of God.
It would have been a sign of presumption if He had
ascribed that majesty to His own human ability.
But here, as everywhere, He knew that He was not
the Author but only the Mediator and instrument
for carrying out the divine plan of salvation. Hence

302 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [192-193
this view is rather a proof of His immovable faith
which could not have entertained a doubt of God's
omnipotence. But we can as little find fanaticism as presump
tion in the form of Jesus' expectation of His second
coming. We have not here an exuberant feeling,
flushed perhaps with pride, producing fantastic
notions. No ; He who gave Himself in complete
humihty and self-sacrifice to the divine work of
setting up the kingdom, whose purity of heart had
always ensured for Him the chastest sobriety of
feeling untouched by fantasy, found in the notion of
His coming again in divine glory the fitting way in
which God Himself would lead humanity to its
highest goal through Him.
The angel retinue may perhaps be a later addi
tion ; but if that be not the case, they Were not
His but God's angels. The accompanying clouds, on
the other hand, illustrated, as we have already urged,
the divine authority of His commission. Even
though taken literally, they would simply present a
childlike but not a fantastic feature — a feature in
keeping with the childlike view of a time which, for
example, found no difficulty in the story of Elias
ascending to Heaven in a chariot of fire.
Again, if there is nothing fanatical in the idea of
the spiritual body and of a glorification of the earth
as a fitting dwelling-place for glorified spirits,
neither is there anything fanatical in the idea of
Jesus coming again in a spiritual body to . the

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 303
glorified earth, whether the idea be correct or
not. In this point also, which had no religious
importance, Jesus' notion was naturally dependent
on the general view of the prophets and Pharisees,
as well as of the whole pious people of His day, who
laid the scene of the final kingdom on the earth
(cf. a and b).
It is possible that in the case of such metaphysical
and other notions as transcended all experience and
had no religious significance, such as the body of
the future, the nature of the final kingdom, and the
like, perfect clearness and unity of view did not
altogether appertain to Jesus. For He had neither
capacity, nor need, nor occasion, nor call to seek for
Himself or others a more exact insight into such
things. For He did not, of course, regard all ideas of
that kind as being absolutely guaranteed in the same
way as He looked upon His personal coming again
within that generation. The more detailed features,
especially, which could not have had any firm support
in prophecy or in the form of His Messianic con
sciousness, may have been regarded by Him, if He
chanced to think of it, as only problematic.
Now, whether Jesus' eschatological return in a
spiritual body to the glorified earth may correspond
to God's decree or not, He was mistaken, if my
discussion is in order, with regard to the time of His
return, which He placed in the Ufetime of His own
generation. Moreover, the imperfection of the
notion is specifically prophetic, both as regards the

304 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [194
manner in which the final kingdom appears and the
moment of its appearance (cf. i. 1 0 f.).
At any rate, this error of Jesus is in no way of
greater significance and range than the incorrectness
of the notion that His mission in hfe was to fight
against a personal super-earthly kingdom of evil
spirits. The inappropriate element of this idea1 also
is indeed only the form of the truth that He as
Messiah was destined to be the thorough conqueror
of evil in the world, and this form has no immediate
rehgious importance. But the special aspect which
the conviction received here, under the influence of
the Persian doctrine of demons, is undoubtedly more
closely connected with its religious contents than
the time of the consummation of salvation is with
that consummation itself. For if, in the former
case, the question is as to the proper form of the
matter itself, in the latter it is only the time of its
accomplishment. GENERAL SUMMARY
Let us now gather up the result with regard to
Jesus' prediction of His second coming. It is a
well-known fact of Church history that the whole of
early Christendom looked forward to the coming of
the Lord for the purpose of setting up the kingdom
of God in its final form in the lifetime of that
generation. We may at once conjecture that this
1 The proof of this would be too prolix here.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 305
view is derived from the apostles themselves. And
in point of fact it is confirmed as genuinely apostolic
by the testimony of the entire New Testament
writings. If we examine first of all the extra-synoptic
passages, we see that the personal Christ is expected
to descend visibly from Heaven in divine majesty, in
order to hold the final judgment as God's repre
sentative, and, after the transformation of the old
earth into a new one, to set up and rule the king
dom of the consummation as a universal kingdom,
though in a theocratic form. The day of the return
itself appears as a definite point of time not far off,
which takes place within the present generation and
begins the new eeon.
If we compare this picture of the second coming
with that which is presented in the Synoptics, the
latter is of special importance, because the point
here dealt with is the view which is ascribed to the
Lord Himself by the Evangelists, that is, by the
tradition of the early Church. And we find that
this view agrees in all essential respects with what
we have already shown to be the conception of the
other New Testament writers, both as regards the
aim, the form, and the time of His second coming.
Before undertaking this proof, however, it was
necessary to examine Jesus' personal conception of
the kingdom of God and His position towards it.
For that must specially have conditioned His judg
ment about the setting up of this kingdom, including

306 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [195
its final form ; in other words, about the appearance
of the kingdom in its final form, and therefore about
His second coming. Hence we examined in the
first place Jesus' notion of the kingdom of God in
general, and found this in the complete dominion of
God, in the perfect victory of the divine saving will.
The kernel of that as a relation of the personal God
to personal spirits could only have been an inward
and religious one. But this relation must have
attained its consummation in a heavenly form,
which corresponded to the inner contents. Then,
on the basis of the Synoptics, we established, in
opposition to modern denials, the fact that Jesus,
even in His lifetime, was conscious of being the
actual personal Messiah, not merely the Heir to the
throne, but the King of this kingdom. This led us
to investigate the question, which is much discussed
at present, as to whether the kingdom of God was
viewed by Jesus as already incipiently present in its
essential elements, or whether He regarded it as
something exclusively future. The former view was
forced upon us as the result of exegesis. It was
forced upon us, above all, because, in view of certain
unquestionable sayings of the Lord (Matt, xii 28 ;
Luke xvii. 21), its opponents were themselves com
pelled to abandon their own theory ; and secondly,
because it is undeniably clear from other passages
that Jesus was conscious that His own coming began
the time of salvation, that the Spirit of God was
bestowed on Him, and that in the power of that

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 307
Spirit He was conqueror of the kingdom of Satan,
of moral and physical evil. However, it is only on
psychological grounds that we can understand why
Jesus necessarily believed the kingdom of God to be
already present. This necessity followed from the
fact that He could only have gained the consciousness
of His position as religious Mediator from the primi
tive revelation of His divine Sonship. Possessed of
complete personal salvation, bestowed on Him by the
divine saving will completely realised in Himself, — a
fact which directly impelled Him to communicate
that salvation to men, — He must necessarily have
discovered that redemption to be the essential kernel
of the divine dominion. Hence, as the bringer of
this very salvation to His people by word and work,
He must have known that He was even now the
founder and ruler of the final kingdom in God's stead,
though it was still in an imperfect form. This
conception of His Messiahship as already essentially
present was then illustrated in various aspects by
comparison with recent theological conceptions.
Consequently, although the kingdom of God, in
its essential, inner, religious content, already existed
in Christ and had been founded by Him, yet its
perfect form, which was to be brought about by God
alone, could only be expected in the future. In this
sense Christ repeatedly predicted its coming. And,
indeed, as He knew that it was connected with Him
self personally as its founder, it could only have
come in perpetuity with Him and through Him as

308 The Ptophecies of Jesus Christ [196-197
the chosen instrument and the perfect Mediator of
the divine dominion. But this future establish
ment of the divine kingdom in its final form must
necessarily have grown into a second coming, as
soon as He could no longer hope to assume the
government of it in this completed form in His
lifetime. And this brings us to the setting up of
the kingdom as the purpose of His second coming.
He had, indeed, no occasion to assume from the
first that He would be enabled to do this by an
ascension to heaven. But as soon as He contem
plated His execution, He could only have expected
that assumption of the kingdom to be effected by His
glorified personality which had passed through death.
For that purpose He desired to come in actual
bodily form from heaven.
The form in which He viewed the second coming
will be determined by the shape in which He
imagined the final kingdom itself. We see from
the evidence of incontestable passages, that He con
ceived it as a dominion over a heavenly earth,
which He desired to govern surrounded by His
apostles. It extends to the whole world, but has
nevertheless a theocratic form. In this respect,
therefore, Jesus preserves the limits which He so
emphatically enjoined on the disciples when sending
them out upon their mission. Nay, they are still to
be engaged in that very work at His return. That
destroys the preconceived notion that the historical
Jesus contemplated a real mission to the Gentiles.

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 309
Even the commission of the Eisen One in reference
to that can hardly be genuine (Matt, xxviii. 1 9 f.).
For we cannot conceive how it was possible for the
entire early Church not only to ignore it in the way
it did, but to resist the untheocratic mission of Paul
to the Gentiles. Jesus must therefore have con
ceived the conversion of the Gentiles, and this again
in keeping with the old prophets, as taking place
with the beginning of the final form of the kingdom,
and as an indirect or direct consequence of His
return ; that is, so far as He reflected at all on the
form — which had no religious importance — of the
incorporation of the Gentiles with the kingdom of
God. This theocratic form of the final dominion is
therefore confirmed by the other side of the matter,
namely, that Jesus, likewise in genuine prophetic
manner, regarded the earth, though in a glorified
shape, as the place of His dominion.
The individual forms, indeed, in which He con
ceived and represented the new life, can only have
had for Him the value of pictures — pictures, how
ever, in keeping with the transformation of earth
and the spiritual body of the Eisen One, not of
purely spiritual and heavenly realities, but of a blend
ing of spiritual and corporeal, of heavenly and
earthly realities. Though He measures, estimates,
and modifies the whole saving content of the sacred
tradition by the standard of His infallible revelation
and the principles of His rehgious view of things,

310 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [198
one cannot see how this should have led Him to
.change right off those forms which had no religious
importance and at the same time were worthy of
their content, or to regard them as mere pictures
of purely spiritual things and events.
Hence Jesus' heavenly dominion of earth is not to
be reduced to a mere transcendent scene of final
judgment, since He, following the lines of the whole of
prophecy, certainly conceived that judgment to be a
Messianic function which essentially belonged to Him
and pertained to the form of the setting up of His
kingdom. For this notion also contained the true
religious kernel of His primitive revelation, namely,
that the final decision as to men's eternal destiny
belonged to Him as the only Mediator of salvation
in God's stead.
To this notion of Jesus as to His setting up the
kingdom must correspond the conception which He
had as to the manner of His coming. Though the
clouds of heaven with which He thought He would
appear only symbolised to Him the divine majesty
of His commission, yet He could not possibly have
taken His coming itself as a mere super-earthly one,
and this simply because it mediated to Him the
entrance on His heavenly dominion of earth. It
must rather have been through a spiritualised
material medium, in keeping with His glorified body,
and been at one and the same time the starting-
point of Heaven and the goal of the glorified
earth,

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 311
At any rate, His " spiritual " coming must be con
ceived as quite different from this eschatological one.
The idea of the so-called " historical " coming, by
which is usually understood a continuous coming,
or, more definitely, a series of periodically returning
beginnings and preparations for His final coming,
cannot be established by exegesis, and does not
correspond to Jesus' general idea of His parousia.
Neither Luke xvii. 22 nor Matt. xxvi. 64 proves the
contrary. But the variation of this view, which
makes it a growth of the Church which, according
to Mark ix. 1, would come with power, cannot be
justified by Jesus' conception, or by the connection
of this passage. Here also it is not so much a
period as a moment that is contemplated, and that,
too, the moment of His one final return.
Finally, the interpretation of the destruction of
Jerusalem as a historical parousia has now been
mostly given up, especially since it cannot find
support even in Mark xiii.
The assumption that Jesus knew of a " historical "
return beside the eschatological one, but that the
disciples misunderstood it in the latter sense, is one
which is specially meant to avert a painful conclu
sion. If Jesus expressly meant His eschatological
coming in those passages in which He promised to
come again within His own generation, then we
would have to admit the incorrectness of this notion
of the time of His return. This brings us to the
most difficult problem of the promise of return,

312 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [199
namely, the question as to the time when Jesus
viewed it as taking place. Since, as we have seen,
Mark ix. 1 should be taken eschatologically, the
words (only) "some" of those surrounding Jesus
were to live to see His return, prove that He really
did assume the time expressed. Yet He does not,
of course, like a soothsayer, think of definite indi
viduals, but those surrounding Him represent His
Jewish contemporaries.
This view is strongly confirmed by the passage
already referred to, Matt. x. 23. Jesus' threat
addressed to His judges that they shall personally
see Him coming in the clouds of heaven, is also
indirectly in favour of it (Mark xiv. 62).
Finally, Jesus declares in Mark xiii. 30, in exact
keeping with Mark ix. 1, that "this generation"
shall not pass away till all these things be accom
plished. This, of course, has been frequently referred
to the destruction of Jerusalem. To all appearance,
however, its original meaning points likewise to the
parousia. Nothing certain, indeed, can be concluded
from the non-authentic connection of the verse. Yet
it is important to notice that Jesus, for reasons that
can be easily explained, frequently considers or pre
supposes the moment of His return as one to be
expected soon, while He scarcely once takes any
notice of the time of that destruction elsewhere.
If, on the other hand, it should be urged that the
parable of the budding fig tree, which precedes our
saying, is in close connection with it, and that since

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 313
this parable refers not to the last day, but rather to
the Jewish catastrophe, the saying quoted probably
refers to the same thing, we would have to reply as
follows. The originality of the connection cannot
indeed be guaranteed even here. Yet if this be
admitted, the connection, on the contrary, rather
favours the contention that our Lord's words are
to be understood as referring to the parousia.
At least the parable of the fig tree is very well
suited to this, while Haupt's application of it to
the destruction of Jerusalem not only seems to be
artificial, but scarcely possible exegetically. No
doubt the point of comparison is between the
budding of the fig tree before the summer and
the tribulations which precede the final kingdom,
and does not consist in a similarity of the forces
which produce the blossom and the summer on the
one hand, the miseries and the final kingdom on the
other; nor is it found in the outward nearness of
the budding of the tree and summer in the one case
and the final tribulation and the appearance of the
kingdom on the other. What is meant is rather the
inevitable certainty with which summer follows the
sprouting of the tree, and the coming of the woes is
to guarantee the approach of the kingdom. That is
the very thing that contains the great consolation
which the disciples most needed in that time of need.
On the other hand, that other interpretation is
opposed not only by the obscurity and tautological
form which would then adhere to the parable, but,

314 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [200
above all, by the fact that we would here have to
borrow or guess the object compared from the
parable itself as its own metaphor, whereas this
object in other cases is always distinguished from
that with which it is compared. And this would
run counter to all parable formation.
But even apart from the passages adduced, in
which it plainly appears that Jesus expected His
parousia in the lifetime of His own generation, the
same assumption follows from the way in which He
always treats the relation of those He addresses to
that future event. It is acknowledged that He
always speaks as if they would live to see His
coming at the last day. We can only do justice
to this fact when we simply recognise it as founded
on the Lord's presupposition of His return during
that generation.
In the same way His constant exhortations to the
disciples to watch and be ready lest they be taken
unawares by the day of the return, have a real
meaning only if they must expect it in their own
generation, without, however, knowing beforehand
the exact moment in which it will appear.
Consequently, in view of this express fore-
announcement of the Lord that the present genera
tion is to live to see His return, He cannot have
meant that His ignorance of the day or hour of
His coming (Mark xiii. 32) was absolute, but only
relative. That He is content to be ignorant only of
the exact moment, is contained in the expression

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 315
" day or hour," and is confirmed by the wording of
the parables bearing on the subject.
If, beside the usual presupposition of Jesus that
His day will come sooner than the disciples expect,
there is found here and there a saying which makes
it be delayed longer than many think, that is easily
explained. For such like sayings generally belong
to Jesus' exhortations to patience in the great
tribulation which precedes the day of the return.
In this tribulation the disciples will of course long
for redemption to come more speedily than it does.
And therefore the Lord comforts them by saying
that these very miseries are a sure guarantee to
them of the nearness of His day (cf . Mark xiii. 2 8 f.).
After having established the fact of this unique
idea of Jesus regarding His return, we have still to
put it on a more sure psychological basis, as the
possibility of it is apt to be doubted from this very
side. Here we must remember that the ignorance of
the time, especially as regards the beginning of the time
of salvation or of the final kingdom, can be shown
to represent a universal limit of prophetic knowledge.
But in such things as had no direct religious import
ance, and did not concern His saving mission, Jesus
of course took up a receptive attitude towards the
tradition unless there were special reasons for not
doing so. Hence we see, especially when we con
sider His conception of inspiration, that He could
hardly have helped assuming, in conformity with
those views of the prophets, that the kingdom would

316 Hie Prophecies of Jesus Christ [201-202
appear in its final form in the lifetime of His own
generation. But the assurance that Heaven and
earth shall pass away sooner than this shall fail of
its fulfilment, is undoubtedly interpolated.
On the other hand, He had no reason for being
conscious of this error which He held in common
with the prophets, especially when we consider His
absolute confidence in the divine omnipotence, the
limits of His geographical horizon, and the want of
historical foresight peculiar to His time. If the
scholar Paul likewise put the second coming in his
day, and yet hoped his mission to the world would
be essentially finished in that time, how much less
might the final evangelising of Israel, which was all
that He at first contemplated, have appeared to Jesus
as a hindrance of that time of His return.
Above all, however, the actual religious finality of
the time He introduced prevented it from occurring
to Him that the real end would not come even yet.
Weiffenbach seeks to explain away the fact that
Jesus' prediction as to the time of His return was
incorrect, by assuming that what He meant by the
coming again in His own generation was the resur
rection. This view, however, cannot be proved by
means of Mark ix. 1. But supposing this passage
refers to the resurrection, the time would not have
been fulfilled even in this case. For at the resur
rection there were not merely " some " of those who
surrounded Him alive. Luke xvii. 24 cannot be used
in proof because a universal visibility is ascribed to

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 317
the return, and this cannot apply to the resurrection.
The anxious way in which Jesus warns the disciples
not to let themselves be taken unawares by the day
of the return, is just as far from agreeing with that
idea. And even their eternal destiny is made to
depend on their being in a proper state of pre
paredness. It is only possible to identify the prediction of
resurrection and second coming by detaching the
latter from its immediate purpose and goal, the
setting up of the kingdom, and by ignoring other
distinctions. B. Weiss admits Jesus' assumption that He will
come again in His own generation, but seeks to strip it
of error by supposing that He claimed no "categorical"
knowledge on the subject, but is conscious at the
same time that such divine decrees may be altered.
It is, however, not enough to say that Weiss stretches
this too far, for the truth rather is that, in this
special case, as we cannot help judging after the
event, a return within the current generation could
never have been in God's plan. And as regards the
certainty of Jesus' assumption, the incorrectness of
the idea makes the error, the self-assurance of the
thinker constitutes its intensity. For reasons that
are easily understood, Jesus never seems to have
thought that He could be mistaken on this point.
Now, although He had a mistaken notion of that
time, and could not have known the limit of His
knowledge on this point, yet, on the other hand, no

318 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [203
one could charge Him with presumption and fanati
cism, even if He had not possessed substantially
correct notions regarding the exact mode of His
coming. For the position of the moral and religious
ruler and judge of the world really belonged to Him.
The notions as to the manner of His return, however,
even supposing them to be incorrect, are just as little
to be judged by a moral standard as is the undoubted
mistake in the date, and, on the other hand, leave
untouched the full sober truth of the religious
contents. At any rate, Jesus' mistake with regard to the
time is no greater than the other, that as the
Messiah He has to enter into conflict with the
demons as personal evil spirits. Yet both the one
and the other concern only the form of the religious
notion, and in no way its contents. To me it is
self-evident that He was subject to no mistake
regarding the latter, since this fact necessarily follows
from His sinlessness.

CONCLUSION
There is undoubtedly something congenial in the
assumption that Jesus, through the power of His
" self-restraint and self -discipline," was able to avoid
all incorrect notions in the religious province at
least (Haupt, p. 138 f.), even where these concerned
nothing but the form. Closer investigation, how
ever, has shown that this view does not fully

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 319
correspond to the impartial estimate of the historical
picture of Jesus as presented to us in the sources.
If anything could have convinced me of the error
of my own view, it would have been Haupt's treatise,
its clear and harmonious statement of the matter,
and its pious estimate of Christ's personahty. My
own aim, however, is to point out the original,
authoritative, and central position occupied by Jesus
in the whole content of revelation that has religious
value, and in contrast to that to show that He was
conditioned by contemporary ideas in nothing but
the forms of religious ideas (cf. Haupt, pp. 1-3, 49,
54 f.). And I also endeavour to understand both by
tracing them to their roots in the divine and human
consciousness of Jesus. Notwithstanding this common
aim, and the similar standard for separating what
was divine in the full sense from what was borrowed
and human in Christ's revelation of God, I could not
but come to somewhat different results. For the
fact forces itself too plainly upon me that Jesus held
certain mistaken notions even in points that in some
way concerned the form of His revelation. But in
that case the limits have to be drawn between the
fixed kernel of that revelation and its outward husk,
which in itself was not entirely inaccessible to error.
In my larger work I have endeavoured to carry
this out with regard to the whole prophetic mental
life of Jesus. In the present treatise, however, which
is an important division of that work, I have aimed
at applying that point of view to the three main

320 The Prophecies of Jesus Christ [204
predictions of Jesus. The ultimate establishment of
the principles of the whole must, of course, be left
over to my complete account of His revelation.
However, I hope that this particular investigation,
on account of the central significance of its subject,
will be fitted to establish the tenability of my
standpoint. The insignificance of such formal imperfections in
the form of Christ's revelation of God as regards our
salvation, will become the clearer the more one is able
to distinguish between the essential and non-essential.
I intend, therefore, soon to subject this question of
value to a special examination in my larger work.
If we look back on the three predictions as
different sides of Jesus' Messianic self-consciousness,
He must indeed have suffered death on behalf of the
highest revelation of God's love for the deliverance
of sinners, but as the holy Son of God who was in
inseparable fellowship with the God of life, He could
not have been held by death. Eather could He not
fail to go to God as a Messianic victor in order to
rule for ever in God's stead. He reigns among the
perfected even now, and will one day rule over the
whole of humanity in a new and glorified world.
At the same time it is manifest that the saving
significance of the person of Jesus Christ is not in
the least diminished by my conception of His pre
dictions. For certain imperfections of the form in
which He conceived and proclaimed that revelation
of God concern at most the more exact circum-

Jesus' Prediction of His Second Coming 321
stances, or rather, so far as this can be proved with
certainty, almost nothing but the moment of the
consummation of the kingdom of God. If the con
tents of the predictions are referred to the infallible
revelation of the Son of God, then such defects must
have adhered to Him as a prophet, though the ideal
one. Finally, my only wish in regard to my treatise as
a whole is that it may be examined without prejudice,
and that whatever truth it has may be retained, and
its errors rejected. Would that it might help to
free from extraneous additions the image of Him in
whom alone is contained the full knowledge of God,
and the true power of God, and indeed our whole
salvation ; so that from the brightness of His coun
tenance heavenly light may shine into the hearts of
men !

21

INDEX

A
Abraham, 72, 273.
Acts of the Apostles, 47, 104,
163, 214.
Adam, 112.
Angels, likeness to, of those
raised from the dead, 81.
Antichrist, 164.
Apocalypse, the, 163.
Apocalypses, 262.
Apostasy among disciples, 32.
Apostles, the primitive, 105,
117.
Apostolic convention, 225.
Appearance of the Risen Christ
corporeal, 90.
Appearance of the Risen Christ
to the Eleven, 92, 115.
Appearance of the Risen Christ
to Paul, 98.
Appearance of the Risen Christ
in Galilee, 115.
Aramaic, 260.
Arimathea, Joseph of, 119.
Atonement, 103.

B
Baldensperger, 173, 197, 236,
239.
Baptist, John the, 27, 173, 273.
Beelzebub, 189.
Beyschlag, 100, 108, 245.
Blasphemy, 29, 189.
Body, the glorified, 80.
Body, the heavenly, 106.

Body, nature of the heavenly,
123.
Body, the spiritual, 241, 302.
Body, raising of the buried, 84.
Bodily appearance of Christ,
historical guarantee for, 95.
Book of Enoch, 74, 229.
Bornemann, 55.
Bousset, 171, 183.
Brandt, W., 34, 40, 50, 55, 60ff.,
89, 92, 99, 106, 114 ff., 119,
176, 180.
Bredenkamp, 184.
Bridegroom, 30, 277.

C
Csesarea Philippi, 33, 36, 58.
Capernaum, 29, 75.
Christ, the glorified, 105.
Christ, His character and walk,
11.
Christ, body of, broken, 49.
Christ, exaltation of, 130.
Christ the Judge of the world,
12, 212, 236.
Christ the only Mediator be
tween God and man, 12.
Christ, His revelation of God,
its content and form, 8.
Christ, His second coming, 145,
155.
Christians, faith and life of the
first, 122.
Christians, Jewish, 162, 226.
Christology, the Pauline, 145.
Church, 270, 277.

323

324

Index

Church, the primitive, 171, 214,
305.
Clouds of heaven, 214.
Colani, 190, 252.
Coming of the Lord, the his
torical, 243.
Consolation, 269.
Convention, the apostolic, 225.
Conversion of Paul, 102.
Corinthians, 1st Epistle to, 161.
Cornelius, 225.
Corpse, aversion of Jews to,
116.
Covenant, blood of the, 39.
Creation, new, 218.
Cross, women at the, 50.
Crucifixion of Messiah, 103.
Crucifixion, day of, 114.
Crusades, 96.
Cup of death, 47. D
Damascus, 98 f.
Daniel, 173, 229.
David, 4.
Day, the last, 276, 313.
Death, Jesus' prediction of His,
25.
Death, necessity of Jesus', 35 ff.
Death of the righteous, aton
ing, 36.
Death, cup of, 47.
Decree of God, 296.
Demons, 5, 13, 16, 190, 196,
236, 304.
Diaspora, 103, 119.
Disciples, 29, 199.
Disciples, enthusiasm of, 100.
Disciples, impatience of, 269.
Divination, 258.

E
Earth, the glorified, 80, 227.
Easter, 92.
Eden, Gan, 72.
Egypt, 118.
Ehrhardt, E., 46, 65, 173, 191,
204.

Elias, 27, 35, 302.
Elias, body of, 118.
Enoch, Book of, 74, 229.
Era, Messianic, 73.
itpBacrev, 189.
ftrxeiTO, 192.
tfyyixev, 187.
Eschatology, 173.
Eternal life, 64, 73.
evayytXtov, 178.
Europe, 250.
Existence, form of, in other
world, 83.
Expiatory sacrifice, 65.

Faith, nature of, 132, 137,
154.
Faith, content of, 134.
Fanaticism, 300.
Fasting, 30.
Fatherhood of God, 197.
Feeling, the moral, 7.
Feine, 72.
Fellowship with God, 198, 207.
Fig tree, parable of, 223, 261.
Flood, the, 165, 278.
Freitag, 99.

G
Galilee, 36, 113, 193.
Galileans, 264.
Gehenna, 76.
Gehinnom, 71, 72.
yeved, 260.
Gentiles, 168, 210, 226, 250,
288, 308.
Gentiles, apostle to the, 100.
Gentiles, mission to the, 222.
Gethsemane, 47, 51, 59.
God and man, intercourse be
tween, 8.
God, the Father of men, 10.
God, commandments of, 30.
God, decree of, 296.
God, love of, 11, 208.
God, fellowship with, 39, 59,
130, 198.

Index

325

God, long-suffering of, 164.
God, sovereignty of, 205.
God, trump of, 160.
Gog, 169.
Golgotha, 47.
Grass, 189, 204, 256.
Grave, the empty, 115.

H
Hades, 64, 71, 109, 147, 236.
Hades, descent of Jesus to, 76.
Haller, 85, 106.
Harnack, 77.
Haupt, 50, 171, 209, 216, 234,
236, 253, 265, 274, 284.
Hausrath, 101.
Hebrews, Epistle to the, 48 f.,
163.
Heaven, immediate passing of
the righteous into, at death,
109, 147.
Heaven, King of, 209.
Heaven, clouds of, 214.
Hell, 72.
Herod, 34, 78.
Herod, messengers of, 57.
Herodians, 31.
Hierarchy, 28, 30, 224.
Holsten, 89, 116.
Holtzmann, 55, 67, 71, 245.
Holtzmann, O., 192.
Hosea, 68 f., 87, 147.
Humiliation, body of, 162.
Husbandmen, parable of the
wicked, 224.
Hypocrites, 32.

I

Immer, 55.
Inspiration, 36, 255, 287.
Inspiration, Jewish conception
of, 131.
Interpolation, 222.
Israel, 208, 219, 258.
Israel, conversion of, 273.
Israel, rejection of, 223.

Jansenist enthusiasts, 96.
Jeremiah, new covenant of, 39,
41.
Jerusalem, 31, 113, 218.
Jerusalem, destruction of, 251,
263, 273, 284, 297, 311.
Jesus, character of, 51.
Jesus the anointed of God,
180.
Jesus founder of the kingdom
of God, 20, 146.
Jesus God's Vicegerent, 181.
Jesus the Son of God, 9, 198.
Jesus forsaken by God, 52.
Jesus the ideal Prophet, 7,
10 f.
Jesus the Son of Man, 12,
209.
Jesus, divine and human in
person of, 3.
Jesus not omniscient, 25.
Jesus' mind really human, 4.
Jesus' agony, 54.
Jesus' belief in demons, 13.
Jesus' complete surrender to
God's will, 49.
Jesus' consciousness of being
Saviour, 202.
Jesus' ethicism, 14.
Jesus' idea of the life after
death, 70.
Jesus' fellowship with God ab
solute, 15.
Jesus' imperfect notion of pro
phecy, 5.
Jesus' perfect revelation of God,
7,8.
Jesus' prediction of His death,
6, 25.
Jesus' prediction of His resur
rection, 63.
Jesus' prediction of His second
coming, 159, 213.
Jesus' presentiment as to His
final late, 58.
Jesus' prayers and supplica
tions, 48.
Jesus' mother, 114.

326

Index

Jesus' Messiahship not political,
26.
Jesus the Judge of the world,
212, 236.
Jesus the Prince of life, 131.
Jesus' self-consciousness, 196.
Jesus' sinlessness, 7, 89, 266.
Jesus' sermon at Nazareth, 185.
Jesus' violent death, 20.
Jesus' resurrection, 65.
Jesus' universalism, 223.
Jonas, the sign of, 32.
John, 1st Epistle of, 164.
Joseph of Arimathea, 119.
Josephus, 72 f.
Judaism, 186, 206.
Judas, 220.
Judge, the unjust, 268.
Judgment, the divine future,
208.
Justification, 103. K
Kahler, 255.
Kaipos, 187.
Keim, 67, 88, 97, 231, 251, 259,
301.
Kimchi, 71.
Kingdom of God, 5, 172, 190.
Kingdom, the final, 17 f.
Kingdom, eschatological idea of,
206.
Kingdom, theocratic form of,
161, 220, 308.
Kingdom, an inward one, 202.
Kingdom, membership in, 201.
Kingdom, as present, 193.
Kbhler, 255.
Kbstlin, 99, 209, 255.
Krenkel, M., 36.

Law, Roman, 56.
Lazarus, 74.
Leaven, parable of, 178.
Life, eternal, 64, 73, 177.
Life, Prince of, 131, 154.
Lightning, the, 278, 293.

Lobstein, 133.
Logia, 189, 210.
Lord, the coming of the, 162.
Lord, day of the, 165, 277.
Lord, speedy return of, 121.
Lord's Supper, 40, 51, 145, 231.
Lotze, 138.
Love of God, 11.
Love the guiding principle of
social life, 15.
Lutgert, 193, 205, 248.
M
Maccabees, 173.
Macrocosm, 84.
Magistrate, Roman, 55.
Magog, 169.
/j.aKpdv, 182.
Malachi, 189.
Man's depravity and alienation
from God, 43.
Manasseh, 72.
Martha, 74.
Mary, the Virgin, 35.
Mary Magdalene, 119, 164.
Messiah, crucifixion of, 103.
Messiah, the conqueror of death,
121.
Messianic era, 73.
Micha, 285.
Microcosm, 84.
Miracles, 196.
Moral feeling, 7.
Moses, 34.
Mustard seed, parable of, 178.
N
Nazareth, 185, 193.
Noah, 246. O
Old Testament criticised, 14.
P
Paraclete, 245.
Paradise, 72, 98.

Index

327

Parousia, 163, 166, 239, 245,
262, 270, 311.
Patience, 283, 315.
Patriarchs, the, 183.
Paul, 36, 81, 240, 250, 288, 316.
Paul, conversion of, 102.
Paul, Epistles of, 160.
Pearl, parable of, 177.
Pentecost, 251.
Persia, 16.
Peter, 1st Epistle of, 109, 163.
Peter, Gospel of, 50, 77, 114.
Peter, reproof of, by Jesus, 33.
Peter, confession of, 180.
Pfleiderer, 223.
Pharisees, 13, 20, 201, 227, 303.
Philippi Csesarea, 33, 39, 58.
Philippians, Epistle to the, 161.
Physician, 29.
Pilate, 47.
TrcrH]piov, 47.
Prayer, 201.
Prayer, persevering, 268.
Prayer of Christ not heard, 48.
Preaching of Jesus, 206.
Preaching of the apostles, 221.
Priest, High, 213.
Probability, 38.
Prophecy, 20.
Prophecy, limitations of, 17,
285, 315.
Prophecy, aim of, 57.
Prophets, the, 290.
Prophets, the fate of, 29.
Prophets, their relevation, 128.
Prophetic certainty, 38.
Proselytes, 223, 227.
Providence, 162.
Purgatory, 72.
Purification, laws of, 32.
R
Rabbis, their methods of inter
pretation, 26.
Rabbis, their view of Paradise.
72.
Reconciliation, 11.
Refreshing, times of, 214.
Regeneration, the, 133, 219,232.
Relics, worship of, 121.

Religiousness, its individualism,
subjectivism, and spirituality,
14.
Repentance, 164, 175.
Restitution, times of, 163.
Resurrection from the dead,
Pharisaic view of, 68, 106.
Resurrection of Jesus, 65, 67.
Resurrection of Jesus on the
third day, 68.
Resurrection, Jesus' prediction
of His, 68, 83.
Resurrection, religious content
of Jesus', predietionof His, 86.
Resurrection, time Jesus as
sumed for His, 86.
Resurrection of the saints, 129.
Resurrection body, 234.
Return of Jesus, the historical,
259, 311.
Return of Jesus, the eschato
logical, 259, 275, 295, 303.
Revelation, imperfection in the
form of Jesus', 17 f.
Risen One, appearances of the,
89.
Rome, 285.
Roman law, 56.
Roman magistrate, 55.
Roskoff, 99.

Sabbath, 31.
Sacrifice, expiatory, 65.
Saints, bones of, 118.
Saints, resurrection of, 129,
Salvation, 132.
Salvation, universalism of, 15,
225.
Samaritans, 220.
Sanctification, 133.
Sanctuary, 33.
Sanhedrim, 52, 214, 259, 297.
Satan, 3, 185, 190, 200.
Schleiermacher, 53, 138.
Schmiedel, 169.
Schmoller, 181, 191.
Schnedermann, 175, 192.
Schrader, 145.
Schwally, 74, 76.

328

Index

Scribes, 31, 55.
Second coming of Jesus, 213.
Second coming, form of, 166.
Seed growing, parable of, 179.
Servant of Jehovah, 26, 37, 45,
65, 103.
Servants and porter, parable of,
277.
Sheol, 71.
Shepherd, 227.
Sight not necessary to faith, 94.
Sign, Pharisees' demandfora,32.
Simeon, 35.
Sin, forgiveness of, 40, 59, 200,
206.
Sin, power of, 11.
Sinlessness of Jesus, 8ff., 129,
141, 266.
Sodom, destruction of, 278.
Solomon, Psalms of, 173, 210.
Solomon, Wisdom of, 71.
Son of God, 66.
Son of Man, 27, 63, 180, 209,
221, 237, 261.
Soothsaying, 275.
Souls, Shepherd of, 289.
Sower, parable of, 179.
Spiritualism, 96.
Stephen, 79, 104.
Steude, 88, 108, 124, 136.
Steward, the unjust, 268.
Strauss, 63.
Summer, 261.
Sunday, 89.
Synoptists, 8, 155, 160, 167,
213, 235, 240, 263, 297.

Talmud, 55, 72, 118, 180.
Tares, parable of, 179.
Temple, 226.
Temple, destruction of the, 35,
79, 260, 265, 270.
Theocracy, 172, 206, 220.
Theology, 142.
Thessalonians. 1st Epistle to
the, 160.
flXtyis, 253.
Tholuck, 235, 245.
Thomas, 123.

Thought, imperfections of, 15
Tidings, the glad, 188.
Titius, 30, 41, 145, 207, 257.
Tomb, the empty, 121.
Transfiguration, Mount of, 35
63.
Treasure, parable of the, 177.
Trinity, the, 266.
Twelve, the, 218,- 222.
Two sons, parable of the, 224.
Tyre, 33. U
Ulhorn, 119, 136.
Universalism of salvation, 15
225.

Vernes, M., 81, 181.
Vicegerent, 229.
Vineyard, labourers in the, 224.
Virgins, parable of the ten, 277.
Visions of the Risen Christ, 89.
Visions of the Risen Christ,
objective, 94.
Visions, ecstatic, of Paul, 101.
Vorbrodt, 53, 136.

W
Watchfulness, 264, 277.
Weber, 71 f., 111.
Wedding, 277.
Weiffenbach, 67, 229, 231, 259
292, 316.
Weiss, B., 88, 108, 127, 188
197 296.
Weiss' J., 45, 76, 181, 190, 204.
Weizsacker, 88, 253.
Wendt, 183, 253.
Wickedness, triumph of, 52.
Widow, 268.
Will, the, 8.
Women at the cross, 50,
Word of God, 199, 203, 205.
World, end of the, 239, 291.
World, Judge of the, 12,212,236.
World, prince of this, 199.
Worship of relics, 121.

T. & T. Clark's Publications.

WORKS ON MESSIANIC PROPHECY,
Messianic Prophecy : Its Origin, Historical Growth, and
Relation to New Testament Fulfilment. By Dr Edward Riehm.
New Edition, Translated by Rev. L. A. Mtjiehead, B.D. With
an Introduction by Prof. A. B. Davidson, D.D. In post 8vo,
price 7s. 6d.
" No work of the same compass could be named that contains so much
that is instructive on the nature of prophecy in general, and particularly
on the branch of it specially treated in the book." — Professor A. B.
Davidson, D.D.
"I would venture to recommend Riehm's 'Messianic Prophecy' as a
summary account of prophecy both reverent and critical." — Canon Gore
in Lux Mundi.
Messianic Prophecy : The Prediction of the Fulfilment
of Redemption through the Messiah. By Chaules A. Briggs,
D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Divinity, Union Theologi
cal Seminary, New York. Post 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
The Messiah of the Gospels. Post 8vo, price 6s. 6d.
The Messiah of the Apostles. Post 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
NOTE.— Those Thvee Volumes form a Series on "THE MESSIANIC IDEAL,"—
although each one may be ustd apart, as an independent work. The First Volume
treats of Prophecy in general, and Messianic Prophecy in particular, and then
traces the development of the Messianic idea of the Old Testament, concluding
with a summary of the ideal therein unfolded. The Second Volume treats ot the
Messianic ideas of pre-Christian Judaism, and of the Messiah of the Gospels.
The Third Volume discusses the Messianic Ideas of the Jews of the New Testament
times and the Messiah of the Epistles and the Apocalypse.
The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone writes: — "On the pervading and
multiform character of this promise, see a recent, as well as valuable
authority, in the volume of Dr Briggs, of the New York Theological
Seminary, on ' Messianic Prophecy.' "
" As Dr Briggs' work proceeds, one comes to realise the grandeur of its
conception, and the ability with which it is wrought out." — Expository
Times. "The whole makes a powerful impression upon the mind, both of the
rich variety of form under which ' the truth as it is in Jesus ' was con
ceived, and of the steady process of growth by which it was unfolded
under the inspiring influence of the Spirit of Truth. " — Record.

The Messianic Prophecies. By Paton J. Gloag, D.D.
In crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
" It has seldom fallen to our lot to read a book which we think is en
titled to such unqualified praise as the one now before us. Dr Gloag has
displayed consummate ability."— London Quarterly Review.
"We regard Dr Gloag's work as a valuable contribution to theolopical
literature. We have not space to give the extended notice which its
intrinsic excellence demands, and must content ourselves with cordially
recommending it to our readers." — Spectator.

Edinburgh : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

HOW TO READ THE PROPHETS :
Being the Prophecies arranged Chronologically in their Historical
Setting, with Explanations, Maps, and Glossary.
By Rev. BUCHANAN BLAKE, B.D.
Now Complete, in Five Volumes Crown %vo.
Part I. THE PRE-EXILIAN MINOR PROPHETS (with JOEL).
Second Edition. Price 4s.
Part II. ISAIAH (Chapters i.-xxxix.). Second Edition. Price
2s. 6d.
Part III. JEREMIAH. Price 4s.
Part IV. EZEKIEL. Price 4s.
Part Y. ISAIAH (xl.-lxvi.) and THE POST-EXILIAN PROPHETS.
Price 4s.
N.B.— The Series being now complete, Messrs. Clark offer the Set
of Five Volumes for FIFTEEN SHILLINGS.
"It has often been found a difficulty to profit fully from the reading, especially
of the smaller prophecies of the Old Testament. To make these prophecies Intel
ligible to the plainest reader, it seems desirable that a chronological arrangement
of the prophetic books should be attempted. Alongside of the several prophecies
should be placed those portions of the Old Testament historical books which deal
with the same period. The aim of these manuals is consequently in this direction :
to bring within the reach of the many a clear and succinct presentation of these
prophets in their historical environment." — From the Author's Introduction.
"Those who already possess the earlier parts of the same work will
at once possess themselves of this new volume. Those who do not,
will be glad to have it recommended to their notice. The author's plan
has grown since he first announced it, and we are glad of it, as the
treatment is more full and thorough. It is enough now to say that
there is nothing like this little book on Jeremiah." — Church Bells.
" Mr Blake has already taught us how to read Isaiah and the Minor
Prophets, and we have found the task much lightened in consequence,
scarcely any more a toilsome task at all. For the difficulty of the
Prophets is in their arrangement, together with the numerous allusions,
local and historical, and these are the things Mr Blake takes pains to
put right for us. He puts them right, so that now we stand, as far as
it is possible we ever could stand, in the same position as the prophet's
hearers. No ' Aids to the Study of the Bible ' can approach these in
real helpfulness for the ordinary Bible reader." — The Expository Times.
" A pleasure to read, and profit for the reading. . . . The arrange
ment of the historical sections, and the- prophetical utterances connected
therewith, is admirable. All Bible students have reason to be grateful
to the author for this entertaining volume; its form is inviting, its
interest absorbing." — Church Times.
"A well-conceived and carefully executed attempt to make these
writings speak for themselves. . . . His book will give a new meaning
to these prophecies to many a reader." — The Critical Review.
Edinburgh : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
London: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT & CO., L.TD.

JUST PUBLISHED. In Crown 8yo. Price 3s. 6d.
THE HOPE OF ISRAEL
A REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENT
FROM PROPHECY

BY
F. H. WOODS, B.D.
SOMETIME fellow and theological lecturer of
ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, OXFORD
Vicar of Chalfont St. Peter

yvdioeoBe rty oW-qBelav, koa
r\ dXTjBeia. iXevBeptioei i/xas
St John viii. 32

CONTENTS
Chapter I. — Introductory. Chapter II. — The Spiritual and Moral
Tone of the Prophets. Chapter III. — The Predictive Element of
Prophecy: its Nature and its Limitations. Chapter IV. — Methods of
Interpreting Prophecy. Chapter V. — -The Material Elements of the
Messianic Hope. Chapter VI. — The Religious Aspect of the Messianic
Hope. Chapter VII. — The Messianic King. Chapter VIII. — The
Prophetic and Priestly Aspects of the Messiah. Chapter IX. — The
Atoning Victim. Chapter X. — The Fulfilment of Prophecy in Christi
anity. Chapter XI. —Progressive Christianity the most Perfect Fulfil
ment of Jewish Prophecy. Chapter XII. — The Practical Value of
Prophecy as an Aid to Christian Faith.
' A frank, courageous, and able attempt to restate the argument from
Biblical prophecy in the light of recent Biblical exegesis. . . . This candid
and valuable work will win gi-atitude from all enlightened students of
Hebrew prophecy.' — British Weekly.

EDINBURGH
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
London : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT & CO., LTD.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In Two Vols, demy 8vo, price 18s. net,
NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY;
OR,
HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF JESUS AND
OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY ACCORDING TO
THE NEW TESTAMENT SOURCES.
By Dr. WILLIBALD BEYSCHLAG,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT HALLE.
'A fresh, independent, critical exposition of the teachings of the New
Testament well worthy of study.' — Scotsman.
' Dr. Beyschlag has achieved so large a measure of success as to have
furnished one of the best guides to an understanding of the New Testament.
.... These pages teem with suggestions  In the belief that it will
stimulate thought and prove of much service to ministers and all students of
the sacred text it expounds, we heartily commend it to our readers.' — Methodist
Recorder. ' In many respects a masterly treatise, and in this admirable translation, for
which Mr. Buchanan deserves all praise, is sure to be widely read in this
country.' — Glasgow Herald.

In Two large Vols. 8vo, Second Edition, price 18s. net,
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY.
THE RELIGION OF REVELATION IN ITS PRE-CHRISTIAN
STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.
By Prof. HERMANN SCHULTZ, D.D., Gottingen.
AUTHORISED ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
By Prof. J. A. PATERSON, D.D.
' Professor Paterson has executed the translation with as much skill as care.
. . . Readers may rely on his having given the meaning of the original with
the utmost accuracy.' — From the Author's Pre/ace to the Translation.
' The book will be read with pleasure, and, it need not be said, with profit,
not only by professional students, but by all intelligent persons who have an
interest in the Old Testament. . . . Though externally popular and of singular
literary finish, the author's work within is a laborious and able study of the
whole subject.' — Professor A. B. Davidson, D.D.
' A standard work on this subject may be said to be indispensable to every
theologian and minister. The book to get, beyond all doubt, is this one by
Schultz, which Messrs. Clark have just given to us in English. It is one of the
most interesting and readable books we have had in our hands for a long time.'
— Professor A. B. Bruce, D.D.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In demy 8vo, price 12s. 6d. net,
INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.
I.— THE EPISTLES OF ST. PA UL.
By Professor F. GODET, D.D., Neuchatel.
' Anything that comes from Dr. Godet is sure to receive a cordial welcome in
Great Britain, and our familiarity with his eloquent and luminous commen
taries prepares us to appreciate very highly a work in which the venerable
Swiss thus gathers up the harvest of a lifetime.' — Prof. Adeney in The Critical
Review. ' In every particular it is fully abreast of the times. For the purposes of the
hard-working preacher there is no book on St. Paul's Epistles quite equal to
this. For the student, it must always lie in a place that his hand can reach.
It is delightful reading. '-^Methodist Times.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
In crown 8vo, Third, and Cheaper, Edition, price 4s.,
DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.
translated by the
Hon. and Rev. Canon LYTTELTON, M.A.,
RECTOR OF HAGLEY.
'There is trenchant argument and resistless logic in these lectures; but
withal, there is cultured imagination and felicitous eloquence, which carry home
the appeals to the heart as well as the head.' — Sword and Trowel.

In post 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,
ST. PAUL'S CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
By ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS IN THE FREE CHURCH COLLEQE, GLASGOW J
AUTHOR OF ' APOLOGETICS ; OR, CHRISTIANITY DEFENSIVELY STATED,'
-'THE KINGDOM OF GOD,' 'THE TRAININO OF THE TWELVE,'
'THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST,' ETC.
Summary and Contents :— I. The Sources. II. St. Paul's Religious
History. III. The Epist>le to the Galatians. IV. Corinthians. V. Romans-
Its Aim. VI. The Train of Thought. VII. The Doctrine of Sin. VIII. The
Righteousness of God. IX. The Death of Christ. X. Adoption. XI. "Without
and Within. XII. The Moral Energy of Faith. XIII. The Holy Spirit.
XIV. The Flesh as a Hindrance to Holiness. XV. The Likeness of Sinful
Flesh. XVI. The Law. XVII. The Election of Israel. XVIII. Christ.
XIX.' The Christian Life. XX. The Church. XXI. The Last Things.
Supplementary Note. — The Teaching of St. Paul compared with the Teach
ing of our Lord in the Synoptical Gospels.
' Dr. Bruce's skill as an expositor, his scholarship, his candour, what we may
call his mental detachment, are well known ; and all these qualities lend
interest to this new study of a very old theme. Those who are most familiar
with St. Paul's writings will be among the first to recognise the interest and
value of this work.'— Methodist Recorder.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

fieta Holuntea of tire ' jStble dlaaa ^aitaboofe ^Eries,'
EDITED by
Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D., and ALEX. WHYTE, D.D.

Just published, in crown 8vo (with Map), price 2s.,
FROM THE EXILE TO THE ADVENT.
By the Rev. WM. FAIRWEATHER, M.A., Kirkcaldy.

Summary of Contents. — Book I. The Exile and the Return,
B.C. 588-538. II. The Persian Period, B.C. 537-333.
III. The Greek Period, B.C. 333-167. IV. The Macca-
bean Period; or, the Period of Freedom, B.C. 167-135.
V. The Asmonean Dynasty, B.C. 135-63. VI. The
Roman Period, B.C. 63-4.
' There never was so much interest felt in the period between Malachi and
Matthew as now. And Mr. Fairweather has made himself master of the
literature and of the spirit of this time. His book is as fine an introduction
as one is likely to find for many a day.' — Expository Times.
In crown 8vo, price 2s.,
THE LAST OF THE PROPHETS:
A STUDY OF THE LIFE, TEACHING, AND CHARACTER OF
JOHN THE BAPTIST.
By the Rev. J. FEATHER, Croydon.

'Gives a clear, condensed, and scholarly sketch of our Lord's fore
runner.' — British Weekly.
' A charming monograph. He has succeeded in writing an account of
the Baptist, which is scholarly without being scholastic. He has made
excellent use of a wide circle of authorities, and his book may be taken as
containing the soul and substance of the best modern opinions on the
ministry of John.' — Christian World.
' Mr. Feather writes in a clear and attractive style, and no pains have
been spared to furnish a truly helpful study of our Lord's forerunner.
Bible-class teachers will find a capital series of Well-planned lessons in
this handbook.' — Methodist Sunday School Record.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

CHEAPER EDITION OF LOTZE'S 'MICROCOSMUS.'
Now ready, in Two Volumes 8vo, price 24s.,
MICROCOSMUS:
CONCERNING MAN AND HIS RELATION TO THE WORLD.
By HERMANN LOTZE.
Messrs. Olark have pleasure in announcing this Cheaper Edition of
'Microcosmus,' which the Athenmum referred to as 'the greatest
philosophic work produced in Germany by the generation just past. '
The New Edition is issued in two handsome large vols. (1450 pp.)
and is in every way complete.
N.B. — A few copies of the 36s. Edition, printed on thicker paper, may still be had.
'No one can read these volumes, in which all the philosophical questions of
our time are handled, without being conscious of receiving a valuable mental
stimulus, and seeing much more clearly than before, the bearing and signi
ficance of current philosophical speculations. — Prof. Marcus Dods, in The
British Weekly.
' Those volumes should be welcome to all philosophical students, for, since
Schopenhauer, Lotze has certainly held the first place in German philosophy,
his contribution to thought being of much value.' — Daily Chronicle.

Third Edition, Revised and Enlarged, price 6s.,
STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES:
BEING APOLOGETICS FOR THE TIMES.
By Rev. ALEXANDER MAIR, D.D.
Summary of Contents : — I. Christianity and Physical Science. II. Of
Intellectual Difficulties in Religion. III. Of Revelation and Inspira
tion, and the Difficulties connected therewith. IV. Early Historical
Testimony to the Authenticity of the New Testament. V. The
Testimony of the Unquestioned Epistles of Paul. VI. Some recent
Reverses of Negative Criticism. VII. The Argument for Christianity
from the Unique Personality of Christ. VIII. The Christian
Miracles. IX. The Resurrection of Christ, and what it implies. X.
Recent Views with regard to the Pentateuch : An Argument from
Criticism and from Authority. XI. Some important Converging
Lines, and the Argument therefrom. XII. Christianity proving
itself by the Principle of the ' Survival of the Fittest.'
' This book ought to become immensely popular. . . . That one chapter on
' The Unique Personality of Christ ' is a masterpiece of eloquent writing, though
it is scarcely fair to mention one portion where every part is excellent. The
beauties of the volume are everywhere apparent, and therefore will again attract
the mind that has been once delighted with the literary feast.' — The Rock.
' The work is likely to be more popular than ever with those who do not
know what to say when confronted by the questioning spirit of modern criti
cism. ' — Scotsman .

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In large 12mo, pp. xxii. -215, price 5s. 6d. net,
SYNTAX OF THE MOODS AND TENSES IN
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
By ERNEST D. BURTON,
PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND INTERPRETATION, CHICAGO UNIVERSITY.
MESSRS. CLARK have pleasure in drawing attention to
this important work. It is specially recommended for
use in Colleges and Theological Schools, and for private study
of the Greek New Testament.
The First Edition has been in use for several years in Theological
Seminaries and Colleges in the United States; but hitherto it
lias not been on sale in this country. Its importance has, however,
been recognised by British and Continental Scholars, and arrange
ments have now been made with the Author for the issue of the
New Edition on this side of the Atlantic.
The New Edition has been so thoroughly rewritten and enlarged
as to be substantially a new work.
' A valuable book. ... I venture to express the hope that arrange
ments may be made to facilitate its circulation in this country.' — Prof.
W. Sanday, D.D., Oxford.

In post 8vo, price 5s.,
SOURCES OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK;
OR,
THE INFLUENCE OF THE LXX. ON THE VOCABULARY
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By Rev. H. A. A. KENNEDY, D.Sc.
' Dr. Kennedy urges his case with a wealth of learning, the result of much
patient investigation on his part. . . . A most valuable contribution to a very
important subject. His book will be a sine qua non to all ministers who can
read the original.' — Methodist Times.
' Dr. Kennedy has furnished us with a help to the knowledge of the Greek
of the New Testament, which was urgently needed, and which satisfies the
requirements. No investigation of the subject, either so thorough or so
lucid, exists in any language.' — British Weekly.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In Seven Parts, price 4s. (net) each; or, complete in half-roxburghe
binding, price 30s. net,
A NEW SYRIAC LEXIGON.
By Dr. C. BROCKELMANN, Breslau.
With a Preface toy Professor T. NOLDEKE.
' The appearance of a new Syriac Lexicon, designed to meet the wants of
students, is an event of considerable importance for the progress of Semitic
studies at home and abroad. The work, of which the first part has just been
issued, will be welcomed on all hands as fulfilling what has long been the
most conspicuous lacuna in Semitic bibliography. . . . The publishers have
earned, and will certainly receive, the thanks of every Semitic student for
thus coming forward to remove what had almost become a scandal to
international scholarship, the lack of a student's dictionary of a language so
important to the philologist, the historian, and the theologian.' — A. R. S.
Kennedy, D.D. (Professor of Oriental Languages in the University of
Edinburgh), in The Expository Times.
In demy 8vo, Thirteenth Edition, price 7s. 6d.,
AN INTRODUCTORY HEBREW GRAMMAR;
With Progressive Exercises in Reading and Writing.
By A. B. DAVIDSON, M.A., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, ETC., IN THE NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.
' The best Hebrew Grammar is that of Professor A. It. Davidson.' — The
British Weekly.
'A text-l>ook which has gone into its tenth edition needs no recom
mendation here. . . . Certain changes, in the introduction of new examples,
and the enlargement of some parts where brevity tended to obscurity, will
add to the already great merits and widely acknowledged usefulness of the
book.' — The Critical Review.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
In demy 8vo, Second Edition, price 7s. 6d.,
A SYNTAX OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.
' A book like this, which comes from the hand of our first Hebraist, is its
own best commendation. It will be eagerly welcomed by all students and
teachers of Hebrew.' — Critical Review.

Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street.
22

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Annual Volumes, in cloth binding, price 7s. 6d.
Published Monthly, price 6d. Annual (prepaid) Subscription, 6s.
THE EXPOSITORY TIMES.
Edited by Rev. JAMES HASTINGS, M.A.
N.B. — A New Volume commences with each October Issue.
'Any student of theology, still more anyone who has a spiritual charge,
will find much that is profitable in the Magazine.' — The Spectator.
'A truly valuable publication.' — Independent.
1 We cordially commend the Magazine to all students of modern theology.
— Church Bells.
' The Expository Times grows upon its readers, and is looked for eagerly
month by month.' — Methodist Recorder.
' Whoever wishes the latest and best thought on biblical criticism, archaeo
logy, and exposition, will find it here.' — Literary World.
' The fifth volume of The Expository Times is to hand. To say of it that
it will compare favourably with any of its predecessors, is to say much. The
Editor's own work is always done with taste and point, and he has the assist
ance of many competent writers. Some of the papers, especially those on
the Theology of Isaiah, by Professor A. B. Davidson, stand out conspicuous.
But there are others, too many to particularise, which make interesting con
tributions to a wide variety of subjects — the interpretation of difficult texts,
the estimate of notable theologians, the study of the Prophets, the criticism
of the Gospels, and others. The needs of the busy minister are a special
subject of consideration in this valuable magazine.' — Critical Review.

Annual Volumes, in cloth binding, price 7s.
THE CRITICAL REVIEW.
Edited by Prof. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D.
Containing signed Reviews of all the important Theological and Philo
sophical Books published during the past year, and NOTICES and
RECORD OF SELECT LITERATURE, by the Editor.
Published Quarterly, price 1s. 6d. Annual (prepaid) Subscription, 6s.
' This volume surpasses, if that be possible, in the quality of its contents,
the previous issues, and that indeed is high praise. . . . The important
books of the year are criticised by competent hands. . ¦ . The short notices
of books by the Editor are always pithy and pregnant. The Eecord of
Select Literature, at the end of each number, is a valuable conspectus of the
latest books. . . . Theological students who desire to be abreast of the theo
logical movements in England, America, and the Continent, cannot do better
than read this thoroughly high-class review.' — Christian World.
' Indispensable as a guide to modem theological thought and literature.' —
Church Bells.
' The Critical Review has established its claim to be an indispensable
guide to the chief theological and philosophical literature of the day. It is
not possible to find anywhere else a series of brief notices so adequately
descriptive yet so full of sound criticism as these. . . . Dr. Salmond has a
splendid set of helpers, and the value of The Critical Review is becoming
more and more evident.' — London Quarterly.
N.B. — A New Volume commences with each January issue.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

' The most important contribution yet made to biblical theology.' — Expositor.

In Two Volumes 8vo, 21s.,
THE TEACHING OF JESUS.
Br HANS HINRICH WENDT, D.D.,
ORD. PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, HEIDELBERG.
Translated by Rev. JOHN WILSON, M.A., Montrkux.
Copyright by arrangement with the Author.
' Our advice is to all students and clergy to buy this book. Treat it as
a spiritual unfolding of our Lord's teaching, trusting it as far as it goes, and
thanking God for so bright a ray of spiritual sunshine out of what has so
often been a murky cloud.' — Church Bells.
'Every section opens out for us fresh views of the great and wondrous
depths of the teaching of Jesus, and gives us the persuasion that there is in
that teaching fresh worlds yet to be discovered. We are grateful to Dr.
Wendt for the great work he has done.' — The Thinker.
'Dr. Wendt's work is of the utmost importance for the study of the
Gospels, both with regard to the origin of them and to their doctrinal
contents. It is a work of distinguished learning, of great originality, and of
profound thought. The second part (now translated into English), which
sets forth the contents of the doctrine of Jesus, is the most important
contribution yet made to biblical theology, and the method and results of
Dr. Wendt deserve the closest attention. ... No greater contribution to
the study of biblical theology has been made in our time. A brilliant and
satisfactory exposition of the teaching of Christ.' — Prof. J. Iverach, D.D.,
in The Expositor.
' Dr. Wendt has produced a remarkably fresh and suggestive work,
deserving to be ranked among the most important contributions to biblical
theology. . . . There is hardly a page which is not suggestive ; and, apart
from the general value of its conclusions, there are numerous specimens of
ingenious exegesis thrown out with more or less confidence as to particular
passages.'  Prof. W. P. Dickson, D.D., in The Critical Review.
1 In introducing Professor Wendt's work to English readers, the publishers
have done a service to theology in this country second only, if indeed second,
to that rendered by the issue of Professor Driver's famous " Introduction.'" —
Literary World.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

GRIMM'S LEXICON.
' The best New Testament Greek Lexicon. ... It is a treasury of the results
of exact scholarship.'— Bishop Westcott.
In demy 4to, Fourth Edition, price 36s.,
A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT,
BEING
GRIMM'S ' WILKE'S OLAVIS NOVI TESTAMENTI.'
fttanslateo, fteiriseo, ano ffinlargeo
BY
JOSEPH HENRY THAYER, D.D.,
BUSSEY PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION
IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

EXTRACT FROM PREFACE.
' rTl OWARDS the close of the year 1862, the " Arnoldische Buchhandlung '
I in Leipzig published the First Part of a Greek-Latin Lexicon of the
New Testament, prepared upon the basis of the " Clavis Novi Testamenti
Philologica" of C. G. Wilke (second edition, 2 vols. 1851), by Professor C. L.
Wilibald Grimm of Jena. In his Prospectus, Professor Grimm announced
it as his purpose not only (in accordance with the improvements in classical
lexicography embodied in the Paris edition of Stephen's Thesaurus, and in the
fifth edition of Passow's Dictionary edited by Rost and his coadjutors) to
exhibit the historical growth of a word's significations, and accordingly in
selecting his vouchers for New Testament usage to show at what time and
in what class of writers a given word became current, but also duly to notice
the usage of the Septuagint and of the Old Testament Apocrypha, and
especially to produce a Lexicon which should correspond to the present con
dition of textual criticism, of exegesis, and of biblical theology. He devoted
more than seven years to his task. The successive Parts of his work re
ceived, as they appeared, the outspoken commendation of scholars diverging
as widely in their views as Hupfeld and Hengstenberg ; and since its com
pletion in 1868 it has been generally acknowledged to be by far the best
Lexicon of the New Testament extant.'

' I regard it as a work of the greatest importance. ... It seems to me a
work showing the most patient diligence, and the most carefully arranged
collection of useful and helpful references.'— The Bishop op Gloucester
and Bristol.
' The use of Professor Grimm's book for years has convinced me that it is
not only unquestionably the best among existing New Testament Lexicons,
but that, apart from all comparisons, it is a work of the highest intrinsic
merit, and one which is admirably adapted to initiate a learner into an ac
quaintance with the language of the New Testament. It ought to be regarded
as one of the first and most necessary requisites for the study of the New
Testament, and consequently for the study of theology in general.' — Professor
Emil Schurer.